Day: November 27, 2025

NOAA Sea Levels

This study consists of two parts: –

Part 1 – Variation of NOAA Sea Levels globally and for the 24 sub-areas.

Part 2 – Variation of NOAA Sea Level data based on individual satellites.

Most of the figures can be found in 2 Google Drive files details of which can be found in the appropriate Parts.

A collage of four images depicting sunsets over the ocean, showcasing varying colors and cloud formations in the sky.

Watts Up With That?

By Dr. Alan Welch FBIS FRAS

General Summary

This study consists of two parts: –

Part 1 – Variation of NOAA Sea Levels globally and for the 24 sub-areas.

Part 2 – Variation of NOAA Sea Level data based on individual satellites.

Most of the figures can be found in 2 Google Drive files details of which can be found in the appropriate Parts.

Part 1 – NOAA Sea Levels – Variation of each sub-area

Having studied the sea level data released on https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ over the last 7 years in became opportune to apply the same methods and procedures to the NOAA data released on https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php.

These datasets were published at irregular intervals and listed the sea level readings from the 5 individual satellites both globally and for 24 sub-areas of the Oceans, Seas and Gulfs.  As each sub-area has generated at least 5 graphs there are well in excess of 130 graphs produced, too much for a paper, but they can all be found on a Google Drive link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KCYo7iYmVxbEoTubeP7YB06jEVQo82k5/view?usp=sharing.

This paper will not go into much discussion but will act as a depository for the graphs for others to have access to.  The following notes describe the study.

1. Both the individual satellite results and the combined results for each sub-sea have been studied but this paper only concerns the latter.  Graphs for all sub-seas have been produced.  Some aspects of the individual satellite results will be reported in Part 2.

2. The order of the presentation will be different from the NOAA order as follows:-

     First the Global results

     Next 22 sub-seas listed in increasing value of Easting.  The Easting for each area is defined as the number of degrees E an approximate centre of the sub-sea is East of the 180-degree longitude.  The reason for doing this is in the off chance that one or more derived parameters varies in a systematic way in the longitudinal direction which would be informative.

   Finally, the 2 circum-global areas, namely the Southern Oceans and the Tropics.

3. When analysing the combined results if two satellites have the same date/time then their values are averaged.

4. The data are from Sept 2024.  The latest available data are for about the end Feb 2025.  At the time of writing no updates have taken place since Feb 2025.

5. The graphs produced for each area are as follows with the graphs for the Yellow Sea being used to illustrate:-

  • A graph, Figure 1, of all the satellite readings colour coded for each satellite.
Scatter plot showing NOAA Yellow Sea individual satellite sea level readings over time, with varying colors representing different satellites. Y-axis indicates sea level in millimeters, while the x-axis represents date from 1980 to 2025.
Figure 1
  •  A graph, Figure 2, of the full combined data with the linear and quadratic best fit lines shown together with their equations.  It may seem rather excessive precision has been used but better to be safe than sorry.  Sometimes actual year dates, like 1993, may have been used and when powers of these appear in equations extra precision must be used to guarantee accuracy.
Graph showing NOAA Yellow Sea Levels over time since 1993, with a scatter plot of data points, quadratic and linear best fit lines, and corresponding equations.
Figure 2
  • A graph, Figure 3, of residuals defined as the actual value minus the equivalent value on the linear best fit line.  Added is a best fit sinusoidal curve calculated via an iterative process along with the parameters of that curve.
Graph showing curve fitting for sea level data in the Yellow Sea, with plotted data points and a fitted line indicating trends over time.
Figure 3
  • In Figure 4 is a spectral analysis of the data indicating any peaks generally between about periods of 10 and 40 years.  Usually, peaks with about a 10-year period or less are due to irradiance variation or El Niño events.
Spectral analysis graph showing amplitude versus period years for the Yellow Sea, indicating peaks at around 18.8 years.
Figure 4
  • A plot, Figure 5, of how the derived “acceleration” changes with the year of determination.  In previous papers it was suggested that this plot for analyses of the Global Sea Level was important in the way it changed with time.  It seemed that the shape was like a slightly underdamped sinusoidal oscillation, but events change so slowly that repeating it for several other sea areas may prove informative.
Graph illustrating the acceleration of sea level change over time in the Yellow Sea, showing data points and a horizontal reference line.
Figure 5

At this stage a short thought on the term global sea level.  Both Tidal Gauges and Satellite readings are not global.  The former cover only a very limited portion of the sea but the length of monitoring can be useful as some stretch back over 200 years.  Conversely the satellite coverage is just over 30 years and covers 95% of the seas.  In previous work I have suggested that this missing 5% is the cause of the sinusoidal oscillation in the global variation.  Also, that the missing 5% may mainly be found in the North Atlantic, North Sea and Arctic Ocean areas.  A preliminary investigation some years ago of several Tidal Gauge records of ports in these areas showed promise but a further study making more use of spectral analysis has been carried out that is more comprehensive and will be reported on at a later date.

The results of the various analyses have been collated in several tables.  A first preliminary look at the satellite and residual plots was made to ascertain if any data were suspicious. Having calculated all the residuals a histogram was produced for each sea and the standard deviation derived.  The table of statistics is shown below, Table 1.

A table summarizing standard deviations and residual statistics for various oceanic sections and regions, highlighting values for the Global, South China Sea, and Tropical areas.
Table 1

The South China Sea and the Tropics each contained a suspicious reading.  Calculating the ratio of the maximum absolute value of any residual to the standard deviation showed values of 13.3σ and 11.8σ respectively, which are very large hence they were replaced by the average of the 2 adjacent values.  The analyses then proceeded with Table 2 giving the slopes and “accelerations” for each sea.  Results for the South China Sea and the Tropics are presented but only using the modified data.

A table showing sea level data for various oceanic areas, including easting degrees, slope, quadratic coefficient, and acceleration metrics.
Table 2

The next stage was fitting a sinusoidal curve via an iterative process.  The equation is shown in Excel Format.

