Day: October 16, 2025

Bunk from the Brink

Over at The Climate Brink, Andrew Dessler and Zeke Hausfather have taken on the role of self-appointed sheriffs of climate science, at times in highly partisan and personal terms. Recently, Dessler, along with another scientist, Robert Kopp, and dozens of others, prepared a lengthy response to the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (DOE CWG) report.

A young boy sitting on a wooden loft bed, looking up at a dramatic, cloud-filled ceiling, while another boy sleeps in a bed below, surrounded by a cluttered room with books and personal items.

From Roger Pielke Jr. | Substack

By Roger Pielke Jr.

“The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things?” — Alice in Wonderland

Over at The Climate Brink, Andrew Dessler and Zeke Hausfather have taken on the role of self-appointed sheriffs of climate science, at times in highly partisan and personal terms. Recently, Dessler, along with another scientist, Robert Kopp, and dozens of others, prepared a lengthy response to the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (DOE CWG) report.

Today, Dessler posted a further critique of the DOE CWG — Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report? Dessler’s post is remarkable for the simple fact that he reveals in great detail that he does not understand the science he is policing.

The focus of Dessler’s post is his claim that the DOE CWG authors fail to appreciate the distinction between the concepts detection and attribution and time of emergence — and this represents “the central flaw” in the DOE CWG report.

In fact, as I show undeniably below, Dessler’s post reveals that he actually does not understand IPCC terminology or its application. Irony abounds. Someone should be embarrassed, and it’s not the DOE CWG authors.

Let’s dive into the details.

Dessler presents a definition of the time of emergence of a climate signal that is completely at odds with the definition used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dessler then uses his bespoke definition to argue that the DOE CWG authors made an “embarrassing error” by not employing his bespoke definition, rather than instead relying on the IPCC.

Here is Dessler’s bespoke definition (emphases in original):

Emergence is all about the size of the influence. It means that the climate has shifted so much that the average value of some parameter is larger than the largest value in a pre-industrial climate. In other words, you’ve emerged into a new climate.

The IPCC, in stark contrast, has a very different definition of the time of emergence (emphases in original):

Time when a specific anthropogenic signal related to climate change is statistically detected to emerge from the background noise of natural climate variability in a reference period, for a specific region (Hawkins and Sutton, 2012).

Lest there be any doubt, the IPCC in its definition cites Hawkins and Sutton (2012), who explain:

The signal of anthropogenic climate change is emerging against the background of natural climate variability. Only when the signal of change is of sufficient magnitude relative to this background variability can we be confident that a significant change has been detected. Such detection is a necessary step in the process of attributing a particular change to a specific cause, such as the observed rise in greenhouse gas concentrations [Hegerl et al., 2007].

Hawkins and Sutton (2012) explain that the time of emergence is a forward looking concept, in contrast to detection, which is backwards looking (emphasis added):

A headline conclusion from the IPCC AR4 was that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. Of greater importance for adaptation to climate change are changes on the regional and local scales that affect people, economies and ecosystems. However, on these smaller scales natural variability is larger, making detection more difficult. Some detection and attribution studies that have addressed these scales have obtained positive results [Hegerl et al., 2007; Stott et al., 2010], but for many regions and variables the signal of anthropogenic change has yet to clearly emerge from the ‘noise’ of natural climate variability.

So when will the signal emerge? And where and how?

Under the definitions of the IPCC, when looking at the past climate, detection of change (at a particular statistical level of confidence) and emergence of a signal of change (employing various possible methods) are conceptually identical, even if specific methodologies and results may vary.

The concept of time of emergence is also applicable to projections of future climate because it allows researchers to explore when we might expect changes in specific variables to emerge from the background of natural variability — for instance, based on alternative climate scenarios. models, and projections.

To be charitable to Dessler, it is conceivable that he has simply confused a single example provided by the IPCC in its framing chapter with the IPCC’s more general approach to the concept of time of emergence.

Specifically, IPCC AR6 Chapter 1 provides an “example” of one approach to calculating a time of emergence (emphasis added):

A world map showing observed total temperature changes and year-to-year variability in different regions, along with graphs displaying temperature variability trends across North America, Northern Europe, East Asia, Southern Africa, Australia, and other areas.
An example of observed emergence in surface air temperatures is shown in Figure 1.14 . . . [Figure 1.14 shown above]

The Figure 1.14 is based on Hawkins et al. 2020, who explain their unique methodological approach:

Here, we revisit the question of where and how the climate change signal is emerging from the background noise of internal variability. . . Our aim is to produce estimates of signal-to-noise (S/N) for changes in observed climate variables without utilizing data from any climate model simulations.

The IPCC acknowledges the validity of a signal-to-noise methodology such as of Hawkins et al. 2020, but the IPCC does not adopt that methodology as its definition of time of emergence or the only acceptable methodological approach to quantify a time of emergence.

The IPCC explains this clearly using the word “often” and not “always” (emphasis added):

This concept [emergence] is often expressed as a ‘signal-to-noise’ ratio and emergence occurs at a defined threshold of this ratio (e.g., S/N > 1 or 2).

For instance, in 2011 Ryan Crompton, John McAneny, and I published a very early paper on time of emergence using a different, but equally vaild statistical approach:

Crompton, R. P., Pielke, R. A., & McAneney, K. J. (2011). Emergence timescales for detection of anthropogenic climate change in US tropical cycloneloss data. Environmental Research Letters, 6(1), 014003.

