Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Electricity demand in the PJM Interconnection and ISO New England (two regional grid operators covering the Northeast United States) reached multiyear highs on June 23 and June 24, respectively. Electricity demand increased significantly due to a heat wave that affected most of the Eastern United States this week.
Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Hourly Electric Grid Monitor Note: EDT=Eastern Daylight Time
Electricity demand in the PJM Interconnection and ISO New England (two regional grid operators covering the Northeast United States) reached multiyear highs on June 23 and June 24, respectively. Electricity demand increased significantly due to a heat wave that affected most of the Eastern United States this week.
PJM Interconnection Electricity load in the PJM Interconnection, the largest wholesale electricity market in the country, peaked at 160,560 megawatts (MW) on Monday, June 23, between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. according to data from our Hourly Electric Grid Monitor. The load on the grid surpassed PJM’s seasonal peak load forecast of 154,000 MW but remained below the record load of 165,563 MW in 2006 (PJM has expanded numerous times, and this data point is based on PJM’s current footprint). PJM’s footprint includes 13 states and the District of Columbia.
Real-time wholesale electricity prices on June 23 peaked at $1,334 per megawatthour (MWh) at 7:00 p.m. according to PJM, compared with peak prices of $52/MWh on June 16.
At peak load on June 23, 44% of PJM’s generation came from natural gas, 20% from nuclear, 19% from coal, and 6% from solar. The remaining generation came from a mix of hydro, wind, petroleum, and other generation. Petroleum generation, which is generally the most expensive form and therefore only used to meet large demand loads, was three times greater compared with the same hour the day prior.
ISO-New England (ISO-NE)
Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Hourly Electric Grid Monitor Note: EDT=Eastern Daylight Time
As the hot weather moved eastward, demand peaked the following day in ISO-NE—the integrated grid operating in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Peak demand on Tuesday, June 24, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. eastern time was 25,898 MW, according to the data in our Hourly Electric Grid Monitor. ISO-NE reported that Tuesday’s evening peak electricity demand was the highest level seen in the region since 2013.
Real-time wholesale electricity prices on June 24 peaked at $1,110/MWh at 6:00 p.m. according to preliminary data from ISO-NE, compared with peak prices of $65/MWh the previous week on June 17.
New England’s electricity grid depended on a combination of oil-fired power plants, electricity imports from Canada, and increased natural gas power production to meet peak demand this week. At peak load on Tuesday, 47% of ISO-NE generation came from natural gas, 12% from imports, 13% from nuclear, 12% from petroleum, 1% from coal, and 4% from renewable sources including wind, batteries, and solar. The last remaining coal-fired plant in the region, the Merrimack facility in New Hampshire, supplied 280 MWh on average to the grid on Tuesday. The Merrimack facility is typically only used when demand is high.
Principal contributors: Lindsay Aramayo, Kimberly Peterson
While Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia are fossil-fuel “friendly” states, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Vermont are extremely hostile to fossil fuels. So, it’s always ironic to look at the electricity generation mix in these regions during periods of extremely hot and cold weather.
At peak load on June 23, 44% of PJM’s generation came from natural gas, 20% from nuclear, 19% from coal, and 6% from solar. The remaining generation came from a mix of hydro, wind, petroleum, and other generation. Petroleum generation, which is generally the most expensive form and therefore only used to meet large demand loads, was three times greater compared with the same hour the day prior.
At peak load on Tuesday, 47% of ISO-NE generation came from natural gas, 12% from imports, 13% from nuclear, 12% from petroleum, 1% from coal, and 4% from renewable sources including wind, batteries, and solar. The last remaining coal-fired plant in the region, the Merrimack facility in New Hampshire, supplied 280 MWh on average to the grid on Tuesday. The Merrimack facility is typically only used when demand is high.
Anyone else notice a pattern here? When demand ramps up, natural gas ramps up to meet the demand. When demand “really” ramps up, New England fires up its only coal-fired power plant and both regions fire up their petroleum-fired power plants. Neither ISO-NE not PJM ramp up renewables to meet demand.
I wonder how New York managed to deal with the heat wave…
Natural gas generated twice as much electricity in New York in 2023 as any other fuel source.