             =  CONST + AMP * SIN(((SHIFT + 2 * A1)/PERIOD) * PI())

where CONST is a constant mean sea level (mm)

AMP is a +/- amplitude variation (mm)

SHIFT is a phase shift (years)

and PERIOD is a period of a complete oscillation (years)

Table 3 shows the results of the curve fitting, again in order of increasing Eastings.

A table displaying sea level data for various oceanic sections, including Easting degrees, constant values, amplitude, shift years, phase shift degrees, and period years.
Table 3

Following the spectral analyses a comparison was made between the Period derived in the equation fitting and the main Period found in the spectral analysis.  All agreed within about 5% and most within 2% except for the result for the Persian Gulf which was 50% different.  The curve fitting gave a period of 12.2 years, but the spectral analysis showed 2 peaks of 12.3 and 24.5 years as shown in the Figure 6 below.  A best fit curve with a longer period is also shown in the file of graphs.

Graph depicting the spectral analysis of sea level data for the Persian Gulf, showing amplitude against period in years with annotations for 12.3 and 24.5 year peaks.
Figure 6

The Indian Ocean and the adjacent seas and gulfs show multiple peaks or short periods in the spectral analysis.  The Indonesian Sea has a single peak of 10.9 years, but this may be due to irradiance.  The Indonesian Sea is studded with 100’s of islands with its own particular flow pattern.  But what is of interest is the convergence plot that shows more clearly the damped oscillations pattern as is seen in Figure 7.

Graph showing convergence acceleration measurements in the Indonesian Sea, with results analyzed up to the year minus 1993. It displays data points indicating acceleration in mm/year² over time.
Figure 7

Finally, the Eastings order was used to see if there was any variation with longitude with any parameter.  No totally  clear evidence was found but below in Figure 8 is a plot of “acceleration” against Easting for the 24 areas which does not appear to be a random graph .

Scatter plot showing 'Acceleration' versus 'Easting' with data points represented by green dots.
Figure 8

If there was a decadal oscillation around the Earth it would show up in the phase shifts which would affect the “acceleration” calculation.  This effect was investigated by repeating the Indian Ocean calculation but starting the data in 2000 instead of 1993.  Starting in 1993 it now registers an “acceleration” but starting in 2000 it registers a “deceleration”.  Both analyses are shown in the file of graphs.  The corresponding sinusoidal curves and spectral analyses are little changed.

At the start it was stated that this work was not a thorough analysis of all the NOAA sub-sea datasets but more a systematic presentation of a large amount of analysis and graphical presentation for others to comment upon.  It is hoped readers may find it informative.  I know many are sceptical of any curve fitting be it quadratic or sinusoidal.  Many reject the data totally,  but with such a large database of readings it seemed a waste not to carry out some investigations.  If you don’t look you don’t find.

Part 2 – NOAA Sea Levels – Variation based on individual satellites

Following on from Part 1 when the averaged sea levels were studied, Part 2 investigates the individual satellite readings.  Little has been produced studying the separate satellites although one example has been shown a number of times, namely the graph by Willis Eschenbach shown in Figure 9.

Graph showing the trend of annual sea level rise from five satellites, with colored lines indicating trends for each satellite from 1995 to 2025. The sea level anomaly in millimeters is plotted against the year, with trend values labeled.
Figure 9

This has been used to help discredit the findings that an acceleration in sea level rises exists – a worthy use.  To a lesser extent the graph has been used to discredit the sinusoidal curve fitting but as part of this analysis the equivalent graph has been produced and is shown in Figure 10.

A line graph depicting global sea level data over time from 1992 to 2024, showing various annual rates of increase in millimeters, with different colored lines representing different trends.
Figure 10

It can be seen that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.  But Nature and NASA may have combined to mislead somewhat.  Figure 10 can be modified by subtracting the linear fit values from all the readings.  This results in Figure 11.  On this are marked 2 points of inflection where the curvature changes sign.  These are at a residual value of -0. 2 mm.

A graph illustrating the residuals of global sea levels from 1992 to 2024, showing points of inflection with multiple curve lines representing different trends.
Figure 11

Each half of the sinusoidal curve is skew symmetric about an inflection point and in this case the 2 sets of satellite data are roughly skew symmetric about an inflection point.  If they had been exactly skew symmetric then each pair of satellites would have had the same slope.  Hence having 2 pairs of satellite data with almost the same slope is a sign that the data may follow approximately a sinusoidal curve.  Plots similar to Figure 11 are produced for all 24 sub sea areas and most are different from the Global graph as they have different phase shifts and/or different periods.  The only similar case is that of the Atlantic Ocean which hints that this has some input to why the Global variation has a sinusoidal variation.

Each region of sea will generally have 3 plots which are described by reference to the Yellow Sea again.

All the graphs can be found on the Google Drive file.

The first graph, Figure 12, shows the linear fit to all the data together with the linear line for each satellite.  All the lines for the Sentinel-6MF satellite are more erratic due to the short period involved and the domination of the latest El Niño during this period.

Line graph showing sea level data for the Yellow Sea from 1992 to 2024, with multiple linear trend lines indicated for different time periods and their respective slopes in mm/year.
Figure 12

Figure 13 shows the 5 satellite linear lines superimposed on a best fit sinusoidal curve.

Graph showing sinusoidal sea level data for the Yellow Sea from 1992 to 2024, with multiple colored lines representing different data trends.
Figure 13

Finally, Figure 14, shows all the individual data with the best fit sinusoidal curve superimposed.

Graph showing sea level data over time for the Yellow Sea, with points color-coded by year and a trend line indicating overall sea level change.
Figure 14

The 2 sets of graphs are arranged to have a similar outlay with each sub area occupying one page.  If possible, they can be viewed side by side on a split screen. Figure 15 shows a split screen presentation for the Indonesian Sea.  Some computers/systems may not be able to accomplish this. 

Two pages displaying graphs and analyses of sea level data for the Indonesian Sea, including data trends, slope and acceleration, curve fitting, spectral analysis, and convergence of acceleration.
Figure 15

Comparing the first figure of each sub area with the “global” plot only the Atlantic plot is similar except for the 2 special areas namely the Southern Seas and the Tropics.  The North Atlantic and North Sea do not compare with the “global” so no definitive conclusion can be made.  Having said that the Atlantic Ocean, North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea all have a period in the range 24 to 27 years according to the fitted sinusoidal curves.   It is planned to revisit the question of why the “global” sea level has a variation by using later procedures, like spectral analysis, on the Tidal Gauges in the northern reaches of the Atlantic Ocean.

