Day: October 22, 2025

Ross-on-Wye Revisited. – 1976 and all that.

I first reviewed Ross-on-Wye weather station just over a year ago as a classically poor-quality Class 5 site with numerous compromising issues most notably being in an enclosed suntrap “garden”. I noted the site had a long history but overlooked the fact it is one of the Met Office’s “Historic Stations” with data shown all the way back to 1930.

Weather station in Ross-on-Wye with observation platforms and equipment surrounded by greenery and blue skies.

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

By Ray Sanders

A weather station with a blue observation tower, various meteorological instruments on the ground, and a background of hedges and trees.

I first reviewed Ross-on-Wye weather station just over a year ago as a classically poor-quality Class 5 site with numerous compromising issues most notably being in an enclosed suntrap “garden”. I noted the site had a long history but overlooked the fact it is one of the Met Office’s “Historic Stations” with data shown all the way back to 1930. As far as I was concerned that the was end of the matter, there was no way such a poor site should be used to represent the historic temperature record of the country. An then a neighbour who often proof reads my posts dropped an intriguing bombshell.

Paul Homewood over on the excellent “Not A Lot of People Know That” had obtained data from the Met Office comparing recorded temperatures in the exceptional summer of 1976 with those of summer 2025. The first thing that caught my eye was the list of comparatives the Met Office had offered.

Table comparing temperature anomalies between summer 2025 and 1976, featuring locations, degree Celsius differences, and classifications.

Cambridge NIAB was in a completely different location in 1976, as were Writtle and Woburn. Perhaps even more alarming was that “topsy turvy” Santon Downham did not record temperatures at its present site in 1976 ( these only started from 1/11/1988). It was then, in reality, a different station known as “Santon Downham: Grimes Graves” being quite a distance away, a completely different climatology and not even in the same county.

Table containing geographical and administrative details of Santon Downham: Grimes Graves weather station, including latitude, longitude, elevation, and station operation dates.

If these suggested “comparatives” were ridiculous, the case of Class 4 Cavendish was even worse – Cavendish weather station simply did not exist in 1976 anywhere at all with its temperature data only starting from 1/3/1977 as below:

Spreadsheet displaying temperature observation data from the Cavendish weather station, including columns for timestamps, weather observations, and metadata.

The Met Office’s powers of comparison seemingly just fit imagined numbers from the past and claim those as evidence.

I was discussing this point with my neighbour who said he would be very interested to know what the figures were for his original home town of Ross-on-Wye in 1976. I said I would look them up, he responded “Oh no you won’t”. Curious I asked why I couldn’t and his emphatic reply “because it wasn’t there!” This certainly surprised me. Delving into the historic station data file revealed this below – I have screen captured for retention lest it gets mysteriously deleted:

A screenshot of a historical weather data table displaying temperature records from 1975 to 1979, including daily maximum and minimum temperatures.
A detailed monthly weather data table for the years 1979 to 1983, including temperature records and estimates identified with asterisks.
A table displaying weather data, including temperature records from 1984 and 1985, with columns for year, month, daily temperature highs and lows.

Every monthly figure for all measured parameters from August 1975 through to June 1985 were marked with an asterisk denoting they are “estimates” or, in more appropriate common parlance, “made up”. Going to the archive files revealed the following;

1996-05-29CurrentMISSING DATANO DAILY DATA : CLOSED FROM 7/1975 TO 5/1985

My neighbour then revealed his wife had worked for the local council when the station we reopened and pointed out it was well reported at the time. Checking the local press reports online revealed that Ross-on-Wye had the claim to fame of having the longest serving station observer with over 60 year service.

Screenshot of an article from The Ross Gazette announcing the last Weather Report due to the automation of the Ross Weather Station.
Image of historical weather data for Ross-on-Wye, displaying monthly parameters from August 1975 to June 1985 marked as estimates.
An article thumbnail related to Ross-on-Wye weather station, featuring a historical photograph.

For all the quaint homily of the above report the simple fact is no real data whatsoever was produced from the site for over 10 years. However, this obvious data lack never seems to trouble the Met Office. Mean daily temperatures are as below.

………………………………………………..1976…………………………………………………2025

June………………………………………..17.50°C……………………………………………17.95°C

July………………………………………….19.25°C…………………………………………..19.45°C

August……………………………………..18.00°C…………………………………………..18.5°C

So there is the “proof” courtesy of the “Official” data that in Ross-on-Wye, 2025 was “hotter” than 1976. Obviously if you disagree, on any grounds, with this “fact” you must be a “swivel eyed loony”, climate change denying, far right shill for the fossil fuel industry etc., etc.

My neighbour wanted to know where the missing 10-year period data actually came from. I reminded him of the numerical conjuring tricks the Met office employed and the likely “Well correlated” stations used.

Search results for climate stations near Ross-on-Wye, showing options like Hereford, Usk, Cheltenham, and Shobdon Airfield.

Hereford, Credenhill is 15 miles distant at a military base and was not installed until 1/9/1999. Usk was closed 26/5/2011, Cheltenham closed 31/1/2001 leaving the only long term Shobdon alongside a former RAF runway functioning throughout. I shall not repeat the exact comments my neighbour made, suffice it to say he felt the Met office could not be taken seriously making such improbable comparisons between a suntrap park site in central Ross with windswept RAF sites……and as for Usk in Wales!

The serious point to make from all this is that it is becoming increasingly evident that the Met Office “Climate Science” department has given up on any rational form of scientific observation and representation. It is now simply promoting contrived data to fit a political agenda, and this must be stopped.

Carbon Credits Failure: Sachs, Romm, Rockström

“Don’t get tangled up in your own underwear,” an old saying goes. Such applies to the carbon management schemes created by governmental anti-CO2 policy.