The larger issue here — the elephant in the room — is not the DOE CWG report, but rather the IPCC itself, which published the rather inconvenient but scientifically accurate summary table below in Chapter 12 of the AR6.

A table summarizing the climatic impact drivers, their categories, and the timeline for their emergence in historical periods and projections for 2050.
Table 12.12 explains that for most measures of extreme events (and a few others in the table) the signal of climate change has not emerged and is not expected to emerge by 2050 or 2100, even under the implausibly extreme RCP8.5 scenario. I’d guess that Dessler’s target here is the IPCC, but no climate scientist will want to be seen taking on the IPCC directly.

The IPCC clearly explains of Table 12.12:

The emergence of a climate change signal occurs when that signal exceeds some critical threshold (usually taken to be a measure of natural variability; see for example, Hawkins and Sutton, 2012) or when the probability distribution of an indicator becomes significantly different to that over a reference period (e.g., Chadwick et al., 2019; see also Chapter 10 and Section 1.4.2), in which case external anthropogenic forcings can be detected as causal factors. The ‘time of emergence’ (ToE) or ‘temperature of emergence’ is the time or global warming level thresholds associated with this exceedance. Emergence is particularly relevant to impacts, risk assessment and adaptation because human and natural systems are largely adapted to natural variability but may be vulnerable if exposed to changes that go beyond this variability range; this is not to say that changes within natural variability have no impact, as occurrence of damaging extremes proves. Emergence also informs the timing of adaptation measures.

Dessler’s bespoke definition of time of emergence is nowhere to be seen.

Based on his critique, Dessler takes issue with a claim of the DOE CWG report:

[I]t is not currently possible to attribute changes in most extreme weather types to human influences.

Dessler is incorrect — But I would make a few edits to the DOE CWG sentence to improve precision and recognize the confidence qualifiers of the IPCC:

[I]t is not currently possible to detect or attribute with high confidence changes to date in most extreme weather types to human influences.

IPCC Chapters 11 (detection and attribution) and 12 (time of emergence) are perfectly consistent with each other. Below is a summary table of IPCC conclusions for the detection and attribution of trends in various types of extreme weather, at the IPCC’s stated level of confidence for achieving detection and attribution.

A table summarizing the detection and attribution of extreme weather types, highlighting confidence levels for each category.
For details and direct statements from the IPCC, see this THB post.

The DOE CWG is a convenient foil to use to have a go at the IPCC itself. Its Table 12.12 is scientifically accurate, but problematic for those wanting to claim that every extreme event reflects human caused changes in climate.

This episode reinforces why we need scientific assessments that include experts who understand the literature, are willing to call things straight, and lets the chips fall where they may regardless whose political advocacy might be affected. Red team and blue team science is fun team sport, but it is not good for reaching robust understandings.

So far the IPCC WG1 has played things straight with respect to extreme events. Let’s hope that it continues.

NYISO Weighs in on The New York State Draft Energy Plan

NYISO is the New York Independent System Operator — the not-for-profit entity created to manage New York State’s electrical grid. Their main job is assuring that there is sufficient electricity generated moment to moment to closely match customer demand. Neighboring states have multi-state ISOs (i.e., PJM and ISO-NE) to do the same job, but being New York, we have our own.

Aerial view of Manhattan skyline featuring iconic buildings like the Empire State Building alongside modern wind turbines, symbolizing the intersection of urban life and renewable energy.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

NYISO is the New York Independent System Operator — the not-for-profit entity created to manage New York State’s electrical grid. Their main job is assuring that there is sufficient electricity generated moment to moment to closely match customer demand. Neighboring states have multi-state ISOs (i.e., PJM and ISO-NE) to do the same job, but being New York, we have our own.

If there is any entity that ought to be loudly outspoken about New York’s ridiculous energy schemes, it is NYISO. After all, when generating most of our electricity from wind and sun proves not to work, as it will, and when the blackouts follow, as they will, NYISO stands to get a large share of the blame.

So where are they? The good news is that they are slowly waking up. The bad news is that even now they are not being nearly as outspoken or as loud as they should be. On October 6 they submitted a long (25 page) Comment on the State’s new Energy Plan. That Comment takes the level of their expressed alarm to a new, if still unjustifiably muted, level.

As background, in 2019 New York State enacted its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, mandating, among other things, 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” by 2030, and 100% from “zero emissions” sources by 2040. At the same time, New York City enacted its Local Law 97, mandating (via complex maximum emissions formulas) that most large buildings convert to electric heat by 2030. Supposedly, the State and City would enable fulfillment of these mandates through having developers construct large amounts of wind and solar generators. That process had barely gotten off the ground when, earlier this year, the federal government ended nearly all of the grants and subsidies that had made construction of wind and solar facilities at all feasible.

On July 25 the State’s Energy Planning Board came out with its self-described “Draft Energy Plan.” It’s a “draft” because they are taking comments and may even make some revisions depending on those (don’t count on it). In a post on August 11 I described the so-called Plan as “hundreds of pages of fluff,” cheerleading for a supposed transition to a renewables-based electricity system but lacking anything as basic as a feasibility study or a cost projection. I then submitted my own Comment on the Plan and had a further post describing that on September 27. Key takeaway:

[T]he so-called “Energy Plan” is not an energy plan at all.  It would more accurately be described as random musings and wishful thinking by some completely incompetent people who have no idea what they are doing.

