Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The end is nigh – not for the world, but for the climate industrial complex. It has been a decline brought about mainly by the sheer reality of energy economics in the developing world.
The end is nigh – not for the world, but for the climate industrial complex. It has been a decline brought about mainly by the sheer reality of energy economics in the developing world.
Published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the “World Energy Outlook 2025” reads like an obituary for the fantasy of global decarbonization, acknowledging the undeniable truth that nations prioritizing prosperity must unapologetically embrace coal, oil and natural gas.
For years, the IEA and Western think tanks insisted that hydrocarbons were in structural decline, predicting a fatal drop in demand after 2030. Yet in the very document meant to track progress toward realizing an absurd net-zero objective, the IEA concedes that demand for oil and natural gas will continue to grow well beyond 2035 and may not peak until 2050.
The key insight of the IEA report is that emerging markets, excluding China, are becoming the primary drivers of growth in global energy consumption. This is a massive, structural shift. No longer will the trajectory of energy markets be dictated by the policies of Paris, Berlin or Washington but rather by the sovereign choices of nations whose citizens are desperate for better lives.
India is projected to see the fastest average increase in energy consumption among all emerging markets, rising by a robust 3% each year on average through the middle of the century. Oil and natural gas will meet a large percentage of this. India’s oil use is projected to jump from 5.5 million barrels per day in 2024 to 8 million by 2035 to match growth in aviation, vehicle ownership and the manufacture of plastics and chemicals.
But the real deal is India’s and Indonesia’s adoption of coal – until recently treated as a relic of the past. For the next 40 years, the dynamics of this fossil fuel will be shaped in the boardrooms of New Delhi and Jakarta.
The demand for coal by India’s industrial sector is projected to skyrocket by an astounding 60% by 2035. Nearly a quarter of new steel manufacturing globally is planned for India and Southeast Asia, with production in these regions to almost double by 2035.
Indonesia’s need for industrial coal is expected to increase by more than 45% over the same period. Factories, nickel smelters and chemical plants – the backbone of its manufacturing boom – are consuming more energy every quarter.
Perhaps the IEA’s most revealing figures are for growth in per capita electricity demand. India’s and Indonesia’s are to grow by 80% and 70%, respectively, by 2035.
These surges are driven by air conditioning, appliances, urbanization and relentless population growth. Power-grid extensions in Indonesia have almost doubled, adding nearly 1 million kilometers of new lines within a decade.
The IEA notes that India hit its 2030 target for non-fossil power capacity five years ahead of schedule, yet fossil fuels continue to provide the lion’s share of flexible and dispatchable generation. Why? Because so-called renewables remain intermittent, and only fossil fuels, along with nuclear power, can hope to guarantee the kind of reliability that industry requires and modern society expects.
For India and Indonesia – and many others – coal is a guarantor of industrial ascendancy; and it very well may prove to be a key ingredient in the development of data centers in the already tech-dominated cities of India.
For developing nations, the primary threats come from energy deprivation and economic stagnation, not ideological driven forecasts of a climate apocalypse. Serious leaders will not place their bets on unreliable technologies like wind and solar in pursuit of Western elites’ fanciful “carbon-free” utopia. Way too much is at stake.
This commentary was first published by American Thinkeron November 17, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
As I watched the final round of the youth-led COP30 forum virtually, young attendees took the stage to deliver a message that — perhaps without realizing it — exposed deep cracks in the UN’s climate machinery. Their remarks reflected growing disillusionment with the empty pageantry of these conferences: endless speeches, layers of process, and the ritualistic unveiling of new pledges that generate headlines but no real environmental progress.
As I watched the final round of the youth-led COP30 forum virtually, young attendees took the stage to deliver a message that — perhaps without realizing it — exposed deep cracks in the UN’s climate machinery. Their remarks reflected growing disillusionment with the empty pageantry of these conferences: endless speeches, layers of process, and the ritualistic unveiling of new pledges that generate headlines but no real environmental progress. What they expressed was frustration, but it was also something more telling: a recognition that top-down bureaucracy is failing and that real solutions come from people — not committees.