# # # # #

Climategate Turns 16: Never Forget

Another anniversary is marked regarding one of the greatest scientific scandals in the history of physical science, politicized physical science. Many books have been written on Climategate, one of the best, in terms of finding middle ground, being Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming

A stylized illustration of a fiery orange planet partially submerged in water, with dramatic lighting and cracks visible on its surface.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009.

Another anniversary is marked regarding one of the greatest scientific scandals in the history of physical science, politicized physical science. Many books have been written on Climategate, one of the best, in terms of finding middle ground, being Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming (Random House UK: 2010).

Pearce, then climate reporter at the The Guardian, wrote an extensive opinion-page editorial at the Progressive Left organ. His “Climategate’ was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer Review,” was fronted by this editor note:

In a unique experiment, The Guardian published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

We hoped to approach that complete account by harnessing the expertise of people with a special knowledge of, or information about, the emails. We wanted the protagonists on all sides of the debate to be involved, as well as people with expertise about the events and the science being described or more generally about the ethics of science. 

Fred Peace began:

The response of the science establishment to the hacking is set to become a case study in public relations disasters. One PR figure from a major environment group said: “Their response will be taught in university communications courses – because I’m going to make sure it is.”

After quoting the reactions from those involved– Michael Mann (“a high-level orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem”); Phil Jones (“ludicrous”); Kevin Trenberth and IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri (an attack on Copenhagen’s COP 15); [1] Ben Santer (“the vilest personal attacks [from] powerful forces of unreason”)– Pearce opined:

But the contents of the emails was not edifying for anyone. And the sceptics were making hay. They gleefully blogged that the emails revealed extensive data manipulation….

The status quo went defensive, Pearce next noted.

The mood changed. Even Mann, whose words featured prominently in early soundbites published from the emails, began an op-ed in the Washington Post with the words: “I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote.” The website that Mann co-hosts, RealClimate, offered the half-apologetic insight that the emails offered “a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined

Pearce’s historically important piece went on to explain the problem of climate science not being replicable and the need for data transparency, what the Climategate controversy brought to light. He documented a wide call for openness to replace “tribalism” in climate science, quoting from scientists.

[Climate researcher Mike] Hulme and [philosopher Jerry] Ravetz called for a “major change in the relationships between science and the public”, with wider public scrutiny of its findings and methods using “the proliferating new communication media… Science is a deeply human activity, and we need to be more honest about what this entails.”

And in 2025, 16 years and 16 COPS later, the public is souring on climate-model alarmism and the public policies therein. Confident predictions from causality-deficient and untestable climate models sound alarms that time refutes. The estimated warming itself begs the question: what anthropogenic warming is good, bad, or benign? And what side-effects are negative or positive?

Killing the Messenger

Today, Climategate apologists complain that the November 2009 hack was just a fossil-fuel conspiracy and an excuse for “denialists.” Stephen Schneider, a global-cooling-to-global-warming alarmist, complained about “the hackers illegally obtain[ing] private emails among exasperated climate data scientists decrying their besieged status by some politicians and fossil fuel interest groups trying to deny global warming and attacking their work and character….”

The climate “skeptics” community immediately labeled it “climate-gate” as if the climatologists whose private thoughts, doubts and frustrations were now widely disseminated without context and sent to media and political venues, were the perpetrators, rather than the victims. My favorite label on this sad debacle is simply: ‘Climate Denier Gate’ to refocus on the ‘gate’ part.

He continued:

The email blogs asserted, and the media dutifully covered it as a scandal of climate scientists’ cover-ups. Thus, the private frustrations of a few climate scientists was turned into an ostensible plot by the entire climate science community in dozens of countries, hundreds of institutions, and hammered out over 40 years of peer reviewed assessment studies … as some kind of fraud.

But even the most sympathetic alarmist could not erase the behind-the-curtain look at the United Nations/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN/IPCC) consensus–and the whitewash that followed. And remember what Schneider himself said, Climategate-like:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.

That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. [2]

—————–

[1] Pearce noted: “The emails made little impression at the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen in early December. This was about raw politics and not climate science.”

[2] Schneider. Quoted in Jonathan Schell, “Our Fragile Earth.” Discover (October 1989), pp. 45-48.

Britain threatened by gas shortages as North Sea output plummets

Britain faces the risk of severe gas shortages as plummeting North Sea production leaves the country dangerously reliant on imports, the UK grid operator has warned.

An offshore oil rig illuminated by lights, surrounded by turbulent waves and dark storm clouds, with a lightning strike visible in the background.

Energy security at risk as grid is forced to rely on foreign suppliers

Britain faces the risk of severe gas shortages as plummeting North Sea production leaves the country dangerously reliant on imports, the UK grid operator has warned. The Telegraph has the story.

In a report published on Wednesday, the National Energy System Operator (Neso) said gas production was poised for a steep decline because of Labour’s energy policies – posing a risk to Britain’s energy security as the grid becomes in hock to foreign suppliers.

Neso’s analysis came after it assessed the impact of Labour’s ban on new exploration and the 78pc tax rates imposed on North Sea gas producers.

According to the energy body, gas availability will be 78pc lower by 2035 compared with today – equivalent to a decline of up to 13pc a year.

It also warned that the amount of gas produced by the North Sea this year will decline by over 80pc – from 27 billion cubic metres (bcm) to just 5bcm by 2035 – making the UK massively reliant on supplies from Norway, the US and Qatar.

“During periods of peak demand in the 2030s, we expect GB’s import dependency could rise above 90pc,” said the report.

“Our analysis identifies an emerging risk to UK gas supply security. In scenarios where all gas supply and network infrastructure are operational, this risk is evident only where peak gas demand remains close to or above current expectations.