So with that background, let’s take a look at NYISO’s newly-issued Comment. This sentence from page 1 is fairly representative of the overall tone:

The NYISO submits these comments to highlight electric system reliability concerns and to offer approaches that support ongoing electric system reliability through competitive markets for consideration as part of the final State Energy Plan.

They are submitting comments to “highlight . . . concerns.” Yes, I guess so, but I find that a wholly inadequate statement of the problem. In fact, the energy bureaucracies are driving the State down an impossible path from which it becomes increasingly difficult to exit before disaster strikes.

This from pages 2-3 is a little stronger, but still much less specific than it needs to be:

Large energy-intensive economic development projects, such as semiconductor manufacturing plants and data centers, are driving up demand for electricity significantly after relatively flat demand trends over the last decade. Collectively, all these elements create uncertain conditions today, in the near term, and in the longer term, and each uncertainty has the real potential to cause major impacts on electric system reliability. All electric industry stakeholders, including the state agencies involved, must be aware of and factor these concerns into their planning and strategy. Progress towards the CLCPA goals, other public policies, and supplying the electricity that New Yorkers demand requires the State Energy Plan to support a well-functioning, reliable electric power sector. Reliable electric power is the foundation of the State’s plans to electrify other aspects of the economy and to reduce emissions. The NYISO urges the Board and NYSERDA to consider these comments and prioritize electric system reliability in the final State Energy Plan.

They just can’t make themselves say out loud that wind and solar by themselves cannot provide reliable electricity to match demand.

As you move through the Comment, the statements get stronger, little by little. From page 6:

Fossil-fuel-based generation is and will continue to be necessary to meet consumer demand and to maintain electric system reliability. The final State Energy Plan must include a recommendation consistent with the Draft Plan observations that combustion generating units “remain essential parts of electric grid reliability and affordability, and retirement of these units will not be able to occur until resources that provide the same grid reliability attributes are put in place.”

From page 8:

Simply maintaining the existing fossil-fuel-based generation fleet and carefully managing the requirement of these resources over the next fifteen years is not enough to maintain electric system reliability. The electric system needs all existing generation resources and needs new generation resources before the current fleet suffers a catastrophic failure that jeopardizes the health, safety, and welfare of New Yorkers.

“New generation resources” are needed, but the State’s Climate Act requires those to be carbon-emissions-free. We are therefore talking about the magical “dispatchable emissions-free resources” (DEFRs) that will supposedly replace fossil fuel generation to meet the requirements of the CLCPA. Can we somehow get ourselves to say that those don’t exist and are not going to exist in any relevant time frame? We come to a discussion of that subject on page 14:

The NYISO fully supports identifying and developing technologies that have the greatest potential to support electric system reliability and the needs that will arise throughout this energy transition. As noted in the Draft Plan, many of the technologies necessary to meet system needs for firm, dispatchable capacity are not yet commercially available at scale. The development of these technologies must start now as these technologies need to be proven and deployed to the electric grid before the resources that currently supply the energy that consumers demand and the reliability attributes needed to support the grid can be retired.

The DEFRs “are not yet commercially available at scale” and therefore “development . . . must start now.” How lame is that? They just can’t bring themselves to say that “you must admit that this is not going to happen.” With a mandate for tens of thousands of megawatts of these mythical generators by 2030, and it’s almost 2026, we haven’t even started “development.”

At least you don’t need to read between the lines of this Comment to see that the NYISO is issuing a very explicit warning to the State’s energy planners. But still, with the planners offering no idea as to feasibility, cost, or time frame for availability of necessary new resources to support the energy transition, the best the NYISO can say is to “start development now”? What they should be saying is that this can’t work, it won’t work, and continuing further down this path is incompetent, irresponsible, and dangerous.

Unlike the people at the other State energy bureaucracies like NYSERDA and the Energy Planning Board, I’m not saying that the people at NYISO lack competence. However, it is a problem that the entity is organized as a not-for-profit. Nobody there has any skin in the game, and they are unlikely to be held accountable when there are catastrophic system failures. It’s just one more instance of a failed socialist-lite model.

Shut The CCC Now!

The UK should be prepared to cope with weather extremes as a result of at least 2C of global warming by 2050, independent climate advisers have said.

Artistic depiction of the Earth surrounded by flames, representing global warming and climate change.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Cunningham

The Climate Change Committee are getting desperate, as they face oblivion after the next election:

A field being irrigated with a sign that reads 'ROAD LIABLE TO FLOODING'.

The UK should be prepared to cope with weather extremes as a result of at least 2C of global warming by 2050, independent climate advisers have said.

The country was “not yet adapted” to worsening weather extremes already occurring at current levels of warming, “let alone” what was expected to come, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) wrote in a letter addressed to the government.

The committee said they would advise that the UK prepare for climate change beyond the long-term temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement.

The committee released their last report in April this year, which said preparations in the UK for rising temperatures were “either too slow, has stalled, or [are] heading in the wrong direction”.

It warned that this lack of progress could leave the UK vulnerable to serious economic and health impacts in the decades ahead, from hospitals and care homes to food and water supplies.

And it said that the impacts of high temperatures were already apparent, for example in schools.