Digital illustration featuring the words 'Carbon Credit' in a futuristic design with various graphs and icons in the background, highlighting carbon offset schemes.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Low-quality carbon offsets are undermining global decarbonisation efforts. Around 40% of existing carbon pricing schemes allow the use of offsets, most with no effective limits on quality or quantity. Recent analysis shows that fewer than 16% of more than 2,300 offset projects actually delivered the emission reductions they promised.” – Johan Rockström, (Potsdam Institute)

“Don’t get tangled up in your own underwear,” an old saying goes. Such applies to the carbon management schemes created by governmental anti-CO2 policy.

You reap what you sow. If you politicize an issue by introducing government intervention into voluntary market transactions, then expect suboptimal outcomes. Call it government failure in the attempt to address alleged market failure.

Shame that Big Green does not see itself as the problem rather than “wrong” public policies. And here we are: the Progressive Left complaining about bad climate policy decades after they themselves went political.

Lisa Sachs (Columbia University)

Lisa Sachs, Director of Columbia’s Center on Sustainable Investment, stated:

Thanks to all who engaged w/ my post explaining why there are no credible carbon offsets. I’m pulling together some important points from the comments:

 1 Offsets aren’t just reductions elsewhere.
Companies aren’t honestly reporting challenges of decarb & buying credits altruistically to help achieve reductions elsewhere. They buy credits to falsely report fewer emissions than actually emitted – hence “offsetting.” [this is the result of the misguided emphasis on emissions reporting – more below]. If companies weren’t allowed to use credits to ‘cancel’ emissions, they wouldn’t buy them. A more credible way to have emitting companies pay for other reductions is to implement a levy- that incentivizes reductions & allows public investments to be made at scale w/out false accounting.

2 We need all mitigation & all removals.
Real Net Zero requires full decarbonization, capture/sequestration of the very limited non-abatable emissions, AND preserving/enhancing (degrading) natural sinks AND DAC. We need all. There’s no room for offsetting. The attached pic is best I could find to show effect of using sinks as offsets.

3 Offsets don’t make projects financeable.
Neither RECs nor offsets have ever made a large RE project bankable; offset revenues are too small & uncertain for financing. The real enablers of finance are cost-competitive technologies, long-term offtake, mandates/incentives/subsidies & de-risking mechanisms.

4 Nature & land-use projects need real financing.
Restoration & regenerative land use require landscape-scale planning & public financing. Carbon markets are not the only way to leverage private finance; the public sector can borrow (affordably) & issue other innovative debt/catalytic instruments.

5 Markets can/should finance much of the transition.
Finance is already flowing to many sectors where there are buyers, sellers & cost-competitive technology. Where the transition faces friction (from new technologies, infrastructure gaps, or cost differentials), we need to diagnose the challenge (market risk, regulatory uncertainty, cost of capital, technology premium, etc.) and structure appropriate solutions w/relevant, targeted commitments of off takers, suppliers, public entities, etc.

The defeatism is striking: many suggest its offsets or paralysis. In reality, coordination works (even in the US!): it’s practical, proven, & achievable. But it’s undermined when critical actors can opt for easier alternatives.

And this is perhaps the core issue: by evaluating corporate climate commitments primarily via emissions footprints, we’ve undermined what matters most. What’s most valuable — collective engagement, innovation, and collaboration across sectors & supply chains — isn’t rewarded/incentivized when companies can simply buy credits to “cancel” emissions. The net effect is less cooperation, slower transitions & misplaced confidence that accounting equivalence will substitute for real decarbonization.

Joe Romm (University of Pennsylvania)

Here is a press release from the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media, titled Carbon offsets have failed for 25 years, and most should be phased out – research (October 13, 2025):

Academics at the University of Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania have conducted the most comprehensive review of evidence on the effectiveness on carbon offsetting to date and concluded the practice is ineffective and riddled with “intractable” problems.

Carbon offsets are projects that generate credits meant to represent the reduction, avoidance, or removal of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the atmosphere. The first carbon offset was generated in 1989. The authors call for the phasing out of most credits except those generated by permanent carbon dioxide removal.

“We must stop expecting carbon offsetting to work at scale. We have assessed 25 years of evidence and almost everything up until this point has failed,” says co-author Dr Stephen Lezak, researcher at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. “The present market failures are not due to a few bad apples but rather to systematic, deep-seated problems, which will not be resolved by incremental changes.”

“We hope our findings provide a moment of clarity ahead of COP30: These junk offsets—the ones not backed by permanent carbon removal and storage—are a dangerous distraction from the real solution to climate change, which is rapid and sustained emission reductions,” says lead author Dr Joseph Romm, Senior Research Fellow at the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.

The most severe issues uncovered by the research are nonadditionality (generating credits without reducing emissions), impermanence, leakage, double counting, “perverse incentives,” and the “gameability” of crediting systems, where bad actors have been able to routinely circumvent even well-designed rules. Far from solving these problems, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which was finalised at COP29, simply restated “long-ignored tenets of carbon market development, with the specious expectation that this time the outcomes might differ significantly,” the authors say.

“Despite efforts to implement safeguards, carbon offset projects continue to face documented cases of weak accountability, risking the perpetuation of neocolonial patterns of appropriation. While nature-based projects can deliver local benefits, these should be financed through mechanisms other than carbon credits, such as contribution claims where projects are financed while still ensuring that purchasing entities are responsible for reducing their own emissions,” says co-author Amna Alshamsi, a doctoral researcher at the University of Sussex’s School of Global Studies. Previous research has shown how offset programs routinely overestimate their climate impact, in many cases by as much as a factor of ten or more.

Going forward, all offset markets should prioritise developing high-integrity, durable CDR and storage—with long-term measurement and verification—the authors conclude, while recognising that effective and scalable CDR may not be possible, and will certainly require intensive research and investment.

This approach aligns with the Oxford Offsetting Principles, which encourage companies to reduce emissions first and foremost, and to transition to durable, carbon removal offsetting for residual emissions.