For decades, COP gatherings have followed a predictable script: sweeping rhetoric, “historic” declarations, and regulatory proposals that burden economies while doing little for the environment. The youth panel cut through that veneer with surprising honesty. Speaker after speaker detailed the tedious committee process, their exclusion from meaningful decision-making, and the tokenized nature of “youth representation.” They are invited into the room to be seen but rarely permitted more than a minute to be heard.
One of the strongest themes to emerge from the panel was a demand for implementation over promises. Young participants openly questioned why nations repeatedly announce ambitious targets but fail to achieve them. Far from a radical revelation, this is a point free-market environmentalists have made for years: Central planners are excellent at drafting frameworks, but terrible at delivering results. Top-down mandates often contradict technological or economic realities, restrict innovation, and make it harder — not easier — for communities to adapt and thrive.
Instead of doubling down on global regulation, countries should be empowering innovators, entrepreneurs, and communities to scale the technologies that actually improve environmental outcomes. Holistic agriculture, better land management, advanced nuclear power, biodegradable plastics, and unique solutions to pollution — all are being developed not by UN subcommittees but by problem-solvers who get their hands dirty and build things. It is technological innovation, not political pageantry, that moves the needle.
The youth panel also highlighted the lack of diverse perspectives in international climate discourse. They noted that developing regions, rural communities, and technical experts rarely have their realities represented. This is another area where market-driven approaches outperform rigid global governance — because free societies adapt solutions to local needs instead of imposing uniform restrictions that ignore economic and cultural differences. In the developing world especially, heavy-handed climate rules can stunt growth and entrench poverty. Free markets, by contrast, make energy affordable, expand opportunities, and empower communities to rise into prosperity — after which genuine environmental stewardship becomes both desirable and achievable.
A Stark Contrast: Anxious COP Youth vs. Clear-Thinking CFACT Collegians
If there was one thing the Youth Forum made unmistakably clear, it’s the level of crippling anxiety many UN-aligned young activists are carrying. Their comments were laced with fear — fear of the future, fear of collapse, fear that the world is spiraling beyond repair. It was a portrait of a generation who have been told from childhood that humanity is the planet’s enemy, and time is quickly running out. Meanwhile, CFACT Collegians across the U.S. and beyond present a powerful counterexample: a community of students who are optimistic, industrious, and grounded in reality. Instead of spiraling into existential dread, Collegians spend their time planting trees, countering the climate crisis narrative, cleaning up waterways, exploring energy solutions, and engaging peers through creative outreach. They don’t catastrophize; they problem-solve. They don’t despair; they build. While UN youth plead for more bureaucracy and red tape, CFACT students roll up their sleeves and model what practical, science-based, free-market environmental stewardship looks like.
Perhaps the most revealing moment of the youth panel came during their closing remarks, where participants urged each other to “be the adults in the room” and pursue pragmatic solutions. Ironically, that’s exactly the mindset missing from COP’s leadership. Too often, these conferences elevate feelings over facts, ideology over engineering, and theatrics over technology. What results is a widening gap between soaring rhetoric and the actual conditions on the ground.
Their frustration should serve as a wake-up call. Young people do not want more bureaucracy, more restrictions, or more hollow declarations of climate “ambition.” They want solutions that work. If world leaders are serious about empowering the next generation, they must embrace the only framework proven to lift societies, improve environmental quality, and foster innovation: free markets, human ingenuity, and individual liberty.
That is where real climate leadership begins. And increasingly, it’s CFACT Collegians — not young UN bureaucrats in the making — who are leading the way.
Electricity prices are rising, and Democrats blame President Trump. For years, articles in the media have said that renewables provide the lowest-cost electricity, claiming that wind and solar generators were cheaper than coal, natural gas, and nuclear. But prices are soaring in green energy states that install wind and solar and close coal plants.
Electricity prices are rising, and Democrats blame President Trump. For years, articles in the media have said that renewables provide the lowest-cost electricity, claiming that wind and solar generators were cheaper than coal, natural gas, and nuclear. But prices are soaring in green energy states that install wind and solar and close coal plants.