In 2023, natural gas-fired power plants accounted for almost three-fifths of New York’s generating capacity and provided 46% of the state’s electricity net generation, generating twice as much electricity as any other fuel source.25,26 Natural gas fuels 6 of the state’s 10 largest power plants by capacity and 5 of the 10 largest by annual generation.27 To increase reliability, especially during the winter months when natural gas pipelines are highly congested, natural gas-fired electricity generating units with dual-fuel capability can switch fuels in the event of a natural gas supply disruption.28 In 2023, about two-thirds of the state’s natural gas-fired capacity had dual-fuel capability, allowing them to also burn petroleum products.29,30
Since New York has very little natural gas production, due to its idiotic ban on hydraulic fracturing (frac’ing), it must import almost all of that natural gas.
Natural gas
New York has few natural gas reserves, but it does have some natural gas production.100,101 The state’s first commercial natural gas well was drilled in 1821.102 Annual production reached a record high of nearly 56 billion cubic feet in 2006, but has declined almost every year since then. In 2023, New York produced 8.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas, the lowest output since 1975.103 Most of the natural gas consumed in New York is produced in other states. The largest share comes through and from Pennsylvania.104 The Marcellus Shale, named for a town in central New York where the shale is visible at the surface, is a natural gas-bearing formation that extends under parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Maryland.105 It is the largest natural gas area in the United States as ranked by estimated proved reserves.106,107 Much of the Marcellus Shale gas is produced by hydraulic fracturing, commonly called fracking, a drilling technique used to produce natural gas from low permeability shales like the Marcellus. In 2014, New York’s governor banned hydraulic fracturing, and in 2020 the state legislature made the fracking ban permanent. The legislature expanded the fracking ban in 2024 by prohibiting the use of carbon dioxide as a drilling agent to extract crude oil and natural gas from shale rock.108,109,110
New York banned frac’ing, yet derives most of its energy from natural gas… Produced from frac’ed wells in Pennsylvania… From the most prolific natural gas reservoir in the United States… A reservoir that underlies New York state and was named after a town in New York state. As Ron White said:
You not only can’t fix stupid… You can’t even prevent it from getting stupider…
Empire Wind Construction Resumes on a Deal to Allow New Gas Pipelines in New York
New York Governor Kathy Hochul has been in discussions with President Trump to advance two natural gas pipelines alongside the resumption of construction on Empire Wind 1. While Hochul says there was no deal to do so, she indicated that she will approve the gas pipelines only if they meet federal and state requirements.
[…]
Empire Wind 1 has a design capacity of 810 megawatts and is expected to begin commercial operations in 2027. Offshore wind, however, is a costly technology for generating electricity, and projects have been troubled by much higher costs than alternatives. Empire Wind sought renegotiation of its contracts, settling for a fee of $150.15 per megawatt-hour, which is about three times the price of natural gas-fired generation.
President Trump believes that natural gas prices are too high for New Yorkers and New Englanders and wants to provide relief by increasing the availability of supplies through pipeline construction. He wants to revive a canceled pipeline that would carry natural gas from Pennsylvania’s shale gas fields to New York, indicating that it could cut energy prices in the Northeast by as much as 70%. The 124-mile Constitution Pipeline project was abandoned due to legal and regulatory challenges that made it economically unfeasible.
The Constitution Pipeline was proposed in 2013 at a projected cost of under $700 million, but delays and legal challenges drove up the costs by nearly 40%. After the project received Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval in 2014, New York regulators refused to issue water quality permits, citing concerns about danger to wetlands and stream crossings. New York and other Northeast states have special water-quality certification powers granted to them under federal law to impede planned gas projects in the region. New York State lawmakers have also passed anti-gas laws and banned fracking in the state, despite enormous natural gas resources, which are an extension of the Marcellus fields in Pennsylvania. The Constitution Pipeline project was scrapped in 2020. On May 29, however, Williams Cos. announced that it is giving the Constitution pipeline and Northeast Supply Enhancement projects another try. The two projects have investments totaling about $2 billion.
Hochul might not block the construction of natural gas pipelines that could lower the cost of electricity for New Yorkers, in exchange for Equinor being allowed to resume construction of an offshore windfarm that will deliver electricity to New York City at triple the cost of natural gas-fired generation.
At the end of spring the Met Office put out a press release, which claimed that “this spring shows some of the changes we’re seeing in our weather patterns, with more extreme conditions, including prolonged dry, sunny weather, becoming more frequent.”
At the end of spring the Met Office put out a press release, which claimed that “this spring shows some of the changes we’re seeing in our weather patterns, with more extreme conditions, including prolonged dry, sunny weather, becoming more frequent.”
As there is no evidence at all that dry springs are becoming more common, I asked the Met Office to provide for their claim.