“However, in the unlikely event of the loss of the single largest piece of gas infrastructure, gas supply falls short of demand.”

The reference to gas infrastructure refers to the potential failure of the pipelines feeding Norwegian gas to the UK or to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal going offline.

Norway supplies nearly half the UK’s gas via North Sea pipelines – but it too is running out, with production set to halve between now and 2035, Neso warned.

The findings contradict Ed Miliband’s pledge to make the UK less reliant on imports and on “petrostates”.

Read the full story here.

UK Climate Change Minister Claims COP30 Victory

“… the delayers and defeatists are losing the climate fight …”

A stylized comic illustration of a man wearing a bright red superhero suit with gold accents, standing confidently in a cityscape.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… the delayers and defeatists are losing the climate fight …”

We delivered a clear message at Cop30: the delayers and defeatists are losing the climate fight

Ed Miliband
Mon 24 Nov 2025 04.57 AEDT

For all its flaws, the Brazil conference underlined the wish by a global majority for clean energy and climate action – and the UK will keep leading the way

…

It is true that Britain wanted more from this Cop, including details of how we would speed up the global energy transition through an agreement that explicitly pledged a roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels. This didn’t happen because some countries would not agree.

Yet on this issue, we have seen the emergence of an impressive coalition of 83 countries from the global north and global south, backed by more than 140 global businesses and civil society groups. And Brazil will launch a roadmap to help countries transition away from fossil fuels and scale up clean energy.

…

The message coming out of Belém was clear: despite the noise, clean energy and climate action remain the foundation on which the global economy is being remade and rebuilt. We are up against the march of time and massive global forces that would slow down or stop action. In the face of this opposition, multilateralism is our best hope. For all its flaws, Cop has reaffirmed the belief of the vast majority of the world in this ideal. Those who would deny or prevent action are not winning the argument, they are losing.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/23/cop30-ed-miliband-climate-change-brazil-conference-clean-energy

Miliband’s analysis of COP30 is, how shall I put it, a bit of an outlier.

UN warns world losing climate battle but fragile Cop30 deal keeps up the fight

Reaching agreement in divisive political landscape shows ‘climate cooperation is alive and kicking’, says UN climate chief

Damian Carrington, Oliver Milman, Jonathan Wattsand Damien Gayle
Mon 24 Nov 2025 04.46 AEDT

The world is not winning the fight against the climate crisis but it is still in that fight, the UN climate chief has said in Belém, Brazil, after a bitterly contested Cop30 reached a deal.

…

“We knew this Cop would take place in stormy political waters,” said Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate chief, after a long and occasionally angry final plenary at the climate summit. “Denial, division and geopolitics has dealt international cooperation some heavy blows this year.”

But Cop30 showed that “climate cooperation is alive and kicking”, Stiell added, making an oblique reference to the US, which under Donald Trump opted not to send anyone to Belém. Trump, who has called the climate crisis a “hoax” and a “con job” has come to embody the opposition to progress on dealing with dangerous global heating.

Stiell said: “I’m not saying we’re winning the climate fight. But we are undeniably still in it, and we are fighting back. Here in Belém, nations chose unity, science and economic common sense. This year there has been a lot of attention on one country stepping back. But amid the gale-force political headwinds, 194 countries stood firm in solidarity – rock solid in support of climate cooperation.”

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/23/un-warns-world-losing-climate-battle-but-fragile-cop30-deal-keeps-up-the-fight

If even the UN is saying the world isn’t winning the climate fight, why is Miliband so positive?

Miliband’s plan to power Britain with solar panels is absurd. Even where I lived in the South of England, you were lucky to see the sun in Winter, with overcast skies and only 8 hours of daylight. Even when the sun does peak through, it is low in the sky, only 15º above the horizon in midwinter.

Wind turbines fare a little better in British winters, but Britain still sometimes suffers prolonged and bitterly cold wind droughts.

UK Electricity Grid Rescued by Gas as Massive Winter Wind Droughts Disrupt Supply

So long as those gas plants are required to prop up Britain’s fake green energy system, the owners of those plants will demand the same profits they would have made if the plants were operating full time, otherwise they’ll pack up and relocate somewhere more profitable. That is why green energy is such a failure, the hidden cost which has pushed up British energy prices.

Greens like Miliband are losing the climate fight, not just because of climate skeptics, but because the solutions they are pushing simply don’t work. Despite the positive thinking delusions of the climate faithful, sooner or later nations like Britain will run out of money to spend on fake green energy solutions. What happens next is anyone’s guess.

Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan Are Right, Government Is to Blame for the Severity of L.A.’s Fires, Not Climate Change

On a recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, comedian Adam Carolla and host, Joe Rogan, pointed out that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wrongly blamed climate change for wildfires in California, when, in fact, wildfires are natural and the severity of the one in Los Angeles was largely due to flawed actions taken by the state and local governments. Rogan and Corolla are right, the natural climate of southern California has always been prone to wildfires, but responsible government action could have mitigated the horrific one that struck Los Angeles.

Two men, one with a shaved head wearing a blue shirt and the other with dark hair and glasses, are seated at a podcast table, smiling and engaged in conversation.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

On a recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, comedian Adam Carolla and host, Joe Rogan, pointed out that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wrongly blamed climate change for wildfires in California, when, in fact, wildfires are natural and the severity of the one in Los Angeles was largely due to flawed actions taken by the state and local governments. Rogan and Corolla are right, the natural climate of southern California has always been prone to wildfires, but responsible government action could have mitigated the horrific one that struck Los Angeles.

On episode 2,412 of The Joe Rogan Experience, Carolla, a Los Angeles resident, criticized Newsom and the state of California’s response and excuses with regards to wildfires, particularly those from last winter in the Palisades.

To excuse his own failures, Newsom will “just blame everything on climate change, which is insane,” Carolla said. He went on to give examples of other locations where natural disasters are common and yet have been mitigated by human effort and civil engineering, like air conditioning making Nevada livable, and New Orleans’ levees.

“So we did not prepare for the fires, we didn’t clear the brush, we didn’t fill the reservoirs,” Carolla said. He also argued that, even if he granted Newsom’s position on climate change causing the fires, “now do something!”