Rahm Emanual, former Democrat mayor of Chicago and White House chief of staff, recently said that bigger electric bills “are a direct result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which cut green energy subsidies.” But the OBBB became law in July, subsidy cuts don’t take place until 2027, and power prices have been rising for many years while subsidies were in place. Green energy states obsessed with climate policies are suffering from escalating prices.
Data from the US Department of Energy (DOE) show that electricity prices in California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York have risen more than 30 percent in the last five years compared with just 22.5% nationally. Because of climate policies, these states closed their coal-fired power plants over the last 15 years, with the exception of one coal plant in Maryland and one in Maine. In comparison, prices in Georgia, Florida, Missouri, Texas and other states hampered less by green energy initiatives are rising less than the U.S. average. These states continue to be more friendly to lower-cost hydrocarbon fuels for electricity generation.
California’s electricity prices are up 59% over the last five years. The state closed all but one of its coal plants and all nuclear facilities except the Diablo Canyon plant. California now has the nation’s second highest residential electricity prices at 31.9 cents per kilowatt-hour, almost double the national price of 16.5 cents. The state’s massive investment in renewable sources, which accounted for more than half of California’s in-state electricity generation in 2024, has driven the price jump.
Power prices in Massachusetts are up 31% over the last five years. Residential prices are 29.4 cents/kWh, the third highest in the nation. The state produces only about half of the electricity it produced in 2010 because of closures of coal plants and the Pilgrim nuclear plant in 2019. Commercial and residential solar provided about one-fourth of Massachusetts power generation in 2024. Plans call for all new generating capacity to be wind and solar.
Surging electricity prices were a top issue in the New Jersey gubernatorial election. Candidates Jack Cittarelli and Mikie Sherrill both criticized the power policies of retiring governor Phil Murphy. Driven by green energy goals, New Jersey closed one nuclear plant, five coal plants, and two gas plants during the terms of governors Murphy and Chris Christie. Because of the plant closures, the state must now import about one-fifth of its power from other states. Both Murphy and Christie promoted offshore wind, but these projects are now stalled due to rising costs and Trump Administration opposition.
Green policies have created a costly natural-gas shortage in New England. In 2024, gas generated 55% of electricity for New England homes. But for more than a decade, New York blocked the construction of gas pipelines to New England in an effort to decarbonize. To reduce the shortage, the region imports liquified natural gas from Canada and overseas locations at higher prices.
The lack of pipelines forces residents in Connecticut and other New England states to pay as much as double the price for gas compared to residents in other states. Connecticut electricity prices have climbed 31% in the past five years largely because of gas restrictions. The Trump Administration is pushing to revive the Constitution and NESE pipelines to bring lower-cost gas to New England, projects that were blocked by New York.
New York electricity prices rose 37% over the last five years. The New York State Scoping Plan calls for 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% zero-emissions electricity by 2040. The state closed its last coal plant and also the Indian Point nuclear plant in 2020, planning to generate increasing output from wind and solar sources. But renewables have not grown fast enough and the New York Independent System Operator now warns of a growing power shortfall.
Power prices in Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and Texas have risen 21% or less over the last five years. These states continue to rely on lower-cost hydrocarbon fuels for electricity generation: Florida (73% gas, 6% coal), Georgia (41% gas, 16% coal), Missouri (14% gas, 67% coal), and Texas (54% gas, 21% coal).
Other DOE data shows that, in most cases, electricity prices in the leading wind states are rising faster than the national average. From 2008 to 2024, national prices rose 33.4%, with most of the increase over the last five years. But power prices in seven of the top 12 wind states rose faster than the national average, including California (116%), Minnesota (59%), Oregon (57%), Kansas (51%), Colorado (42%), Nebraska (40%), and Iowa (37%). Wind is more expensive than traditional electricity sources because wind uses huge amounts of land, requires two or three times as much transmission infrastructure, and is intermittent, requiring backup from dispatchable power plants.