This is their reply:
The UK Climate 2023 report referenced offers this conclusion on the section Page 31 to 36:
In other words, dry seasons if anything are on the decrease.
The section from page 74 merely looks at future projections, which therefore have no relevance at all..
Meanwhile the Christidis study is also irrelevant, as it looks summers in Europe. Similarly the Kendon study is only concerned with projections for summer.
The Met Office have been unable to offer any evidence for Emma Carlisle’s claim. Indeed they cannot, because none exists.
Her incorrect statement should be retracted and a correction published.
While we have seen rapid acceptance and advancement of nuclear power in the United States just over the last year or so, the recent executive orders issued by President Trump have added a strong endorsement of nuclear power.
While we have seen rapid acceptance and advancement of nuclear power in the United States just over the last year or so, the recent executive orders issued by President Trump have added a strong endorsement of nuclear power.
Reading through these executive orders, it seems that there are clear commitments to remove the roadblocks that are slowing down progress in the name of safety.
The primary roadblock over the last 50 years has been the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with its 3,000 employees. In addition to the $1 billion allocated in the federal budget, at least 80% of the NRC budget is funded by fees paid by applicants for licensure, which amount to $300 per hour.
The tenor of the order is to impel the NRC to establish procedures to ensure that new reactor applications are processed to completion in 18 months (or less) while renewal applications take 12 months (or less). These are ambitious culture changes for the organization, especially since they are ordered to do so while reducing staff. No agency of the US government likes to reduce staff, and indeed, the NRC will claim that such an accomplishment is too onerous to achieve. Nothing new here. It remains to be seen whether the executive order will be robustly enforced.
The Navy’s seven-decade safety track record with nuclear-generated electricity to support national security began before the establishment of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its subsequent regulatory framework. Commercial nuclear power plants utilize the light water reactor design, pioneered by the US Navy. All submarines and aircraft carriers are powered by nuclear energy. Operating more than 80 nuclear-powered ships, the United States Navy is currently the world’s most powerful naval force.
Nuclear power reactors remain the safest industry, by far, in the US and around the world. In fact, no person has been hurt by the normal operations of any commercial nuclear power plant anywhere in the world in almost 7 decades (the Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents hurt nobody, and Chernobyl was not under “normal operations” when it catastrophically failed).
Given this safety record, it would seem very easy for the NRC to establish a process to certify systems that are already so safe. It begs the question of why we need the NRC at all. The point is that nuclear safety should be viewed under the scrutiny of a long record of safe operation, not by the myopic view imposed when very little operational data was available. This is especially true during a time when many people claim to want “clean air” and the demand for reliable electricity is expected to ramp up to unprecedented levels. We will now discuss the first of the recently published nuclear power executive orders.
NuScale, the only company successful in attaining a license for a Small Modular Reactor (SMR), expended 10 years and $500 million to attain such a license. This stoppage of progress should appall everyone.
It has been clear for several decades that the onerous regulations and nearly impossible task of attaining a license to build and operate nuclear reactors has pointed to the US Government as the primary obstructer for the nuclear power community.
Changes in regulations and delays in approvals have forced huge cost overruns. Nevertheless, the two reactors completed in this realm, Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia, still offer competitively priced electricity for the grid.
Therefore, removing the US government’s obstacles to progress appears to be the path to even cheaper electricity through nuclear power. A further development, not yet resolved, is to open the electricity market to free enterprise. The cost reductions available through competition in this market are huge, indicating that such a move may be next in line. We certainly encourage the government to further withdraw from the mix and deregulate electricity from its current monopolistic framework.
The executive order, rightfully so, identifies the radiation protection model, the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model, as a further costly imposition on nuclear power plants with no added safety advantage. For a deeper analysis of this issue and a more sensible model called Sigmoid, No-Threshold (SNT), please consult Jack Devanny’s excellent book, “How We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again.”
The point here is that if we over regulate safety, we will add significant costs to products that are unnecessary, as they do nothing to improve safety. Again, the excellent record of nuclear power plants over 7 decades should tell us that.
If we imposed similar safety restrictions on automobiles (no harm to people), we would end up with a car that weighed 10,000 pounds, got 3-4 miles per gallon, and was restricted to no faster than 10 mph on the road. Yet, citizens accept the over 40,000 deaths caused by automobile operation annually in the US to enjoy their benefits.
Yet, nuclear power reactors have a track record of no deaths under normal operations and suffer the most onerous safety regulations among all industries. Environmental damage is likewise extremely minimal. So, relaxing the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) will not increase environmental danger either.