Rogan added that the real cause is not climate change, though, “because L.A.’s had the same climate forever, there’s been fires that happened through L.A. where L.A. burns half to the ground […] It doesn’t rain there ever, and it’s been like that forever, that’s why they film movies there. It’s not climate change, you [explicative], it’s poor preparation.”

Carolla joked that it only rains after the fires so that the area can have mudslides.

Carolla and Rogan are both correct. Climate change was not responsible for the devastating fires. Natural factors and poor brush and water management were.

As covered by Climate Realism at the time of the fires, here and here, fire is a natural part of the southern California landscape. In the past, frequent low temperature wildfires would spread through the brush and small trees, burning them up and preventing the build-up of large amounts of fuel for major fires. Now, every wildfire is put out as soon as possible, and the brush is never cleared. It grows more densely, dries out during periods of drought, and can fuel larger, hotter fires once the right conditions line up. California exercises poor land and forest management, particularly under Newsom, during whose watch the state and U.S. Forest service has not met prescribed burn targets or forest thinning. Carolla’s complaint of “do something,” hits home amid these issues.

In fact, it seems the podcast struck a nerve with Newsom’s office. The spokesperson for Newsom pushed back, and claimed that extreme winds and dry terrain from climate change aided the fire’s spread.

While it is true that those conditions made fires worse, it is not true that they are caused by climate change. High, dry winds are so common to Los Angeles that they even have a name, the Santa Ana winds, which are natural, well documented, and driven by pressure systems over the Great Basin. They have not changed amid the modest warming of the past century. The dry conditions referenced are also not unusual.

What has changed is the huge growth in population in southern California. More people living in the Los Angeles area means more people are impacted by fires when they occur. It has also set up a situation where arson is more common. This was the case in the fires that preceded and ended up leading to the Palisades fires; a 29-year-old man has been indicted for maliciously setting the fire. Climate change didn’t do that, human evil did. And climate change didn’t cause the fire to flare-up again; state government did by interfering with the Fire Department’s efforts to ensure the fire that was still smoldering on state land was completely extinguished. It’s all on tape!

What is true and unusual is the fact that despite having nearly full reservoirs just a month before the fires started, the Santa Ynez reservoir in the Palisades was offline and empty in January. A large amount of snowpack water in California was wasted because it was allowed to flow into the Pacific. Thus, when the fires started, hydrants ran dry.

California has an infrastructure and water management problem, not a climate change problem. Hence, Rogan and Carolla are right, it is a government problem – more particularly, in this instance, a Gov. Newsom problem. The public is fortunate to have popular podcasters like Rogan promoting climate realism, rather than toeing the line for government failures and its use of climate change as a scapegoat for its poor management decisions.

Bovaer Bovine Stupidity

Late last year, Arla Foods began a trial of Bovaer in 30 farms across the country. At the time, according to BBC Very Iffy, the company claimed the additive could reduce methane emissions from cows by 30-45%. News of the trial caused consternation among some and led to a boycott of some Arla products. The manufacturer of Bovaer, DSM-Firmenich said these people were the subject of mistruths and misinformation and the product was “totally safe” for use.

An animated cartoon depiction of a cow lying on its back with its eyes closed, tongue sticking out, and green gas emissions around it, suggesting a humorous take on cow health and methane emissions.

From The Daily Sceptic

By David Turver

Late last year, Arla Foods began a trial of Bovaer in 30 farms across the country. At the time, according to BBC Very Iffy, the company claimed the additive could reduce methane emissions from cows by 30-45%. News of the trial caused consternation among some and led to a boycott of some Arla products. The manufacturer of Bovaer, DSM-Firmenich said these people were the subject of mistruths and misinformation and the product was “totally safe” for use.

Meanwhile, Bovaer was mandated to use across Denmark in early October this year and there have been many reports that the additive is damaging to livestock, prompting an investigation by the Danish government. By pure coincidence, Arla announced in early November it had stopped the British trial and was evaluating the results.

How did we get into this position of endemic bovine stupidity? Let’s dig in.

Net Zero Emissions

At root, this whole controversy is a story about Net Zero. The climate alarmists are concerned that methane concentrations in the atmosphere measured in parts per billion are having a devastating effect on the climate. This prompted organisations like UK FIRES to call for beef and lamb consumption to fall by 50% by 2030 and be eliminated altogether by 2050.

In its Seventh Carbon Budget the Climate Change Committee (CCC) was less draconian, calling for a 25% reduction in overall meat consumption by 2040 and 35% by 2050 compared to 2019 levels. Within this, it expects a steeper 40% reduction in red meat by 2050. CB7 also calls for a 27% reduction in the number of cattle and sheep by 2040 and a 38% reduction by 2050. It calls for these reductions even while noting that methane emissions “are already 62% lower than they were in 1990”.

Carbon Cycle

The alarmist narrative is driven by a misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. Cows and other ruminants have roamed the earth for thousands of years. For instance, there were about 60 million bison in North America in the 18th century, compared to about 87 million cattle in the US at the beginning of 2024. Somehow these bison did not manage to cause runaway global warming.

This is because of the cattle grazing carbon cycle (see Figure 1).

Illustration of the cattle-grazing carbon cycle, showing the processes of methane degradation, photosynthesis, animal emissions, soil and plant emissions, and carbon sequestration.
Figure 1. Cattle Grazing Methane Carbon Dioxide Cycle

Cows eat grass and methane released from cow belches and rotting manure is released into the atmosphere. The methane oxidises to CO2 quite quickly and then is reabsorbed by grass through photosynthesis. The grass grows and stores the carbon in its leaves and root systems. The cows then eat the grass and the cycle begins again.

Although methane is emitted during the cycle, it is then reabsorbed, so the net effect on the climate is negligible.

Impact of Methane in the Atmosphere

In addition, the concern about methane in the atmosphere is overblown (see Figure 2).