The CCC cited preliminary findings from the Department for Education, which reported there were on average 1.7 days of “extreme overheating”, as well as lost learning time due to heat.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24kllyye1o

We are supposed to have already had 1.5C of global warming, but our weather is no more extreme than it ever was.

So, what does the CCC come up with? Lost learning time due to heat! How many weeks of learning are lost because of snow in winter, when half the teachers seem unable to commute to work?

They say the UK could expect increased heatwaves, drought and flooding, and wildfire season would likely extend into autumn. Yet there is no evidence that any of these things are happening.

This letter from the CCC is a blatant attempt to garner political support to oppose the Conservatives and Reform plans to abolish them if they get the chance.

According to the BBC:

Baroness Brown, chairwoman of the adaptation committee for the CCC, said: “People in the UK are already experiencing the impacts of a changing climate, and we owe it to them to prepare, and also to help them prepare.

“Adaptation in the UK is not keeping up with the increase in climate risk. The impacts on the UK are getting worse and [the government] needs more ambition,” she told the BBC’s Today programme.

The chairwoman also levelled criticism at Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who pledged to scrap the UK’s landmark climate change legislation and replace it with a strategy for “cheap and reliable” energy.

Baroness Brown dubbed the promise “disappointing”, and said she hoped that the Conservative leader would “reflect on the fact that the act covers both adaption and mitigation”.

Such blatant interference in party politics is strictly against all the rules for supposedly independent public servants.

And why do the government now need the advice of a bunch of climate crackpots to tell them how to adapt to weather? They managed perfectly alright before Gummer and his little band of con-merchants came along.

Baroness Brown, by the way, is still a Director of the Danish energy company, Orsted, who have made billions in taxpayer subsidies for wind farms. She is still Director of Ceres Power, who make fuel cells and electrolysers, vital for decarbonisation.

But I am sure these well paid jobs have nothing to do with her views on Net Zero policy!

BTW!!

I think that BBC photo neatly sums up the whole climate debate.

“ROAD LIABLE TO FLOODING”

next to a sprinkler!

And who is Tabby? Is she Justin Rowlatt’s cat?

The Carbon Conundrum: Did Earth’s Greenest Periods Demand High CO2?

The Earth is getting greener. Satellite data confirms a significant increase in vegetation—or global greening—over the past century, with Gross Primary Production (GPP) –the rate of carbon fixation by plants– rising by over 30% since 1900.

Illustration depicting the carbon cycle, showing various components such as atmospheric CO₂ levels, respiration, photosynthesis, land use, ocean absorption, and carbon storage in soils and fossil fuels.

From No Trick Zone

By P Gosselin 

A “green Earth” is inextricably linked to high atmospheric CO₂ concentrations

A new paper by Dutch independent scientist Frans J. Schrijver, Historical CO₂ levels in periods of global greening, looks at CO2 and increased global greening. 

An infographic illustrating the global carbon cycle, detailing sources and sinks of carbon. It shows processes like photosynthesis, respiration, and human emissions, with labeled values for carbon in various reservoirs such as atmosphere, soil, ocean sediments, and fossil carbon.
The movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans. (Illustration diagram adapted from U.S. DOE, Biological and Environmental Research Information System.)

The Earth is getting greener. Satellite data confirms a significant increase in vegetation—or global greening—over the past century, with Gross Primary Production (GPP) –the rate of carbon fixation by plants– rising by over 30% since 1900.

The prevailing scientific consensus attributes this surge primarily to the CO₂ fertilization effect, meaning higher atmospheric carbon dioxide allows plants to photosynthesize more effectively.

How could planet be greener with less CO2

Historical records suggest that today’s level of greenness is not unique. For instance, approximately 10,000 years ago, Earth’s forest area was an estimated 50% greater than it is today. This presents a fundamental puzzle: How could the planet be so much greener in the past if, as ice core records suggest, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations were significantly lower—typically around 280 ppm—and remained below 300 ppm for the past 800,000 years?

The law of diminishing returns: A green Earth’s true cost

A recent publication applied Mitscherlich’s Law—also known as the Law of Diminishing Returns in Agriculture—to model the relationship between global GPP and atmospheric CO₂ levels.

The core idea was that while CO₂ fuels initial growth, its “fertilization effect” eventually slows down because other essential factors, like nutrient availability (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) and water, become limiting constraints. The model found this diminishing return effect provides a strong fit to recent GPP data.

This scientific model reveals a critical consequence: the diminishing returns lead to an increasingly longer average residence time for CO₂ in the atmosphere as GPP rises. Because the total mass of CO₂ in the atmosphere is directly proportional to both the rate of carbon uptake (the down flux, largely GPP) and its residence time, the study concludes that a “green Earth” with high GPP is inextricably linked to high atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.

Challenging the Historical Narrative

Applying this model to the past yields a powerful contradiction to the conventional view:

Historical Greenness Requires High CO₂: Since the estimated global GPP 10,000 years ago was at least as high as today (potentially 4.4% larger than today, even accounting for modern-era land use change), the average CO₂ residence time must have been at least as long as the current 4.1 years. Therefore, high CO₂ levels, comparable to or exceeding current levels, were necessary to support periods of similar greenness in history.

The Low CO₂ Impossibility: If CO₂ levels were truly the accepted low value of 280 ppm during such a highly green period, the CO₂ residence time would have been unnaturally short (around 2.7 years). The authors argue this is only possible if nature’s response to CO₂ was fundamentally different then, with other growth constraints (like nutrients and water) being significantly more favorable, which they deem very unlikely.