So, if you want cheaper, cleaner, and reliable electricity, get these government monkeys off the backs of companies trying to bring you much more affordable and cleaner electricity. This executive order recognizes this reality and is moving to reduce these unnecessary and expensive regulations.
The executive order includes a goal of increasing nuclear power by 300 GW (moving it from 20% of current demand for electricity to 80% in the US) by 2030. This is a tall order, but America put a man on the moon with slide-rule technology in the 1960s, so the US certainly can attain this goal. We simply need to return to fair market processes and free enterprise. The companies exist, and the technology exists to do this now. We just have to set them free. This executive order also calls for this.
Finally, the executive order calls for more streamlined NRC licensing processes that utilize fewer personnel. If we have smart people in nuclear power technology, wouldn’t they be best used to advance the technology rather than stop it? As mentioned earlier, we are discussing the safest industry in the world over the last seven decades. Indeed, this alone should greatly reduce the need for scrutiny.
So, the President has established his priorities (there are three other parts of this order we will consider in future articles). Get the government out of the way of progress and allow free enterprise to bring us cheap, clean energy. He also encourages the recycling of slightly used nuclear fuel (SUNF). As pointed out in previous articles, by using fast reactors, the current stockpile of SUNF could power the US at its current demand for electricity for 270 years.
Indeed, the most expeditious path to the disposition of this material should be encouraged, and no plan exists today to dispose of this material in the US. Accelerating the process would produce far more electricity than our current and future needs, so (more supply than demand) would force the retail price of electricity to pennies per kWh or less. The nay-sayers for nuclear power have not improved their rhetoric for decades and still offer the same propaganda they have always exaggerated, with no comparison to the safety record of this industry and no consideration of its benefits.
Perhaps it is time to weigh the benefits against the risks. If we do, nuclear power comes out way ahead of other electricity production methods. This executive order is at least a step in this direction. We need to ensure it is enforced and strengthened to allow for an improvement in quality of life at a cost of pennies per kWh of electricity for everyone in the world.
The U.K.’s The Guardian ran an article claiming that the world’s oceans have surpassed a critical tipping point in acidity threatening sea life. This is false. The pH content of the world’s oceans varies by time and place throughout the day, rising and falling modestly, but the average pH content remains far from acidic and there is no evidence crustaceans or other types of shellfish are being threatened by the sea water becoming acidic.
The U.K.’s The Guardian ran an article claiming that the world’s oceans have surpassed a critical tipping point in acidity threatening sea life. This is false. The pH content of the world’s oceans varies by time and place throughout the day, rising and falling modestly, but the average pH content remains far from acidic and there is no evidence crustaceans or other types of shellfish are being threatened by the sea water becoming acidic.
The world’s oceans are in worse health than realized, scientists have said today, as they warn that a key measurement shows we are “running out of time” to protect marine ecosystems.
Ocean acidification, often called the “evil twin” of the climate crisis, is caused when carbon dioxide is rapidly absorbed by the ocean, where it reacts with water molecules leading to a fall in the pH level of the seawater. It damages coral reefs and other ocean habitats and, in extreme cases, can dissolve the shells of marine creatures.
Bachelor’s story is based upon a study which claims that ocean acidity has breached a “planetary boundary,” the seventh of nine such milestones or boundaries to be breached, threatening to cause permanent damage to the planet’s health.
The study looked at ice core records and studies of marine life, run through algorithms of complex computer models to assess the past 150 years, concluding the ocean acidification boundary had been breached, with the world facing a “ticking timebomb,” of sea life destruction.
This study’s findings are driven by woefully flawed computer models, a limited time horizon and understanding of long-term history, and lack a basis in real world data. As such it and The Guardian’s dire warnings based on it, are unjustified.
Model outputs are only as good as the assumptions, data, and our understandings of the feedbacks and systems built into them. Even as our knowledge improves, our understanding of the oceans and the interactions of its various currents, systems, inputs, and outputs remain limited, thus the assumptions built into the models are weak and uncertain. As discussed at Climate Realism, here, here, and here, for example, the climate model outputs fail to match reality.
Concerning the limited time scale of this paper’s analysis, 150 years is a blip in the history of the Earth and its oceans. Coral reefs and shellfish have existed, thrived and evolved over tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years, through periods of both more alkaline and more acidic oceans. Based on current data, there is no reason to believe that recent changes in ocean pH threatens a “timebomb,” or apocalypse for shellfish and other sea life, at least not if one cares about solid evidence as opposed to model outputs.