Diagram illustrating the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth's atmosphere, showing energy intensity, wavelength, and atmospheric absorption components including water vapor, carbon dioxide, oxygen, ozone, methane, and nitrogen oxides.
Figure 2. Methane Absorption Frequencies

As can be seen, the absorption frequencies of methane are almost entirely covered by the absorption frequencies of water vapour. The average concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is about 0.25%, or about 2,500 parts per million. By contrast, methane concentration is about 1,900 parts per billion, or more than three orders of magnitude lower than water vapour. The idea that a change in methane concentration will have an impact on climate when its absorption frequencies are already saturated by water vapour is absurd.

Bovaer Impact on Cows

Now we turn to the impact of Bovaer on livestock. Back in 2024, the Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture produced a paper setting out the impact of Bovaer on methane emissions and milk productivity.

The paper documented five experiments on Danish cow herds. The reporting of the results is not quite consistent, with some focusing just on methane reduction and others also including the impact on Energy Corrected Milk Yield (ECM) (see Figure 3).

Table summarizing the impact of Bovaer on methane emissions and Energy Corrected Milk Yield from various experiments.
Figure 3. Impact of Bovaer on Methane Emissions and Energy Corrected Milk Yield

Both Johnson experiments showed reductions in methane emissions of about a third, with corresponding reductions in ECM of a similar magnitude. The Kjeldsen experiment reduced methane emissions by nearly a quarter but was silent on the impact on milk yields. The first Maigaard paper showed an 18-23% reduction in methane emissions and simply recorded an unquantified negative impact on milk yields. The second Maigaard paper showed a reduction of between 31% and 34% in methane yield and zero to 5% reduction in ECM depending upon Bovaer dosage. It is noteworthy that none of the experiments got anywhere near the high-end 45% reduction in methane emissions claimed by DSM-Firmenich.

Another meta-study by Pupo et al. concluded that 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), the active ingredient of Bovaer, reduced methane emissions by 27.9% but a dairy with 1,000 cows would need to be compensated by $128,320 per year to cover the cost of the additive and loss of milk yield.

We can only wonder at the bovine stupidity that would mandate the introduction of an additive that reduces milk yields almost as much as emissions. To get the same output, we would need more cows and have almost the same total emissions, but of course at much greater cost.

Bovaer Safety Data Sheet

The Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for Bovaer leads to additional concerns. It shows Bovaer causes serious eye damage, skin irritation and is suspected of damaging fertility. If the product gets in the eyes, users are recommended to immediately call a Poison Centre and rinse with water for several minutes.

This calls into question DSM-Firmenich’s claim that Bovaer is “totally safe” to use.

The Danish Experience

The Farmers Guardian has reported health issues in Danish cows being fed with Bovaer. The Danish Government made the feeding of Bovaer in herds of over 50 cows compulsory on October 1st 2025. On these farms, Bovaer must be added to the cow’s ration for at least 80 days a year. Farmers have said that their cows have suffered from issues including fever and diarrhoea, fertility performance has been impacted and in some instances farmers have reported cows have collapsed and died. Maybe the suspicion of fertility issues in the SDS can soon be confirmed as fact.

A farmer described Bovaer as a poison, noting an explosion in digital dermatitis and higher somatic cell counts. Higher somatic cell counts indicate lower milk quality and suggest udder infection. When he stopped adding Bovaer to their feed, cow health showed huge signs of improvement and somatic cell count fell by 20% two days later.

Danish farmer Kent Nielsen took to X with a video complaining that since started feeding his cows with Bovaer on October 1st his cows have suffered from diarrhoea, gut paralysis and milk fever. He also reported losing 3kg of milk per cow. He has since stopped administering Bovaer after consulting a vet.

Mr Neilsen’s profile on X also documents many instances of what he terms “Bovaerpoison” on other farms, including the death of calves.

Who could have guessed that messing with the digestive processes of cattle would impact their health?

Conclusions

The climate alarmists have made no secret of the fact they want to reduce meat consumption and cull our livestock herds. They have a mistaken belief that methane emissions from cows are damaging the climate, without considering full carbon cycle of ruminant herds.

The mad rush to Net Zero has caused an outbreak of bovine stupidity amongst our ruling classes. They have come up with Bovaer as a dangerous solution that cuts yields as well as emissions to a non-existent problem of cow flatulence. It is hardly surprising that tampering with the digestive processes of cows would harm their health. Some say that the purpose of a system is what it does, so maybe they see the imposition of Bovaer as an easy way to reduce the number of cows on farms. In effect, we must sacrifice the cows to appease the weather gods. We can only hope that Arla does the right thing and decides not to extend the Bovaer trial into the wider farming community.

David Turver writes the Eigen Values Substack page, where this article first appeared.

New York’s 2030 climate target is impossible

A colorful artistic rendering of a city skyline featuring tall buildings near a river, with a bridge connecting two sides of the waterfront.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

A night view of the New York City skyline illuminated by city lights, featuring the Brooklyn Bridge and the East River.

New York Governor Hochul has told the Court her administration cannot write the regulations required to enforce the Climate Act’s 2030 emission reduction targets because they would be infeasible and ruinously expensive to New Yorkers. For all practical purposes, they are actually impossible, so the law must be changed.

The legal situation is explained in my article “New York’s climate law hits the wall” here:

Below is a brief analysis of the impossibility.

The law calls for a 40% reduction in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 levels by 2030. According to state data, the emissions have already been reduced by 10% leaving a whopping 30% to go in just four years.

Most of the reductions occurred in just two ways that are similar to America as a whole. Foremost, is a switch from coal to natural gas in electric power generation. Second, is the loss of manufacturing, helping to make China the industrial center of the world. Neither of these reduction measures is available or feasible to help hit the remaining 30%.

According to EIA, roughly 50% of New York’s energy consumption is from petroleum. About 80% of this is transportation fuel, especially gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. It is clearly impossible to reduce transportation by 30%. In some cases, electrification is technologically feasible, but it cannot possible be done at the needed scale in just four years.

This is especially true given much of the transportation is from out of state vehicles. New York stands between New England and the rest of America, so it gets a huge amount of through traffic.

In addition, an estimated 20% of New York households heat with fuel oil. Winters are very cold, so we are not about to cut that by 30%.