The core conclusion is that the assumption of low historical CO₂ levels—as indicated by ice core proxies—is inconsistent with periods of high global greenness.

Temperature, the other driver

The paper further suggests an alternative causality for natural CO₂ fluctuations that is independent of human emissions.

While atmospheric CO₂ is the main driver for the down flux (photosynthesis/greening), temperature is identified as the most important driver for the up flux (natural emissions).

Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in the soil and oceans. The process of decomposition and respiration of this organic material (the source of the up flux) is strongly dependent on temperature.

Therefore, a period of rising temperatures would lead to:

  1. More respiration/outgassing from the soil and oceans (up flux).
  2. A higher atmospheric CO₂ level.
  3. More greening (down flux).

In this view, greening is not the cause of high CO₂ but rather its result. This supports other studies suggesting temperature is the primary driver of natural atmospheric CO₂ fluctuations.

The findings present a significant challenge to the conventional understanding of the Earth’s carbon cycle history, suggesting that periods of natural abundance and high GPP may have always been tied to atmospheric CO₂ levels comparable to or higher than those observed today.

The Slowly Mounting Mineral Shock

China’s latest squeeze on mineral exports––and Washington’s threat of retaliation––ends any illusion that critical minerals are a niche matter. They are the scaffolding of modern society. A nearly bewildering array of minerals are essential for everything from defense technologies to EV dreams to the great race for “dominance” in artificial intelligence. Neither America, nor our allies, extract and refine enough key minerals.

A variety of critical minerals in different shapes and colors, stacked in piles with the text 'critical minerals' displayed prominently.

From Watts Up With That?

By Portia Roberts Peter Bryant

Note: You’re Invited: NCEA’s Critique of IEA’s Critical Minerals Outlook

China’s latest squeeze on mineral exports––and Washington’s threat of retaliation––ends any illusion that critical minerals are a niche matter. They are the scaffolding of modern society. A nearly bewildering array of minerals are essential for everything from defense technologies to EV dreams to the great race for “dominance” in artificial intelligence. Neither America, nor our allies, extract and refine enough key minerals.

The United States depends on imports for most (in some cases all) key minerals including copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and especially the 17 vital rare earth elements. Without foreign suppliers, we face a shock of varying degrees, from serious to catastrophic, across all industries and services. COVID-driven supply chain disruptions provided a glimpse of what could come. 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is one of a handful of non-aligned entities that looks at and advises about global critical minerals. Unfortunately, it appears that the IEA either ignores or is naïve about market-shaping realities, including those put in play last week by China. This matters because IEA’s genesis was the 1970s oil shock, tasked with brokering facts to anticipate, if not prevent another such catastrophic event in the future. Instead, IEA’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025 should earn a Pollyanna award; it assumes the kinds of needed cooperation, innovation, and capital flows are happening or will. If policymakers mistake that analysis as a blueprint, or as a rationale for inaction or action––as was done by the Biden Administration to justify the LNG-export pause—we could well learn what mineral scarcity looks like. 

China is, as is now well-known, the dominant energy minerals market-shaper. It doesn’t merely mine and refine; it finances, secures offtakes, standardizes chemistries, and wields export controls. It commands a variety of chokepoints that differ for each mineral. In other words, it wields a monopolistic-like ability to manipulate markets. Dominance in the activities that make minerals useful neutralizes efforts to diversify the sources of various minerals. It doesn’t matter if a new mine opens in the US, or a different hemisphere or continent if one country’s investment can control a significant proportion of supply. And as a result China can “dump” so much supply, long enough, into the market to collapse prices that bankrupt competition, cause unprofitable mines to be mothballed, or make planned projects infeasible. 

Nonetheless, new mines, smelters, and refineries are needed. But all face a steep uphill battle for multiple reasons, including what the IEA correctly calls “above-ground risks”—what the mining industry terms “the social license to operate” (SLO). These issues are really opportunities rather than risks, and their importance cannot be overstated. (Although the IEA Outlook understates them). If not properly engaged, dealings with local communities can stall or prevent permitting, or even slow or stop development. This ultimately adds costs, further advantaging China’s producers. 

Another overlooked aspect is that it often takes decades for new sites to begin operations. Refining is an inherently energy-intensive and chemical-centric industry, a frankly dirty business. Western firms, and regulations, have long exercised due caution. But it will likely take a great deal of innovation and intense investment for new facilities to meet ever-more stringent environmental standards and costs that don’t again advantage China.

On top of that, an in-the-weeds nuance that is utterly critical: the IEA underplays the long-run decline in ore grades, i.e., the share of the rock that contains the mineral. Existing mines, particularly copper, will require ever more energy and water per ton of metal, creating more tailings waste to manage, more capital expenditure, and thus more delays. Efficiency and recycling can’t come close to doing enough to bridge the looming gap between supply and demand. 

Oil shocks cause price leaps, lines at gas stations, political fallout. Mineral shocks are slow burns, until they’re not. They might initially surface as longer delivery times, stalled grid projects, costlier products––or some with missing features. But if mineral shortages continue, if (limited) stockpiles are exhausted, markets unavoidably face price shocks.