There are, in fact, no scientifically established “planetary boundaries,” or “tipping points.” Rather such claims are political in nature, meant to drive political action (and likely increased funding) on behalf of the concerns of select groups of scientists. If the research of a select group of scientists are to be believed, the Earth has already surpassed seven of the nine purported boundaries – yet, data on extreme weather shows no worsening of hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, heat waves, drought, temperature or weather related deaths, or long-term coral or shellfish decline (at least, for the latter, no decline not tied to pollution and overharvesting). As such, one must wonder what dangers surpassing the supposed boundaries pose if exceeding them results in no identifiable harm that can be linked to the breach?
Which brings us to the crux of the study’s and The Guardian’s assertions that oceans are becoming dangerously acidic. Climate Realism has rebutted previous mainstream media stories claiming human carbon dioxide emissions were causing the oceans to become more acidic on 10 previous occasions. What the evidence shows is ocean pH varies significantly across the globe, with levels in tropical regions being more than twice as high as those in polar and that marine life has evolutionarily adapted to changes in pH.
In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges that sea water has a normal pH of 8.1 and nowhere across the ocean is anywhere close to 7.0 or below. “Although climate models suggest the oceans’ surface pH may have dropped from pH 8.2 to 8.1 since 1750, that change was never actually measured, rather the pH drop is merely a modeled conjecture,” as Climate at a Glance: Ocean Acidification explains. The EPA provides a helpful graphic by way of comparison. (see the graphic, below)
Comparison of the pH of common substances. Data source: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencFigure 1. Comparison of the pH of common substances. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Measuring Acid Rain,” epa.gov, last accessed August 12, 2021, https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what-acid-rainy
To conclude, acidic oceans make for a good scare story, raising the specter of mountains of dead and disintegrating sea life and perhaps bathers and surfers dissolving before horrified beachgoers’ eyes, but neither imaginative image has any relation to reality. We don’t know for sure whether ocean pH has declined over time during the recent period of climate change, but we do know that more than halfway to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations above pre-industrial levels, average ocean pH levels are well above the neutral 7 mark, and if they’ve declined at all, it has been by a barely measurable amount. As a result, contra The Guardian’s headline, there is no identifiable “ticking timebomb” threatening ocean ecosystems.
It ranks only tied 5th as the hottest, behind 1846, 1676, 1826 and 1822.
But to admit that would destroy their global warming narrative, which their article predictably wheels out:
They can’t even claim that Central England is not representative of the country as a whole. Their own data shows that the central region had some of the highest anomalies.
Their UK and England datasets are in any event worthless, filled as they are with so many junk stations, with temperatures increased by as much as 5C because of poor siting. Even the CET includes two near junk Class 4 sites and could therefore be overstated by at least 1C.
If proper error margins were applied, June 2025 would only rank as 31st warmest.
The Met Office know full well that none of these junk sites are supposed to be used for climatological purposes. The fact they continue proves they are more interested in political propaganda than science.
The BBC Complaints Director Colin Tregear has enrolled on the green grooming course run as a six-month sabbatical by the Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN). The course is funded by the Green Blob and aims to make the ‘climate crisis’ a central element in the journalism of the attendees. Tregear is said to have responsibility for climate complaints at the BBC. Quite why the British TV taxpayer should fund this activist boondoggle for a man who is supposed to independently consider matters that often involve disputed areas of science is not immediately clear.
The BBC Complaints Director Colin Tregear has enrolled on the green grooming course run as a six-month sabbatical by the Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN). The course is funded by the Green Blob and aims to make the ‘climate crisis’ a central element in the journalism of the attendees. Tregear is said to have responsibility for climate complaints at the BBC. Quite why the British TV taxpayer should fund this activist boondoggle for a man who is supposed to independently consider matters that often involve disputed areas of science is not immediately clear. In the past, attendees have been asked to consider that fruit such as mangoes aren’t as tasty as a year ago due to climate change. A previous speaker is on record as speculating on the need for “fines and imprisonment” for those expressing scepticism about “well supported” science.
Tregear is joined on the jolly by Maeve Campbell who is a TV climate reporter on Channel 4 in the UK. Her inclusion is less surprising since she is an identikit activist fully up to speed on the need for fear mongering to support the Net Zero fantasy. She should fit in well at the OCJN. Recently, she wrote that all over the world “fertile land is gradually becoming dry, barren and unable to support plants animals or people, as climate change causes temperatures to rise”. At the risk of imprisonment, it might be kind for someone to point out to her that the recent small rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide has led to a massive ‘greening’ of the planet, significant de-desertification and record yields of staple crops around the world.