Johan Rockström, (Potsdam Institute)
Johan Rockström, Director at PIK- Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; Professor Earth System Science, University of Potsdam, referencing a recent Nature Communications study, wrote:

Low-quality carbon offsets are undermining global decarbonisation efforts. Around 40% of existing carbon pricing schemes allow the use of offsets, most with no effective limits on quality or quantity. Recent analysis shows that fewer than 16% of more than 2,300 offset projects actually delivered the emission reductions they promised. In our new Nature commentary, we highlight how this lack of integrity erodes trust in carbon markets and why aligning investments with rigorous, science-based carbon assessments must become a priority. Strengthening credibility and accountability in carbon markets must be central to COP30 discussions and to global decarbonisation efforts ahead.

Carbon offsets is a major divide within the Progressive Left, Big Green machine–the Climate Industrial Complex to a lot of us. Another civil war regards nuclear acceptance, a story for another day.

Judge dismisses suit by young climate activists

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by young climate activists that aimed to halt Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders.

A group of young climate activists standing in front of a government building, one speaking into a microphone with a banner that reads 'LET THE YOUTH BE HEARD'.

Plaintiffs had ‘overwhelming evidence’ of climate crisis, but a court injunction would be ‘unworkable’, ruling says

By Maya Yang

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by young climate activists that aimed to halt Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders. The Guardian has the story.

The dismissal by US district judge Dana Christensen on Wednesday came after 22 plaintiffs, ages seven to 25 and from five states, sought to block three of the president’s executive orders, including those declaring a “national energy emergency” and seeking to “unleash American energy” – as well as one aimed at “reinvigorating” the US’s production of coal.

According to the plaintiffs, the executive orders amount to unlawful executive overreach and breach the state-created danger doctrine – a legal principle designed to prevent government officials from causing harm to their citizens.

Among the plaintiffs were also several young individuals who had previously been part of the landmark 2023 Held v Montana case – the first constitutional climate trial in the United States. In that case, a judge ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs who argued that the Montana state government had violated their constitutional right to a healthy environment.

In Wednesday’s ruling, Christensen said that the plaintiffs presented “overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels”.

However, Christensen said: “Yet while this court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged [executive orders’] effect on carbon dioxide emissions, this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act.”

He added: “Granting plaintiffs’ injunction would require the defendant agencies, and – ultimately – this court, to scrutinize every climate-related agency action taken since” the start of Trump’s second presidency on 20 January 2025.

“In other words, this court would be required to monitor an untold number of federal agency actions to determine whether they contravene its injunction. This is, quite simply, an unworkable request for which plaintiffs provide no precedent,” Christensen continued.

Read the full story here.

Dana L. Christensen

Dana Lewis Christensen (born May 23, 1951) is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Montana.

On May 4, 2011, President Barack Obama nominated Christensen to a vacant seat on the United States District Court for the District of Montana

Rain causes wildfires – the climate change gospel 

The Met Office is determined to convince us of the immediate need to cut greenhouse gas emissions. As part of its campaign, it is now reporting that the California wildfires in January were caused by severe heatwaves, droughts and, er, heavy rain.
Yes, really.

A figure representing a mythical deity holds a flaming Earth while four scientists in lab coats kneel in prayer, surrounded by smoke from industrial chimneys.

From The Conservative Woman

By Paul Homewood

The Met Office is determined to convince us of the immediate need to cut greenhouse gas emissions. As part of its campaign, it is now reporting that the California wildfires in January were caused by severe heatwaves, droughts and, er, heavy rain.

Yes, really.

PAUL HOMEWOOD says the Met Office is no longer a serious scientific organisation but has become a political pressure group.

***

Met Office press release, October 16, 2025

‘The latest State of Wildfires report is building unequivocal evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme wildfires.

‘Human-driven climate change made wildfires in parts of South America and Southern California many times larger and more destructive, according to an annual assessment by international experts.

‘According to climate models, the Los Angeles wildfires in January were twice as likely and 25 times larger, in terms of burned area, in the current climate than they would have been in a world with no human-caused global warming. It also made last year’s burning in the Pantanal-Chiquitano region in South America 35 times larger, while also driving record-breaking fires in the Amazon and Congo.

‘However, it is still too early to tell how much climate change contributed to the impacts of the wildfires.

‘The new report warns that more severe heatwaves and droughts are making extreme wildfires more frequent and intense worldwide, resulting in increasing threats to people’s lives – through fire and polluting smoke – as well as property, economies and the environment.

‘Key findings from this year’s report include:

  • Warming increased burning in Pantanal, Chiquitano and Amazon, releasing billions of tonnes of CO2
  • Climate change increased likelihood of Southern California’s deadly fires by at least 2-3 times
  • Experts urge nations to significantly cut emissions at COP30 and adapt to a hotter, more fire-prone world

‘Dr Douglas Kelley of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, who co-led this year’s report, said: ‘Our annual reports are building unequivocal evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme wildfires. Without human-driven warming, many of these wildfires, in Pantanal and Southern California, for example, would not have been on an extreme scale.’ 

‘Report co-lead Dr Matt Jones of the University of East Anglia said: “We urge world leaders at COP30 to make bold commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions rapidly this decade. This is the single most powerful contribution that most developed nations can make to avoiding the worst impacts of extreme wildfires on living and future generations”.’

***

Note the highly political call for rapid cuts in GHGs. It is not the job of the Met Office to canvass for political action.

The report, in any event, is full of contradictions and provides no data to back up their claims that wildfires are more frequent and intense, never mind that climate change has caused anything.

Astonishingly, there appear to be no charts at all which track annual global fire activity since records started. The reason is obvious – facts would destroy the Met Office’s agenda.

The only ‘evidence’ offered is from weather attribution computer models, which have been thoroughly debunked by serious scientists and can be programmed to come up with whatever results you want. If the changes were as drastic as the Met Office pretend, surely there would be ample data to quantify it, instead of relying on make-believe models?