For the United States, the solution has long been known and remains urgent: rebuild end-to-end capability at home and simultaneously, vital for velocity, work with allies (and other friendly resource-endowed countries) on such key areas as geology, mining, refining, and component manufacturing. Streamline permitting without diluting environmental standards. Use different tools such as targeted offtakes, public-private finance and defense authorities to anchor new refineries and processing hubs. And level with voters: everything starts with mining (or farming). If we won’t mine at home or overseas with trusted partners, we will continue to face economic and security fragility—on terms set elsewhere.

The IEA was founded to help prevent energy shocks, not promote policies that make them more likely. In minerals, models that minimize or ignore chokepoints and social license realities will steer the world into the very emergencies we want to avoid. We don’t need aspirational scenarios. We need mineral realism.

Portia Roberts is Policy Director for the National Center for Energy Analytics. 

Peter Bryant is Chairman of Clareo and Key Minerals Forum. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Climate cult fantasy and duplicity precede UN COP30

The 30th Conference of the Parties on climate change (COP30) will promote its climate, energy, and economic fantasies and demands from November 10–21 in Belém, Brazil. Some 70,000 grifter scientists, activists, politicians, and journalists (plus observers) will attend.

A woman walks past a large colorful sign reading 'See you at COP30!' in front of a backdrop featuring stylized artwork, with the word 'Brasil' prominently displayed.

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

A vibrant illustration of the COP30 conference setting in Belém, Brazil, featuring large gatherings of people in a lush outdoor environment, surrounded by greenery and colorful flowers, with the text 'COP30' prominently displayed.

The 30th Conference of the Parties on climate change (COP30) will promote its climate, energy, and economic fantasies and demands from November 10–21 in Belém, Brazil. Some 70,000 grifter scientists, activists, politicians, and journalists (plus observers) will attend.

Despite pre-summit hype and proclamations of hope, the summiteers are nervous.

Increasing evidence demonstrates that claims of a planetary crisis are rooted in meaningless computer models and fearmongering, not in actual science, data, or fact.

More voters worldwide are rejecting and rebelling against net-zero and anti-fossil-fuel policies that have raised energy costs, destroyed jobs and industries, and crushed hopes and living standards.

Even the poorest U.S. state (Mississippi) now boasts a higher GDP per capita than climate-obsessed Britain, where the average household price of electricity is $0.35 per kilowatt hour (likely to rise to $0.55 per kWh by 2027) – compared to a 17.5¢ U.S. average and 13.5¢ in Mississippi.

UK industries now pay the world’s highest electricity prices – 27% more than equally obsessed Germany – and conservative/alternative political parties in both countries are surging in popularity against the entrenched interests that imposed these destructive, job-killing, unsustainable policies.

The United States economy is outpacing Europe’s, largely because the Trump administration has re-embraced abundant, reliable, affordable fuels, petrochemicals, and electricity, while Britain, Germany, and most of Europe refuse to drill or frack for oil and gas or retreat from their unattainable climate pledges.

Trump agencies have slashed subsidies, favoritism, and environmental fast-tracks for wind and solar projects … and clawed back billions of dollars that the Biden administration had given to “green energy” and “climate justice” groups during its last weeks in office.

President Trump again withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement, may not let US representatives participate in COP30, and is unlikely to allow U.S. taxpayer money to flow into UN slush funds for climate “reparations,” “resilience,” or “losses and damages.”

Mr. Trump also excoriated net-zero policies before the UN General Assembly, calling them a “green scam” concocted by “stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success.” UN member states chastened by the Russia-Ukraine war, growing dependence on Russian gas and Chinese minerals, and wind turbines — and their own economic demise were hard-pressed to disagree. Developing countries also paid attention.

Meanwhile, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance — beloved by eco-imperialists for opposing and preventing financing for fossil fuel projects in Africa and around the world — has ceased all operations following a mass exodus by its U.S., Canadian, British, and Swiss bank members.

“The 2.1 billion humans who suffer in abject energy poverty” and families of “the 16.5 million loved ones” who died from “indoor air pollution during the 5-1/2 years the Alliance was working” can now breathe sighs of relief, said energy realist and human rights campaigner Ryan Zorn.

The EU Parliament agreed to roll back multiple environmentalist mandates and regulations on businesses, in what Politico calls an “emerging rightward rupture that is reshaping European policymaking.”

Criticism of junk climate and energy science in UN, U.S., and other government and academic institutions has become frequent and furious since President Trump was reelected in November 2024, and the shackles of government, media, social media, and search-engine censorship have been loosened.

The world is rapidly learning about wind and solar power shortcomings; their decimation of raptors and other wildlife; the massive mining and pollution involved in manufacturing these “clean, green” energy systems; the millions of acres of farm, habitat, and scenic lands impacted by them; the trillion-dollar costs of battery and gas backup systems for windless and sunless periods; and the economic devastation that climate-centric policies are inflicting worldwide.

Developed and developing nations alike are beginning to realize they have been asked to destroy the world with wind-solar-battery systems that can never meet growing electricity demands … to save it from climate crises that exist only in computer models and fevered imaginations.

The net-zero, extreme weather, climate science consensus is breaking apart as COP 30 nears.

Expectations that the “climate crisis” will continue providing bureaucratic and activist sinecures, “renewable” energy subsidies, and globalist controls over our energy, livelihoods, and living standards are slamming headfirst into these realities. No wonder climate-power wannabes are worried.