The OCJN is run by the Reuters Institute, which is funded by the Thompson Reuters Foundation. The overall steering committee is chaired by Alan Rusbridger, who in his time as the editor of the Guardian helped turn the newspaper into an hysterical proclaimer of a coming climate apocalypse. Direct funding for the course, which seeks to influence journalists around the globe, has been provided by the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and the Laudes Foundation. The ECF is heavily supported by the Extinction Rebellion funder Sir Christopher Hohn, while Laudes chipped in £1 million in 2024 to support the network’s course activities until 2027.
The Green Blob paymasters are well represented on the OCJN Advisory Board, which is said to be dedicated to “improving the quality and impact of climate change journalism worldwide”. Katy Hartley is the Director of Strategy, Innovation and Narrative and is a member of the Laudes management team. In a previous job, she was part of a “cross-entities team exploring how all the philanthropic entities could respond to climate breakdown”. Other interesting advisers are Leo Hickman, the Editor of Carbon Brief, an activist blog funded by the ECF, and Dr Friederike Otto who runs a Green Blob-funded pseudoscientific weather attribution outfit from Imperial College London. Regular readers will of course recall that Otto was one of the leading instigators in the infamous Alimonti affair, when a group of activists and journalists forced Nature to withdraw a paper that had stated a climate emergency was not supported by the facts – the facts being those provided largely by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Otto claimed the authors “of course” were not writing in good faith. The distinguished science writer Dr Roger Pielke Jr later noted that “shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming with journalists to corrupt peer-review”.
Perish the thought that anything like this will be plotted at the OCJN. But its deliberations and relentless agitprop will hopefully be helpful to Colin Tregear as he faces all those impertinent complaints from the public about the BBC’s biased coverage of climate change. He has good form in shutting down debate. In February 2014, Nigel Lawson, a prominent Conservative minister in the Governments of Margaret Thatcher, told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that global temperatures had paused over the last decade. Responding to the complainer, Tregear replied: “I hope you will accept my apologies on behalf of the BBC, for the breach of editorial standards you identified”. In fact the pause, although highly inconvenient, was well known at the time and the Met Office even wrote a paper about it titled, The Recent Pause in Global Warming. Within a short period, the BBC moved to close down all sceptical comment on a science that was declared “settled”, a ban that is strictly enforced to this day.
Meanwhile for his ‘mango’ contribution, your correspondent helpfully suggests the following. Use AI to tell you why its taste has declined because of climate change and you will have mainstream media-ready copy within seconds. Try asking it, as I did, for an alternative view that mangoes are now tastier than before and again, before you can say bananas, a plausible article appears. The point of course is that if mainstream media is simply being groomed to write copy within strict pre-set narrative guidelines, what is the point of employing the journalists in the first place? The entire over-staffed climate desk at the BBC could be closed down, and Mr Grok tasked with supplying a never-ending stream of ‘scientists say’ propaganda designed to induce mass climate fear and nudge the general public to accept the controlling Net Zero elitist fantasy.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor. Follow him on X.
Postscript: The BBC Press Office has been in touch to complain this story is inaccurate.
Firstly, the employee that you mention isn’t on a sabbatical. It is a part-time course compromised [sic] of one hour lectures every two or three weeks and is being completed alongside their current role.
The purpose of the course is to help the ECU understand challenges journalists face when reporting on all aspects of climate and enhance its ability to maintain impartial reporting by the BBC in this area.
Secondly, they are a Complaints Advisor (not Director) within the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU).
If you spot anything in the Daily Sceptic that you think is inaccurate, please get in touch and we’ll add postscripts like this one beneath the article in question containing the complaint.
“We have proved the commercial profit of sun power in the tropics and have more particularly proved that after our stores of oil and coal are exhausted the human race can receive unlimited power from the rays of the sun.” – Frank Shuman, quoted in “American Inventor Uses Egypt’s Sun for Power,” New York Times, July 2, 1916.
“We have proved the commercial profit of sun power in the tropics and have more particularly proved that after our stores of oil and coal are exhausted the human race can receive unlimited power from the rays of the sun.” – Frank Shuman, quoted in “American Inventor Uses Egypt’s Sun for Power,” New York Times, July 2, 1916.
Solar electricity is not an infant industry. The following Wiki information (verbatim) on the inventor Frank Shuman tells an important part of the story.