On the contrary, the opposite seems to be the case – the evidence we have shown there is no upward trend. Indeed, the report itself admits that last year’s fire season was below average and was the 8th lowest since 2002!

Global summary of the 2024-2025 fire season, indicating 3.7 million square kilometers burned, which is 9% below the average since 2002 and ranks as the 8th lowest fire season.

Take the US, for instance, which has been highlighted in the report for the California fires. Some years are up, others are down, but there is no underlying trend whatsoever:

Bar chart depicting US wildfire acreage from 2001 to 2024, showing fluctuations in burned area in acres over the years.
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires

Of course, if we go back further in time, wildfires used to be much worse. In those days, they were more or less allowed to burn themselves out, which in turn got rid of all the dead wood and undergrowth which acts as fuel to make forest fires more intense.

Then systematic fire suppression began, which drastically curtailed the size of fires, but also allowed the accumulation of that very same dead wood and undergrowth.

A line graph depicting total acreage burned in the U.S. from 1916 to 2006, showing annual and 5-year moving average trends in millions of acres.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170910052844/https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/criteria-indicators/indicators/indicator-316.php

Laughably, the report even blames the California fires on wet weather, which the BBC also tried to do at the time:

Text discussing the impact of wet weather on California wildfires, highlighting the conditions for fire activity.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/5377/2025

Swain referred to heavy rain during the two winters prior to 2024/25, which I have marked on the rainfall graph below for the Los Angeles Division:

Line graph depicting California's precipitation levels in Climate Division 6 from 1896 to 2025, showing fluctuations in rainfall over the years.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/divisional/time-series/0406/pcp/6/3/1895-2025

Clearly those two years were not unusual at all. California’s climate regularly swings from one extreme to the other.

Equally 2024/25 was not unusually dry either, ranking only the 13th driest since 1895.

Whatever caused the Palisades fire, it was not excessive rain or drought.

Then there’s Europe:

A bar graph illustrating wildfire area in the Mediterranean region (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, and Greece) from 1980 to 2024, showing variations in hectares burned over the years.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/02/23/eu-wildfire-trends-2024/

A declining trend.

Overall, the Met Office study dishonestly cherry-picks the regions where fire activity was above normal last year, blames it on climate change, and ignores all the other places where it was below average.

And then proceeds to claim: ‘The latest State of Wildfire report is building unequivocal evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme wildfires.’

And they call it science!

Paul Homewood

Paul Homewood is a former accountant who blogs about climate change at Not a Lot of People Know That

Climate disaster science gets huge coverage. When it’s found to be wrong… crickets

In the world of climate politics, highly pessimistic scenarios can drive headlines and coverage, and so in turn have an impact on policy. Two recent unfortunate episodes show that the rush to shout “fire” means that some scenarios are gaining massive influence when they should instead be attracting sceptical reviews of the science used to construct them.

A lone figure walking through a desolate landscape filled with towering cooling towers, surrounded by an orange, smoky atmosphere.

We need to embrace data-driven solutions that address climate challenges without torching the global economy

In the world of climate politics, highly pessimistic scenarios can drive headlines and coverage, and so in turn have an impact on policy. Two recent unfortunate episodes show that the rush to shout “fire” means that some scenarios are gaining massive influence when they should instead be attracting sceptical reviews of the science used to construct them. The Telegraph has the story.

Take wildfires. Despite repeated claims of a “world on fire”, data set after data set shows that the world burns ever less in terms of burned area. Disrupting this unhelpful reality, a splashy paper in Nature last year finally found a worrying narrative: “extreme wildfire events” had more than doubled globally over the past two decades. Using satellite data from 2003 to 2023, the authors clustered fire hotspots and tallied their “fire radiative power” – a proxy for intensity. Predictably, this ignited a media bonfire. Outlets from The New York Times to CBS News blared warnings of a planet ablaze, seeing fiercer fires as proof that we are hurtling toward a global inferno.

Hold the extinguishers. New research indicates that the study was wrong. The new analysis shows that extreme fire is down by 35 per cent over the same period. The fires are burning less intensely, and we already knew that less area is getting burned as time goes by – but this contradicts the extreme climate script, so we heard crickets from major media outlets.

There’s more good news we are not hearing much about: 2025 is shaping up as one of the least fiery years on record across most areas of the world. Total burned area in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe is dramatically down compared to previous years – potentially the lowest in the 21st century if the trend holds. We should celebrate this as evidence that adaptation and better land management are working. Instead, such news is buried because it doesn’t align with the orthodoxy of economy-crushing climate policies.

The biggest advert for those policies was last year’s bombshell study – also in Nature – claiming that global real income will be 19 percent lower by 2050 than it would have been with no climate change and 62 per cent lower by 2100. Alarmingly, the research became the go-to damage estimate for the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a powerhouse coalition of central banks and regulators spanning the US, EU, Japan, and beyond.

For decades, solid economics – from Nobel laureate climate economist William Nordhaus and others – has painted a clear picture: climate change is a serious but manageable economic issue, costing 2-3 per cent of global GDP by century’s end. That is the same as enduring one or two recessions over 75 years – hardly societal collapse. But the new research seemed to indicate that the economic damage caused by climate change would be far worse than had been thought.

The UK Office for Budget Responsibility and others cited it in important ways because it aligned with their bias toward the narrative of apocalypse.

Now, several peer-reviewed takedowns – again published in Nature itself – are ripping the new science to shreds, as even the Wall Street Journal has acknowledged. Errors abound: most of the suggested economic damage disappears once data from Uzbekistan is removed from the calculations. The estimated climate impact, correctly analysed, is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

But the damage is already done. The NGFS, which was co-founded by former Bank of England governor and now Canadian prime minister Mark Carney, has the important role of stress-testing financial systems, and it has been using these unfounded disaster costs to regulate banks, potentially triggering unnecessary regulations that could stifle growth.