A German climate activist analysis epitomizes the worries, fantasies, duplicities, and exigencies:

* The United States still has “the greatest historical responsibility for global greenhouse gas emissions,” the analysis complains. Its authors ignore the fact that China’s greenhouse gas emissions exceed those of all other developed countries combined, and the U.S. has reduced its emissions far more than any other country, while its inventions have helped improve health, agriculture, and living standards globally.

* The U.S. and other “Global North” nations share liability for the climate crisis and must begin paying poor nations for mitigation, adaptation, and reparations, the activists continue. COP29’s agreed “collective quantified goal” of $300 billion annually is far too low, too vague, and too ambiguous. A “concrete action plan” must be implemented to ensure a “mobilization target” of $1.3 trillion annually – from nations and corporations.

Where that money will come from is anyone’s guess, especially since the payers are supposed to deindustrialize, end their fossil fuel use, de-grow their economies, and slash their living standards. How much of any actual funding will end up in developing country bureaucratic fiefdoms and Swiss bank accounts – instead of projects that actually improve energy, health, and living standards – is also vague.

* “Climate adaptation” is another COP30 priority, the analysis attests. Adaptation to what? One wonders. Temperatures that have risen modestly since the Little Ice Age ended and Industrial Era began? Sea levels that have risen slowly and slightly since their 400-foot upsurge after the Pleistocene glaciers began melting? Hurricanes and tornadoes that are not increasing in frequency or intensity? Carbon dioxide levels that are helping forests, grasslands, and crops grow faster, better, and with less water?

* Never mind all that, the Germans suggest. More money is needed for adaptation, and still more for a “just” energy transition and “civil society” demands for “social dialogue, human rights, the inclusion of [now unpaid family member] care and informal work,” and much more.

* “Climate injustice” also requires that “the biggest historical emitters must be the first to get their domestic emissions down to zero” – and must not do so by buying Net-Zero Banking Alliance overseas (for often imaginary or promissory CO2 reductions). Thus, more deindustrialization and de-growth. And on and on.

* Attention must also be paid to “intersectionality, gender-diverse terminology, and gender equality.”

Of course, leftist-climatist-Islamist intersectionality requires denunciations of Israel. “Protests against Israel’s war in Gaza” must be assured greater “freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in and around the COP” and worldwide, the Germans assert.

What on Earth does COP30 have to do with the recent Gaza war – especially when charges of genocide, human rights violations, and denial of assembly rights to Hamas terrorist supporters are totally absurd?

COP30 promises to be just as entertaining, pointless, and fruitless as previous iterations.

Al Jazeera Is Wrong, Tuvalu’s Islands Are Growing, Not Disappearing

In Al Jazeera’s article, “‘We don’t want to disappear’: Tuvalu fights for climate action and survival,” reporter Lyndal Rowlands claims that the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is on the brink of disappearing beneath rising seas. This is false. Peer reviewed data show that most of Tuvalu’s islands are growing, keeping up with sea level rise (SLR) with the nation gaining land mass on net, and that SLR is not accelerating.

A picturesque view of a tropical beach with clear turquoise waters, soft white sand, and lush green palm trees lining the shore under a bright blue sky.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

An aerial view of a coastal area in Tuvalu, showcasing the shoreline, partially damaged buildings, and waves crashing against the shore. The text 'CLIMATE GRIFT' is superimposed prominently over the image.

In Al Jazeera’s article, “‘We don’t want to disappear’: Tuvalu fights for climate action and survival,” reporter Lyndal Rowlands claims that the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is on the brink of disappearing beneath rising seas. This is false. Peer reviewed data show that most of Tuvalu’s islands are growing, keeping up with sea level rise (SLR) with the nation gaining land mass on net, and that SLR is not accelerating.

The story quotes Tuvalu’s Climate Change Minister, Maina Talia, calling for urgent “climate finance” and help to build seawalls to keep the islands above water. The piece also declares that Tuvalu “needs real commitments” from other nations so that Tuvaluans can “stay in Tuvalu” as the “climate crisis worsens.” It frames the country as a helpless victim of rising seas, citing the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and climate-finance NGOs to reinforce the narrative.

Yet, this story is simply false. Multiple peer-reviewed studies show that Tuvalu is not sinking—it is growing. According to research highlighted by Climate Realism, recent satellite and aerial analyses reveal that Tuvalu’s total land area has increased by 2.9 percent over the past four decades, with 74 percent of its islands expanding in size. Rather than drowning, Tuvalu’s natural processes of sediment deposition and coral accretion are exceeding, the local rate of sea-level rise.

Even The New York Times—no stranger to climate alarmism—recently acknowledged that many Pacific islands are growing, not vanishing. As Climate Realism noted, the Times reported that “many low-lying coral islands are not shrinking, but instead are stable or increasing in land area.” This is consistent with long-term field measurements showing that atoll systems are dynamic, self-repairing, and resilient.

The claim that Tuvalu is “barely one meter above sea level” and faces imminent destruction is a talking point that has been circulating for more than 30 years. Yet, as documented at WUWT in “Remember When the Island of Tuvalu Was Going to Be Inundated by Sea Level Rise? Never Mind.”, Tuvalu remains very much above water. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tides and Currents website, since the 1980s, SLR near Tuvalu has averaged roughly 3–4 millimeters per year— which is equivalent to a change of 1.29 feet in 100 years —hardly the apocalyptic surge portrayed by Al Jazeera. See the graph below.