The next biggest source is natural gas, which accounts for about 30% of energy consumption, not counting electricity generation. Roughly 60% of households are heated with natural gas as are most larger buildings, such as apartments, co-ops, offices and stores. Here again, while electrification is theoretically possible, it cannot possibly be done in just four years.

A big extra complication is that the emissions to be reduced 30% include those out of state emissions created by producing imported electricity and fossil fuels. This might include emissions from things like Texas refineries and Pennsylvania coal fired power plants. New York obviously has no control over these sources.

Here is the Climate Law’s incredible definition of the emissions that need to be reduced: “”Statewide greenhouse gas emissions” means the total annual emissions of greenhouse gases produced within the state from anthropogenic sources and greenhouse gases produced outside of the state that are associated with the generation of electricity imported into the state and the extraction and transmission of fossil fuels imported into the state.”

New York imports almost all of the huge amounts of petroleum and natural gas that it uses. These out of state emissions are likely to be a significant fraction of those that are required to be reduced 30% in just four years.

Plus of course, there are the emissions from electric power generation. Roughly 40% of the natural gas consumed in New York is used to generate electricity. About 54% of the generated electricity is powered by natural gas versus just 15% from renewables, mostly hydro. These numbers can be little changed in just four years.

New York State cannot cut emissions by the required 30% in just four years, so the 2030 target of the Climate Act is impossible. The legislature must change the law, and the Court has given them until February 6 to do so. After that, the Court says it will impose the Climate Law, which would be incredibly harmful.

Stay tuned to CFACT to see how this perilous drama proceeds.

Whistling Past the Graveyard: COP30’s Mutirão of Make-Believe

An analysis of Carbon Brief’s exhaustive post-mortem on the Belém climate summit

A surreal depiction featuring a large mouth at the top with an illustration of a graveyard below, blending elements of nature, tombstones, and a skull to convey a somber message.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

An analysis of Carbon Brief’s exhaustive post-mortem on the Belém climate summit

This piece examines Carbon Brief’s sprawling report on COP30—an 89-page chronicle of diplomatic contortions, procedural chaos, and policy minimalism presented to the world as climate “progress.” Their article attempts to catalogue what negotiators supposedly achieved at the UN climate summit in Belém, Brazil, yet the very details they provide reveal an event that stumbled from crisis to pretense with all the elegance of a wind turbine losing its blades. What follows is not a critique of Carbon Brief’s reporting—which is thorough—but a critique of the hollow spectacle their reporting documents.

Headline of an article about COP30 climate talks in Belém, featuring individuals engaged in discussion.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop30-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-belem/

If COP30 was the “COP of truth,” as its hosts claimed, then truth has developed a sense of humor.

Because what Carbon Brief describes is a summit whistling past the graveyard—smiling bravely while its own assumptions collapse around it, insisting loudly that it is “keeping 1.5°C alive” even as its negotiators refuse to name the fossil fuels they claim to be phasing out, cannot agree on whether to reference the scientific body that underpins the entire enterprise, and spend days trapped in huddles over whether “efforts” should be “encouraged” or merely “called for.”

With that preface, let us walk through the graveyard together.

The Mutirão: Sweeping Up the Debris of Disagreement

COP30’s headline deliverable—the “global mutirão”—was billed as a unifying text, a collective sweeping-up of the summit’s major issues. In practice, it became a dustpan for everything negotiators didn’t want to deal with.

Carbon Brief notes that the mutirão was an attempt “to draw together controversial issues…including finance, trade policies and meeting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal”. That phrasing captures it neatly: this was an attempt, not an outcome.

The presidency pushed hard to present this bundle as a breakthrough, but the content speaks otherwise. The fossil-fuel “roadmap” everyone expected? Absent. The deforestation roadmap? Missing. A strengthened 1.5°C pathway? Downgraded to good intentions delivered through two voluntary initiatives no one can define.

The mutirão is a triumph of diplomatic phrasing over substance—a demonstration of how climate diplomacy manufactures momentum where none exists.

When a COP Can’t Even Control Its Own Climate

It’s difficult to take a summit seriously when it cannot keep its own venue from overheating, flooding, or catching fire.

Carbon Brief reports that “faulty air conditioning units” caused “dangerously high temperatures,” while water leaked into rooms and “a major fire broke out in the Africa pavilion” that left “a hole through the roof” and forced thousands to evacuate. The UN climate chief even wrote to the Brazilian government expressing concern.

One could almost call it poetic: delegates demanding planetary climate stabilization found themselves unable to locate functional HVAC.

Perhaps instead of betting $1.3 trillion on transforming the global financial system, the COP could start with a working thermostat.

Adaptation Finance: The Mathematics of Make-Believe

The adaptation section of Carbon Brief’s report is the clearest window into how climate policy has become an accounting fantasy. The mutirão “calls for efforts to triple adaptation finance,” but does not define a baseline year, pushing the target out to 2035 instead of 2030. Carbon Brief characterizes the language as “weakened” and “ambiguous.” Even negotiators admitted the outcome was “not how we reach a global goal on adaptation”.

The numbers alone border on satire:

  • Developed nations delivered only $26 billion in adaptation finance in 2023—down from the year before.
  • The UN estimates developing countries need $310 billion per year until 2035.
  • Yet COP30 declares that tripling the current paltry sum—somewhere between vague and undefined—counts as progress.

Tripling from nowhere in particular to nowhere measurable is not policy. It is numerology.

The report quotes a negotiator stating:

“We cannot keep returning to debate figures; the figures will only grow if action does not follow.”

In any other field, this would be interpreted as a warning that resource allocation must be grounded in real budgets. At COP30, it was interpreted as a mandate to inflate the figures further.

The 1.5°C Target: A Sacred Number No One Can Say Out Loud

COP30 continued the tradition of insisting the 1.5°C limit remains “within reach,” even while acknowledging the “carbon budget…is now small and being rapidly depleted” and that overshoot is now functionally inevitable.

But rather than confront the implications honestly, the summit birthed two new voluntary initiatives: the “global implementation accelerator” and the “Belém mission to 1.5°C.” Both are so ill-defined that even seasoned observers struggled to explain them.