As climate researcher Roger Pielke Jr. notes, the NGFS has a history of cherry-picking outlier damages over sober estimates – suggesting that the NGFS needs a root-and-branch overhaul of its approach to climate science. Scientific publishing itself needs to take a look in the mirror.

The key takeaway from the two episodes is that it’s important to turn to comprehensive data – and that goes for the media, too.

Climate change needs a response. The true climate challenge is to develop solutions that do not cause more economic damage than climate change would. Adaptation and green innovation can deliver such solutions. Unfortunately, today’s popular climate policies would instead squander 5-20 per cent of GDP while only cutting emissions marginally.

We need to embrace data-driven solutions that address climate challenges without torching the global economy.

Read the full story here.

Bjorn Lomborg is President of the Copenhagen Consensus, Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First”

A Bright New Energy Dawn in the UK

It was just a couple of weeks ago — October 3 to be precise — that I reported that the long-running “net zero” political consensus in the UK was finally “crumbling.” In the intervening two-plus weeks, the slow crumbling has turned into a rapid collapse.

A cloaked figure holding a staff with a decorative design stands in a dimly lit hall, facing a crowd of hooded figures, with lit candles illuminating the stone architecture around them.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

It was just a couple of weeks ago — October 3 to be precise — that I reported that the long-running “net zero” political consensus in the UK was finally “crumbling.” In the intervening two-plus weeks, the slow crumbling has turned into a rapid collapse.

The biggest roadblock for opponents of a green energy transition in the UK has been that the Conservative Party, which should have been the natural home of opposition to net zero, has instead long (and foolishly) allied itself with the net zero cause. In June 2019, the Conservatives (under Prime Minister Theresa May) put through an ambitious amendment to enhance the net zero targets of the 2008 Climate Act and then proceeded to a general election that December where they won a substantial majority of 365 seats (in a parliament of 650). In subsequent years, a parliamentary faction in the House of Commons called the Net Zero Scrutiny Group struggled to get to about 50 or so Conservative members, who were far outnumbered by the opposing faction of the same party called the Conservative Environment Network. The UK voters had surely demonstrated their climate virtue.

But unfortunately, things did not work out quite as they had anticipated. Energy bills accelerated until, as reported in the Telegraph on September 30 and then here on October 3, UK electricity bills have become the highest in the world. De-industrialization has set in and worsened. Britain’s last primary blast furnace steel works at Port Talbot closed in September 2024. A final rolling mill at Scunthorpe, now under Chinese ownership, threatened to close earlier this year until the government intervened. Similar reports of factory closures come regularly from all energy-intensive industries.

On October 6, immediately after my prior post, the Conservatives held a party conference in Manchester. One of the speakers was Claire Coutinho, the Shadow Energy Secretary. Her speech was an incredible breath of fresh air and marked a dramatic u-turn from prior Conservative energy policy. The title was “Energy Is Prosperity.” Some excerpts:

In the last few decades, we’ve lost sight of a simple truth. Energy is a good thing. Conservatives know that great eras of British growth and prosperity happen when we have an abundance of cheap, reliable energy. . . . [E]nergy is not just part of the economy. It is the economy. It feeds into the costs of every business, every journey, every loaf of bread. . . . That’s why right now, the cost of energy is one of the biggest problems we have. It’s a stealth tax that is making us all poorer. And it’s killing our industry.

The Conservatives have finally figured out that the net zero agenda is a program to make the people poorer in sacrifice to the climate religion. More from Coutinho’s speech:

[H]ere’s the problem with the Left – they’re infected with a poverty mindset. They believe that Britain has a duty to make itself poorer on the altar of Net Zero. And they think that ordinary people should be the servants of their climate targets. So, take air conditioning. In America, nearly every single home has air con. Here in Britain? Just 5%. But Sadiq Khan’s London Plan effectively bans air con in all new homes – why? Because it uses too much energy. Rather than people fitting into the Government’s policy on energy, I believe a Conservative energy policy should serve the needs of the people.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I suspect that opposition to a program of intentional impoverishment of the people ought to be an electoral winner. The Labour Party and its Energy Minister, Ed Miliband, continue even now to claim that building more wind turbines will make electricity cheaper. But that claim is based on pretending that huge costs of intermittency, backup, storage, and transmission don’t exist. It has taken a long time for the reality of those costs to become clear, but the truth is now out.

The change in direction from the Conservative Party has come none too soon. On October 10, Bretibart News reported that the UK’s grid manager, National Energy Systems Operator, was forecasting reduced safety margins for electricity generation this winter, at the same time as the Labour government proceeds with dynamiting coal plants that could still be used for backup. The headline is “‘Tight Days’ For Electricity This Winter Says Network Operator as UK Presses on With Dynamiting Potential Backup Power Stations.” Excerpt:

Most notable was the revelation that the gas supply margin this winter is the lowest in years and down by 34 per cent over last year, a change [National Gas] attributes to the dwindling supply of gas being extracted from the North Sea. . . . 1960s-vintage power plants were brought online on command to cover tight margins several times in recent winters. Yet they have now all powered down for good, cut off from the national grid and are being demolished. Indeed, just days before today’s announcement of potential “tight days”, fresh footage of some of the final coal-powered power stations in the UK being dramatically dynamited was published.

I’m not going to predict that Britain will definitely experience major blackouts this winter. But the risk is far higher than it was just a few years ago, and that risk will continue to increase in coming years, until Britain can get itself to build more dispatchable generation, which in anything less than 15 years means natural gas or coal.