On August 20, 1897, Shuman invented a solar engine that worked by reflecting solar energy onto one-foot square boxes filled with ether, which has a lower boiling point than water, and containing black pipes on the inside, which in turn powered a toy steam engine. The tiny steam engine operated continuously for over two years on sunny days next to a pond at the Shuman house.
In 1908 Shuman formed the Sun Shine Power Company with the intent to build larger power plants. He, along with his technical advisor A.S.E. Ackermann and British physicist Sir Charles Vernon Boys, developed an improved system using mirrors to reflect solar energy upon collector boxes, increasing heating capacity so much that water could now be used instead of ether.
He also developed a low-pressure steam turbine [with] … sun-heated water. Shuman’s turbine processed energy four times faster than any engine of his day. Shuman then constructed a full-scale steam engine that was powered by low-pressure steam, enabling him to patent the entire solar engine system by 1912.
Shuman built the world’s first solar thermal power station in Maadi, Egypt (1912-1913). Shuman’s plant used semicircle shaped troughs to power a 60-70 horsepower engine that pumped 6,000 gallons of water per minute from the Nile River to adjacent cotton fields. His system included a number of technological improvements, including absorption plates with dual panes separated by a one-inch air space.
Although the outbreak of World War I and the discovery of cheap oil in the 1930s discouraged the advancement of solar energy, Shuman’s vision and basic design were resurrected in the 1970s with a new wave of interest in solar thermal energy.[8]
Fallacious Argument
Solar electricity in modern life is strictly a niche industry. It is not grid competitive but has off-grid applications, such as in decades past. It is a starter energy where propane and other dense energies are not available. The ‘infant industry” argument is not persuasive; entrepreneurs have been trying to fit in concentrated solar for well over a century.
The Med is now too hot for summer holidays, says the laughable Daily Telegraph!
Costa Dorada
According to the Telegraph’s Senior Travel Writer:
Most of us like a bit of sunshine on our holidays, but when does hot become “too hot”? If ambulances are on standby at resorts, aircon-fuelled “climate shelters” are being set up and the elderly are being advised to stay indoors, you could argue that the answer is: now.
A heatwave has hit large swaths of Europe including France, Italy, Portugal and Spain. In Spain, a June temperature record of 46C was set on Saturday afternoon in El Granado, Andalucia, while France has issued a heat warning in 84 of the country’s 96 mainland departments.
As a “heat dome” envelops much of the Continent, the mercury has hit 42C in Seville, with Athens (37C), Rome (38C), Madrid (37C), Bordeaux (39C) and Lisbon (38C) also set to experience exceptionally high temperatures this week. Even Germany is bracing for 40C temperatures by the middle of the week. London, by comparison, is forecast to peak at a balmy 33C.
The rest of his article has little to do with travel. Instead, he merely regurgitates global warming propaganda, warning that we will all to have to take our holidays in cooler climes in future.
I don’t know why he insists on quoting temperatures in cities, as most tourists go the beach or mountains in summer, where it is much cooler.
He uses the example of Seville, where it is apparently 42C. Seville, along with Cordoba, are the two hottest cities in Europe. The temperature there reached 46.6C thirty years ago in 1995, and temperatures of 40C and more are not unusual.
Same with the other cities he cites:
37C in Athens – record 44.8C
38C in Rome – record 40.6C
37C in Madrid – record 40.7C
38C in Lisbon – record 44.0C
He claims that the human body stops functioning optimally when outside temperatures exceed 40C, which makes you wonder how the natives in Spain manage every summer!
And he shows his naivety when he states that “Locals are shutting themselves away in dark houses during the days, with windows and shutters closed”. Surely as a supposed travel expert, he must know that this is something the peoples of these regions have always done.
I can personally testify for this as I saw it all the time on several walking holidays in the Pyrenees many years ago. Villages simply shut up shop for three or four hours around midday and then reopen later in the afternoon.
Meanwhile holidaymakers ignore these doom merchants and vote with their feet. According to the Guardian, Spain attracted 21.8 million international visitors last summer, a new record. There are so many tourists now that locals have been protesting!
Quite why the Telegraph keeps insulting the intelligence of its readers is beyond me. It clearly believes it knows better than them – hence the continuing presence of the increasingly irrelevant Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on their payroll.
The Geothermal Energy Opportunity (GEO) Act has recently been introduced in congress to help clear the regulatory burdens hindering the development of this potentially important resource.
The Geothermal Energy Opportunity (GEO) Act has recently been introduced in congress to help clear the regulatory burdens hindering the development of this potentially important resource.