Carbon Brief calls them “ill-defined voluntary initiatives” with “few accountability anchors” and notes the decision “fell well short” of what many countries had demanded.

In other words: placebo policies to soothe those who still pretend the target is scientifically plausible.

The fundamental problem is this: the 1.5°C target is treated less as a scientific benchmark and more as sacred scripture. COP30 could not bring itself to admit that the target is incompatible with the continued growth in global emissions—something even the summit’s own synthesis reports concede.

But once a number becomes moralized, it must be defended at all costs, even if doing so requires performing optimism on the diplomatic stage.

Fossil Fuels: The Roadmap That Never Was

Perhaps the most glaring omission in the final text is the absence of the fossil-fuel roadmap Lula and others spent months promoting. Carbon Brief recounts how countless nations backing a “transition away” from fossil fuels had to accept that COP30 would produce no such roadmap—only a promise to discuss one at the next COP.

The report quotes that the final mutirão text:

“contained no fossil-fuel roadmap.”

Saudi Arabia declared that “the energy sector was off the table.” China, India, and the LMDC group opposed references tying climate ambition to fossil-fuel transition. The presidency eventually conceded the issue was a “red line” for a “great majority” of countries—though it never released the list.

Thus, the COP designed to deliver the “COP of implementation” instead delivered the COP of non-implementation, kicking the can one more year down a road already paved with missed commitments.

Trade Measures: The Green War by Other Means

Climate policy has morphed into a trade war, and COP30 made that impossible to hide. The final decision included, for the first time, references to “unilateral trade measures” such as carbon border tariffs, establishing three years of dialogues on their geopolitical impacts.

The text states that such measures “should not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination”—which is the diplomatic equivalent of warning the EU that the rest of the world is not amused by its green tariffs.

China called UTMs “the new injustice.” Saudi Arabia said they would “exacerbate poverty.” The African Group warned these measures would be destabilizing.

This is the part of the climate story many in the West prefer to ignore: climate policy increasingly functions as a competitive tool for industrial advantage. The rhetoric of cooperation masks a mounting global backlash.

The graveyard is getting crowded.

Gender, Science, and the Irony of Consensus-Based Systems

Some of the most absurd episodes of COP30 involved issues not even related to emissions. Negotiators spent days arguing over the definition of gender. The Holy See insisted gender should refer “to the female and male sexes” and demanded this be recorded in the COP’s report, earning boos from the plenary hall.

Meanwhile, the COP could not bring itself to affirm the IPCC as the “best available science.” As Carbon Brief reports, the final text “failed to endorse the IPCC,” and important scientific findings—including that 2025 was likely among the hottest years in history—were removed.

Bangladesh described itself as “deeply concerned” that references to the IPCC were being weakened. Saudi Arabia successfully demanded removal of language about “countering misinformation”.

When a climate summit cannot agree that climate science should inform climate policy, the performance nature of the event becomes difficult to deny.

Loss and Damage: The Fund That Exists Mainly as a Press Release

The much-celebrated Loss and Damage Fund remains an empty shell. Of the $790 million pledged, only $397 million has actually been paid in—small change compared to the “hundreds of billions” annually that developing nations supposedly require. The fund’s first disbursement will amount to just $250 million spread over six months.

The report notes negotiators spent “more than 80 hours” discussing bureaucratic reviews while vulnerable nations pleaded that “no more of these negotiations…It is enough”.

COP30 called this success.

The graveyard chuckles.

Just Transition: When a Mechanism Is Mistaken for a Mission

Activists declared a victory when COP30 agreed to create a “just transition mechanism.” But the final text quietly deleted references to:

  • Critical minerals
  • A transition away from fossil fuels
  • Trade barriers
  • Stocktake integration

One expert quoted by Carbon Brief noted the mechanism’s vagueness:

“If you don’t have a coordinating entity…it’s just a dialogue. It’s a series of events.”

There’s the essence of COP30: a series of events masquerading as a mechanism.

When Even the Plenary Falls Apart

Carbon Brief recounts how Panama tried to intervene during the adoption of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) text but the presidency ignored its flag—twice. Colombia said the same happened to their delegation. Ministers stormed the microphones, demanding transparency.

One negotiator shouted:

“I raise my flag and you ignore it. I raise a point of order, and you ignore it.”

The presidency then suspended the plenary for an hour because the diplomatic process had melted down.

This is climate governance in its 30th year. Imagine the outrage if a corporate board meeting operated like this.

The Whistling Gets Louder

Carbon Brief’s article is not intended as a critique of the climate-policy machine—yet it inadvertently documents its slow-motion collapse. Read between the lines and you see a system struggling to maintain the illusion that its foundational assumptions still hold.

Consider what the report reveals:

  • The summit couldn’t deliver the fossil-fuel roadmap that was its central ambition.
  • Adaptation finance commitments remain vague, delayed, and mathematically implausible.
  • Climate science references were contested or removed.
  • The gender action plan nearly derailed over definitions centuries old.
  • Trade measures ignited geopolitical tensions COP can no longer disguise.
  • Loss and damage finance is symbolic at best.
  • And procedural dysfunction overshadowed substantive negotiation.

Yet despite all this, press statements proclaimed COP30 a success.

Thus the graveyard grows, and the whistling turns into a chorus.

As a skeptic committed to disciplined neutrality—not the reflexive dismissal caricatured by activists, but the genuine skepticism that asks for proof, consistency, and measurable outcomes—it has been clear for awhile that climate diplomacy has become untethered from empirical rigor. It rests instead on narrative: crises must be declared, success must be announced, and doubt must be discouraged.

But doubt is precisely what a functioning system requires.

COP30, as documented meticulously by Carbon Brief, demonstrates what happens when doubt is banished: institutions become theatrical, numbers become symbolic, and policy becomes aspirational fiction.

The world deserves better than ritual declarations and shifting deadlines. It deserves honesty about uncertainty, transparency about costs, and recognition that centralized plans cannot remake complex systems on demand.

Until then, global climate summits will continue whistling past the graveyard—hoping the ghosts of their own broken promises don’t answer back.