And it is not just the Shadow Energy Minister who has caught on. In today’s New York Post there is an op-ed by Kemi Badenoch, the new Conservative Party leader and prospective PM should the Conservatives win the next election. (It is not obvious that they will do so, since the next election could be years away, and another party called Reform UK — also net zero opponents — leads both Labour and the Conservatives in the polls.). Ms. Badenoch’s op-ed covers multiple topics, including immigration and the Middle East as well as energy. Here are some things she has to say on the topic of energy:

[A] place I agree with this White House is on energy. Cheap energy is the foundation of a growing economy. No serious politician can talk about putting money in people’s pockets if they’re also doing things that make energy bills more expensive. . . . [I]n Britain, Labour ministers are so obsessed with chasing net-zero targets that they’re making life harder for ordinary families. . . . We’re sitting on North Sea oil and gas, yet the government refuses to grant new licenses.  We’re now in the crazy position of importing gas from our near-neighbors Norway, who are getting stuck into those same oil fields in the North Sea.

The Conservatives came close to destroying the party by joining the Left’s net zero crusade. The current u-turn may or may not be enough to save the party. However, adding the Conservatives’ position in the polls to that of Reform UK would indicate that opposition to net zero is now close to if not an absolute majority electoral position. That represents an enormous swing in a few short years.

America’s Auto Industry Faces a Rare Earth Reckoning

U.S. automakers remain heavily dependent on Chinese rare earths, making production vulnerable to export restrictions.

A blended image of the American and Chinese flags, with mineral rocks in the foreground, symbolizing the relationship between the US and China regarding rare earth minerals.

From OilPrice.com

By Metal Miner

U.S. automakers remain heavily dependent on Chinese rare earths, making production vulnerable to export restrictions.

The Automotive MMI (Monthly Metals Index) moved sideways, rising a slight 1.39%. As a whole, the US automotive market is facing a number of challenges necessitating both innovation and resilience.

Why Are Critical EV Minerals in Short Supply?

Automakers are grappling with shortages of critical minerals needed for electric vehicles and high-tech components. Rare earth minerals are a prime example. This set of 17 metallic elements is integral to many car parts, from EV motors and batteries to windshield wipers and speakers.

CBS News reports that about 90% of the rare earths used by the US industry are sourced from China. This leaves the US automotive market highly dependent on foreign supply. In May 2025, Ford Motor Co. had to temporarily halt production at its Chicago SUV plant due to a sudden shortage of rare earth magnets needed for electric power steering and other components.

Chinese Control Over Rare Earths Remains a Key Problem

Because China dominates the global rare earth supply chain, even a brief disruption can have a significant impact on the US automotive market. China also refines nearly 99% of the world’s heavy rare earth elements, resulting in a near-monopoly where any Chinese export curbs immediately ripple through manufacturing.

According to EHN, US automakers recently warned that vehicle assembly could grind to a halt within weeks if rare earth shipments didn’t resume. The crisis prompted urgent trade talks. But as of October 2025, China announced even stricter rules, ultimately tying rare earth magnet exports to national security considerations.

The lesson for US firms is clear: supply lines for critical EV minerals are vulnerable, and over-reliance on one country presents a significant strategic risk.

What Strategies Are Automakers Using to Secure Materials?

Facing the twin challenges of rising costs and scarce materials, US automakers are adopting new supply chain strategies to bolster resilience. Diversifying sourcing is priority number one, and manufacturers are seeking alternative suppliers for minerals outside of both China and traditional metal import channels. In some cases, companies are stockpiling critical parts and materials as a buffer.

For instance, German automakers like BMW and Mercedes-Benz reportedly entered 2025 with plans to build inventories of rare earth magnets and other key components when China’s restrictions hit. This kind of inventory hedging can keep production running through short-term disruptions. 

Will the US Automotive Market and Car Makers Strike Lithium Gold in Nevada?

Automakers are also taking a more hands-on approach to raw material supply. A notable example is General Motors’ investment of around $650 million in a Nevada lithium mine (Thacker Pass) to secure a domestic source of lithium for EV batteries.

Other carmakers have signed long-term contracts with US and Australian mining firms for lithium, nickel and cobalt, all to ensure critical battery minerals remain available even if overseas supply chains falter.

Related: U.S. Oil Growth Shifts from Shale to Gulf

Another strategy that is proving key for the US automotive market is recycling and circular reuse of metals. Recycling not only reduces dependence on mined imports but also aligns with sustainability goals. Therefore, manufacturers across the US are partnering with specialized firms to reclaim materials from scrap and end-of-life batteries. For example, Ford recently invested $50 million in Redwood Materials, a Nevada-based company, to integrate battery recycling into its supply chain.

By recycling old lithium-ion batteries, Redwood can provide Ford with a domestic stream of lithium, cobalt and nickel for new EV batteries. Companies like GM are also working with recyclers to harvest scrap from battery production for reuse.

What’s the Outlook for US Metal Procurement in Auto Manufacturing?

In the short term, volatility is the new normal. U.S. automotive procurement executives must continue to navigate unpredictable swings in both policy and supply. Tariffs can change with geopolitical winds, as exemplified by mid-2025’s rapid escalations and subsequent trade truces. Meanwhile, the critical mineral supply can be suddenly pinched by export controls abroad. This type of environment calls for a combination of vigilance and flexibility. 

For instance, many firms are strengthening their risk management by locking in fixed-price contracts for steel and aluminum where possible, while closely monitoring inventories of at-risk materials. Building resilience is the name of the game, and dual sourcing, strategic stockpiles, vertical integration and recycling are becoming standard tools in the procurement playbook. 

Not All Bad News

On a hopeful note, ongoing negotiations and investments may alleviate some pressures. The US and EU recently implemented a trade agreement that lowers certain auto-related tariffs and even exempts some raw materials like rare earths and graphite from duties.

Meanwhile, domestic capacity is inching upward. For example, new aluminum recycling facilities and steel mini mills are coming online, and the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in California is increasing output. That said, the facility still ships its ore to China for processing, at least for now. 

Ultimately, CFOs and sourcing leaders in the US automotive market are balancing a tough equation. To keep assembly lines running and costs manageable tomorrow, they must invest in supply chain resilience today.