Graph showing the relative sea level trend for Funafuti B, Tuvalu, from 1920 to 2030, indicating a slight increase of approximately 3.92 mm/year.

Moreover, Climate at a Glance: Islands and Sea Level Rise explains that global satellite data show no evidence that sea-level rise is accelerating, and the rate of increase has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s. Coastal variability, driven by natural processes like El Niño cycles and sediment transport, explains much of what alarmist observers misinterpret as “climate-driven” loss.

If Tuvalu were truly in existential peril, it would not be investing heavily in new infrastructure and tourism amenities. The government has spent millions on airport improvements, resort facilities, and fiber-optic internet connectivity—all to expand the tourism trade. Those aren’t the actions of a nation preparing to vanish beneath the waves. They are the actions of a government seizing every opportunity to extract climate aid while modernizing its economy.

That brings us to the real story: money. Tuvalu’s leaders are campaigning for ever-greater “climate finance” commitments—what Minister Talia calls “real commitments” and “polluter-pay” reparations. In the article, he laments that the country “needs it now, in order for us to respond to the climate crisis.” But what Tuvalu really seeks is not salvation from the sea—it’s a bigger slice of the climate funding pie. As Climate Realism observed, these small island governments have learned that portraying themselves as victims yields lucrative international sympathy and cash. They know a good grift when they see it.

Facts still matter. Tuvalu’s land mass is stable or growing. Its population is not evacuating. Its leaders are not panicking—they’re lobbying for money to be used for ongoing economic development. The “sinking islands” narrative is falsified by peer-reviewed evidence and decades of observations demonstrating that Tuvalu is not disappearing. Al Jazeera reporter Lyndal Rowlands could have discovered this with a simple Google search but instead repeated this decades-old myth without a single reference to the robust scientific literature disproving it.

What’s sinking is honest, fact-based journalism, not Tuvalu.

Head For The Hills! Aviva Warn Britain Will Be Flooded By 2050

Aviva smell higher premiums here, with the help of fictional scare stories.

A dark, flooded cityscape depicting iconic landmarks submerged underwater, showcasing rising water levels and overcast skies.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Oh dear! What a load of rubbish, Aviva!

News article header from Aviva, discussing UK's iconic landmarks at risk from climate change by 2050.
Infographic discussing the impacts of climate change on UK landmarks, highlighting risks of flooding and subsidence by 2050.

Some of the UK’s most well-known landmarks could be at risk from the impacts of extreme weather in future unless action is taken, according to a new report by leading insurer, Aviva.

Aviva’s third Building Future Communities report brings together the latest data to outline the risks that homes could face from multiple climate threats by 2050 and beyond, including flooding, subsidence and extreme heat. The report also highlights the importance of preventative measures to help protect homes, businesses and communities across the UK.

According to the report, some of the UK’s most well-known landmarks, including Cardiff Bay, York city centre and Liverpool waterfront, could be vulnerable to flooding because of rising sea levels, heavier rainfall and more frequent weather events. Even Edinburgh Castle, a hilltop landmark, could be at risk from surface water flooding from increased rainfall overwhelming drainage systems. The Giant’s Causeway, an iconic landmark in Northern Ireland, is likely to be increasingly exposed to coastal erosion and instability.

Our Building Future Communities report lays bare the risks that homes and businesses could experience by 2050. The findings are stark. Millions more properties could be at risk from flooding, with rising temperatures, increased urbanisation and inadequate drainage exacerbating the risks in future.

Jason Storah, CEO UK & Ireland General Insurance, Aviva

Rising temperatures could put other popular well-known attractions at risk. The arts and crafts Red House in south London is already suffering from subsidence linked to the prevalence of clay soils, which swell and shrink during wet and dry weather. Ongoing maintenance will be required to protect its facades as temperatures increase. Plans are already underway to protect these important sights from the impacts of extreme weather, but, like many properties across the UK, further adaptations will be needed to help them get ready for the future.

https://www.aviva.com/newsroom/news-releases/2025/10/uks-iconic-landmarks-at-risk-from-climate-change-by-2050-according-to-new-report

Aviva smell higher premiums here, with the help of fictional scare stories.

This is the basis of their scare:

Executive summary highlighting the impacts of climate change on homes and communities in the UK, mentioning risks of flooding and subsidence by 2050.

The claim about homes at risk from flooding is directly lifted from the Environment Agency, who already laughably maintain that 7 million properties are at risk of flooding:

Table displaying annual likelihood of flooding percentages and total number of properties at risk from rivers and surface water.

The EA then proceeded to add 27% to the river and sea numbers, and hey presto, a third of the country is now going to flood!

Table showing properties at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea due to climate change between 2036 and 2069, including risk bands and corresponding statistics.
Table displaying properties at risk of flooding from surface water, with columns for risk band, number of properties, percentage of total, and percentage change compared to previous assessment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-assessment-of-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-in-england-2024/national-assessment-of-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-in-england-2024

The EA has been working this con for years now. Dream an impossibly big number, then double it. Feed it out top a gullible media and then use it as a basis to forecast ever bigger numbers.

The media gets its scary headlines, insurance sharks put their premiums up and the government gets cover for its ruinous Net Zero agenda.

The whole system is corrupt.

Meanwhile, back in the real world the number of properties flooded each year is in the low thousands.

Bar chart showing the number of properties flooded in England from April 1998 to March 2025, with a significant peak in 2007.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/image-50.png