The Geothermal Energy Opportunity (GEO) Act has recently been introduced in congress to help clear the regulatory burdens hindering the development of this potentially important resource.
The U.S. stands at a pivotal crossroads in its energy future. As artificial intelligence (AI) accelerates its transformation of industries and daily life, the nation’s appetite for electricity is surging to unprecedented levels.
AI data centers are already consuming about 4% of U.S. electricity, with projections indicating this could rise to 12–15% by 2030. The explosive growth of AI, from large language models to autonomous vehicles, is placing strains on the power grid.
Based on some recent discussions I have had with friends and my geologist husband, I assert that geothermal energy deserves urgent and serious consideration alongside fossil fuels and nuclear power as the perfect “trifecta” for America’s energy strategy. Unlike intermittent renewables, geothermal offers stable, 24/7 baseload power… reliability that is essential for supporting the always-on demands of AI-driven data centers, our critical infrastructure, and the electricity needs of U.S. consumers.
Also, and most importantly, it leverages existing American expertise in drilling and subsurface engineering, providing a pathway for oil and gas workers use their talents to expand our nation’s energy options.
There have been some critical breakthroughs in recent years that make utilizing geothermal energy more effective and efficient. There have been significant advances in enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which enable geothermal energy production in areas previously deemed unsuitable due to a lack of natural permeability or water resources. A DOE-funded project conducted by the University of Utah demonstrates the enormous potential for developing this particular energy source.
A major University of Utah-led geothermal research project, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), achieved a critical breakthrough in April after hydraulically stimulating and circulating water through heated rock formations a mile and a half beneath its drill site in the Utah desert and bringing hot water to the surface. The test results are seen as an important step forward in the search for new ways to use Earth’s subsurface heat to produce hot water for generating emissions-free electricity. The successful well stimulations and a nine-hour circulation test were the fruits of years of planning and data analysis at the Utah FORGE facility near Milford, 175 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.
As highlighted in the recent Issues & Insights article, new geothermal projects are coming online with greater efficiency and lower costs, thanks to innovations such as closed-loop systems and enhanced geothermal systems.
These common drilling techniques should enable geothermal developers to reach “hot spots” located deeper below the surface than thought possible just a few years ago. They could also expand the map for geothermal development far beyond the Western states.
Small wonder that investor interest in geothermal energy has surged in recent years, with more than $1 billion raised since 2022. Tech companies on the hunt for suppliers of baseload electricity to power their data centers see the potential of geothermal energy. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta – all heavyweights in the booming AI/data center sector – have all inked contracts with geothermal developers.
…Geothermal’s potential to join fossil fuels and nuclear energy in powering America’s economy in the years to come far exceeds anything weather-dependent wind and solar could ever match. With the House version of the budget reconciliation bill accelerating the phase-out of the subsidies that prop them up, these once-coddled industries are scrambling to stay relevant.
Congrats to @QuaiseEnergy on the completion of their first geothermal drilling demonstration on a full-scale oil rig developed at @MIT. This technique can drill up to 12 miles, surpassing conventional geothermal wells that typically don’t exceed ~2 miles.https://t.co/QlWV0gkQrB— ARPA-E (@ARPAE) June 27, 2025
As the article notes, bureaucratic bungling has been the biggest hurdle for geothermal energy to overcome. Therefore, Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT) has introduced the Geothermal Energy Opportunity Act (GEO Act, H.R. 301), which aims to expedite the federal permitting process for geothermal energy projects.
She is also pairing it with another piece of legislation to help peel back the layers of regulatory tape.
…[T]he permitting process for geothermal energy production itself needs to be shortened, Garfield said, calling out the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, a 1970 law that requires the federal government to conduct an environmental review before moving forward with infrastructure projects.
{Deputy Director of the Utah Office of Energy Development Jake] Garfield said offering geothermal projects certain exemptions under NEPA would help the industry — like what’s being proposed by Maloy through her Geothermal Energy Opportunity Act, which requires the U.S. Department of Interior to process a geothermal drilling permit within 60 days.
Maloy is also sponsoring the Streamlining Thermal Energy through Advanced Mechanisms Act, which gives the geothermal industry the same flexibility as the oil and gas industry, cutting some of the regulations when pursuing a project on public land that’s already been studied or disturbed by industry.
With governments and private investors increasingly recognizing the potential of geothermal energy, I believe the sector is poised for significant growth in the coming years. As an added bonus, geothermal plants are not known to kill whales or bald eagles.
You must be logged in to post a comment.