Automotive MMI: Noteworthy Price Shifts
  • Hot-dipped galvanized steel prices dropped 3.44% to $1,009 per short ton.
  • Korean 5052 aluminum coil premium over 1050 prices moved sideways, dropping 2.19% to $4.09 per kilogram.
  • Chinese lead prices moved sideways, rising just 0.59% to $2,359.32 per metric ton.
  • Lastly, LME primary three-month copper prices rose by 5.54% to $10,332 per metric ton.

By MetalMiner

Why does the world insanely ignore nuclear power?

There is a lot of talk about nuclear power around the world today. However, except for China and, maybe, Russia, there is no action.

A modern nuclear reactor showcasing a cylindrical core surrounded by glass, with intricate piping and controls visible in a high-tech facility.

From America Out Loud News

By Ronald Stein, Oliver Hemmers, Steve Curtis

There is a lot of talk about nuclear power around the world today. However, except for China and, maybe, Russia, there is no action.

Talk means nothing, but action means everything. Perhaps the reason for inaction is the massive waste of government funding for nuclear power promises. Private capital produces many times more production than government funding does. Maybe if the money were left in the hands of the people, some sense of urgency could be realized. Moreover, to secure monopolies for those who own them, massive government roadblocks are placed in the way of any competition that could disrupt the profits from these monopolies.

Such is the case for government-subsidized wind and solar projects over the last two decades. Because of mismanagement and outright corporate theft, the sizzle has come off the idea of just electricity from “renewables.” Once the private industry lost its government subsidies, wind and solar projects started shutting down. Some, of course, are still around, but no utility company will take even a single penny of risk on solar and wind production.

So, when the gravy train of government subsidies stops flowing, the profit centers move on — no gravy, no profits, no production. Then the citizens are left to clean up the mess. What a deal. Citizens pay to make the mess and now citizens pay to clean it up. All while enjoying the benefits of higher electricity costs. Maybe they will get tired of this scam and start to realize that they really need nuclear power.

The answer to safe, continuous, uninterruptible, emissions-free electricity is laying right in front of us. Locked in the nucleus of each uranium atom is a source of energy that is 50,000,000 times that released by burning an atom of coal.

So, all other things being the same, we should use this natural uranium resource instead of just throwing it away. The commercial nuclear industry, so far, has leveraged only 3% of the energy available in nuclear fuel rods. We would not get very far buying an apple and just eating the peel. Yet, that is what we do with our uranium.

It makes a lot of sense to make use of all the uranium since we went to the trouble of mining it and refining it. Your cheap costs for electricity (worldwide) in past years have come at the price of taxes. In the U.S., the renewable subsidies over the years stand at $5 trillion (or so). This means that every person has paid $15,000 above their power bill for the luxury of having so-called “renewable” electricity. So, do you really wonder what will happen to your power bill when those subsidies are gone?

Now, we add the further economic pressure of a sharply rising demand (data centers) with a stable or slightly reduced supply of electricity. It appears that we have to cover the cost of wind and solar renewables and the cost of competition for a vanishing resource at the same time.

Since data centers are profitable at $3.00 per kWh, how far do you think they will bid before residential customers give up bidding?

Ironically, recycling slightly used nuclear fuel (SUNF) can result in retail prices around a penny per kWh, $0.01, because they do not require special equipment and engineering to work. So, we are either headed for penny per kWh power (recycling in fast reactors) or dollar per kWh power (wind and solar renewables and high data center demand).

Fast reactor recycling, basically, involves dumping chemically altered SUNF (already existing) into a vat of hot molten salt (or sodium). The magic of breeding allows uranium that is unusable in conventional reactors to produce 50,000,000 times more power than coal. This releases at least 90% of the uranium power instead of the current 3%.

Remember, countries are proposing to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to “bury” or throw this uranium material away. Even then, they cannot find a way to do so because the public does not want it in their “backyard.” We are proposing that we turn this hundreds of billions of dollars of liability into hundreds of trillions of dollars of electricity revenue. Sound impossible? Well, a reactor called Experimental Breeder Reactor-II demonstrated this capability with technology called pyroprocessing (extracting elements using voltage and chemistry) and fast reactor recycling. Modern technology allows this to be done with “liquid fuel” mixed right in with the molten salt (best process). Of course, there are many different ideas of how this can be done. The best way to find out which works best is to try it. Only privately capitalized industry tries things more than they talk. So, do you want talk or action?

All we have to do is crank up the free enterprise innovation engine. No other method works nearly as well. To do this, the government has to get out of the electricity business. Government subsidies only cloud the effectiveness of free enterprise and force the warp speed of private innovation to die in the face of the molasses of free government money. If no results are required, people get lazy. But business must have results, or they lose their investments. The only money government loses is your tax money.

So, we must find a way to encourage the innovation of free enterprise while eliminating the molasses of government free money, camouflaged as subsidies. What we need is a proposal submitted to government to explain the logic of this, even in the face of enraging monopolistic interests. Don’t the people deserve the benefit of their investments?

Let’s find those who are advocates of the people. Once investors see $100 trillion in assets, they can be very persuasive. So, what we need is a state governor willing to advocate for the people. So far, none has emerged. However, as prices go up, supply goes down, billionaires become trillionaires from government-funded monopolies, and citizens’ quality of life degrades, hopefully someone will remember the great promise of recycling slightly used nuclear fuel (SUNF). Oh, yeah, the U.S. government has a fund of $50 billion collected from ratepayers plus interest to do only this. In the right hands, innovation can be realized. Believe it or not, the voices of citizens like you could make the difference.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein.

This article originally appeared at America Out Loud


Ronald Stein P.E.

Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”, policy advisor on energy literacy for The Heartland Institute, and The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and National TV Commentator- Energy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato.

Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, energy consultant, speaker, author of books and articles on energy, environmental policy, and human rights, and Founder of PTS Advance, a California based company.

Ron advocates that energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet.


Oliver Hemmers

Oliver Hemmers has a Doctorate in Physics from the Institute of Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the Technical University of Berlin, Germany. He was a Researcher in Physics, the Executive Director of UNLV’s Harry Reid Center and C- level executive.


Steve Curtis

Steve Curtis has a Master’s degree in Health Physics from UNLV. He has spent decades studying spent fuel issues in Nevada and worked as a technical field team leader for nuclear search and characterization missions for the Department of Energy. He is currently engaged in education, speaking, and writing in favor of nuclear power returning to the United States, especially from recycling spent nuclear fuel in fast reactors.

Gosport: Fleetlands – a brief update. Are Met Office temperature readings always trustworthy?

In my recent review of Barkston Heath Airfield I noted that despite appearing in “Daily Extremes” none of the site’s data was archived or visible in any way to the general public directly from the Met Office. In that review I referred to my previous review of Gosport where exactly the same situation prevailed. Yet now Gosport is reporting the daily extreme highest national temperature. How sure can the public actually be that such figures are accurate when there is no public access to the site nor public record. This warranted further investigation.

Four military helicopters flying in formation above a coastal area with a boat in the foreground.

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

By Ray Sanders 

Table displaying UK daily weather extremes for October 16, 2025, including highest maximum temperature recorded at Gosport Fleetlands as 18.5 °C.

In my recent review of Barkston Heath Airfield I noted that despite appearing in “Daily Extremes” none of the site’s data was archived or visible in any way to the general public directly from the Met Office. In that review I referred to my previous review of Gosport where exactly the same situation prevailed. Yet now Gosport is reporting the daily extreme highest national temperature. How sure can the public actually be that such figures are accurate when there is no public access to the site nor public record. This warranted further investigation.

Worrying issues at Gosport include the military nature of the site with the very largest of helicopters – Chinnok – based at the site and almost certainly passing overhead of the temperature sensors. Exhaust heat and rotor-wash are well known phenomena with a significant likelihood of adversely affecting readings accuracy. Clicking on the hyperlink for Gosport offers this below for Thorney Island plus the suggestion of looking for other nearby places.

Screenshot of the Met Office website displaying observations for Thorney Island, West Sussex, with a note about its proximity to Gosport Fleetlands.

Firstly, it must be remembered that a modern Platinum Resistance Thermometer (PRT) is very rapidly responsive to temperature changes. Former Liquid in Glass Thermometers (LIGT) were much slower to respond and were very much less likely to respond to brief transient heat bursts specifically aviation effects.

Met Office PRT readings protocol is to take readings every 15 seconds, add 4 consecutive readings together and divide by 4 to provide 1,440 daily averaged readings i.e. one every minute. The maximum and minimum of each day is then added together and divided by 2 to provide a daily meteorological “mean”. This “extremes only” system is therefore highly responsive to any tiny change in these extremes.

The Met Office has reported a national daily high of 18.5°C for 16th October 2025 at Gosport. I shall investigate via those “other nearby locations” to ascertain just how sure the public actually can be this is a real natural temperature reading or alternatively some unnatural artificial event. Weatherobs.com offers site readings for Gosport on the hour. The maximum reported figure was only 17.1°C at 12:00 GMT. Readings either side were 15.75°C at 11:00 and 16.15°C at 14:00. Mysteriously (as is so often the case) the potentially peak time of 13:00 reading is missing.

Weather data report for Gosport, Fleetlands displayed with temperature and humidity graphs, including max, min, and average temperatures, wind speeds, and visibility statistics.

The situation here is that the maximum reading of 18.5°C is very much higher than those available readings but could well have occurred within that two hour gap period from midday onwards. How does the temperature profile for Gosport compare with neighbouring sites that are visible from Met Office sites? Thorney Island is under 10 miles distant to the east and demonstrably acts as the proxy for Gosport. The Met Office WOW graph below indicates time in BST so 1 hour adjustments are required.

Graph displaying the air temperature and dew point in Celsius for Thorney Island on 17th October 2025, with temperature values shown in red and dew point values in blue.

The Met Office WOW 13:00 BST reading at Thorney Island peaked at just 16°C and equates to the 12:00 GMT Gosport weatherobs reading of 17.1°C. Thorney Island readings then fell away never reaching within 2.5°C of Gosport’s claimed peak.

Moving west of Gosport produces the similarly non archived Met Office Southampton Oceanography centre, yet again mysteriously not supplying the 13:00 reading but also not registering within 2°C of that 18.5°C maximum.

Weather data report for Southampton, displaying maximum, minimum, and average temperatures over the last seven days, along with wind speed and humidity levels.

Moving onto private weather stations reporting to the Met Office WOW site there is one at Lee-on-the-Solent under 3 miles from the Gosport site. Despite every hour readings, again none came within 2°C of Gosport.

Graph displaying air temperature and dew point in Celsius for Lee-On-The-Solent near Browndown, recorded on 17th October 2025.

Moving in even closer to Southsea at less than 1.5 miles away, again no readings come close to matching Gosport’s claimed peak.

Graph showing air temperature and dew point in Celsius for Southsea on 17th October 2025, with variations in temperature over time.

At this point none of the multiple official Met Office nor reliable private sites in the vicinity (shown below with Gosport itself as the blue dot) either followed the unusually spiky temperature profile displayed by the Gosport readings or got particularly close to the “extreme” national high reading for the day

Map showing weather stations around the Portsmouth area, including Gosport, with markers indicating different locations.

This is not positive disproof of the Met Office reading, however

  1. The Met Office does not directly show the previous days readings for Gosport only offering Thorney Island in lieu.
  2. None of the surrounding sites appear to have come within 2°C of the reported maximum.
  3. None of Gosport’s readings are ever archived for public viewing.
  4. The site is in a restricted area unavailable for public scrutiny

Below is a reminder of the type of activity at Gosport Fleetlands.

Aerial view of a helicopter on a helipad surrounded by grass and asphalt surfaces.

Are Met Office temperature readings always trustworthy? Who knows.