Democrats should stop blaming Republicans for soaring energy prices in blue states that their own green energy policies cause. If they want prices to reverse course, then they should use the electricity sources that are actually cheaper.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling bookGreen Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
I got Grok to blend the AI ensemble, Euro ensemble, GFS ensemble and CFSV2 for the front 10 days of December. Keep in mind that Weatherbell.com had targeted early cold Thanksgiving to Christmas from our August 29 Winter forecast based on the parameters we use to set up the winter, chief among them at the time, the back weighted ACE index in relation to normal from mid-season on. This is a novel idea we also used to predict the cold surge of 2022 and last year during that time
I got Grok to blend the AI ensemble, Euro ensemble, GFS ensemble and CFSV2 for the front 10 days of December. Keep in mind that Weatherbell.com had targeted early cold Thanksgiving to Christmas from our August 29 Winter forecast based on the parameters we use to set up the winter, chief among them at the time, the back weighted ACE index in relation to normal from mid-season on. This is a novel idea we also used to predict the cold surge of 2022 and last year during that time
So Grok came up with this
When asked what this ranked in the front 10 days of December, which, btw is a little over 10% of the DJF heating season, it gave the above map
Historical Context for Early December (Days 1–10) Temperature The blended forecast map I generated represents a strong cold anomaly across the northern and central U.S. for approximately November 30–December 10, 2025 (aligning with early December’s first 10 days). To rate it against the last 30 years (1995–2024, using the 1991–2020 climatology baseline), I compared the key anomaly values (−10°F to −18°F in the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes core, −5°F to −10°F across the broader northern tier, and near-average to mildly positive in the South) to historical December data from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and other sources.Key Metrics for Ranking
5th–15th percentile (among coldest 10–20% of Decembers)
Extremely rare; comparable to 1995 (−12°F regional avg., La Niña cold blast) or 2010 (−10°F, polar vortex). Only 3–5 events in 30 years hit −10°F+ deficits.
Broader Northern/Central U.S. (e.g., Dakotas to Northeast, south to Plains/Ohio Valley)
−5 to −10
−1 to −8 (coldest tercile: ≤ −4; avg. SD ~3–5°F)
10th–25th percentile (coldest quarter)
Unusual but not record-shattering; seen in 8–10 of 30 Decembers (e.g., 2000, 2014 La Niña years). Sharp north-south gradient matches 20% of cold events.
Southern U.S. (e.g., TX/FL to Carolinas)
0 to +6 (mild pockets +4 to +8)
+1 to +5 (warmest tercile: ≥ +3; avg. SD ~2–4°F)
60th–80th percentile (mildly warm third)
Typical for La Niña; occurred in ~60% of Decembers. Matches 2020–21 early season (+4°F South vs. cold North).
National Contiguous U.S. Average
~ −3 to −5
−0.5 to −3 (coldest tercile: ≤ −1.5)
15th–30th percentile (coldest third overall)
One of the 5–9 coldest early Decembers in 30 years; contrasts warming trend (U.S. Decembers warmed ~0.5–1°F/decade since 1990s).
Overall Rating vs. Last 30 Years
Extremity: This pattern ranks in the coldest 10–20% of early December periods nationally, driven by the Arctic blast signature. The Upper Midwest core (−10°F to −18°F) is exceptionally rare (top 5–10 coldest events), potentially the coldest since December 1995 (a La Niña year with −12°F to −15°F anomalies amid the “Year Without a Summer” vibe post-Pinatubo). Broader northern cold (−5°F+) is more common (~25th percentile) but amplifies the severity.
Rarity in Warming Climate: Despite overall U.S. winter warming (~1–2°F since 1990s, per NOAA), La Niña favors northern cold/southern warmth—seen in ~40% of Decembers. However, magnitudes like this have declined; only 15–20% of recent Decembers (post-2010) hit the coldest tercile vs. 30–40% pre-2000. This forecast bucks the trend, resembling pre-2000 variability.
So you can see, forecasting cold in the face of the warming climate is an idea that goes against the grain
The modeling a week ago for the first week of December was way warmer than this
a week ago
now
The classic example is that in this warmer world, models can’t see cold when it’s coming, only hiint at it. Also, for the 3rd time in 5 years, it shows that the novel ACE index idea we have developed has merit
I have not changed the winter forecast much from its early outlook on August 29.
Here are the bullet points
snowfall
Both are actual metrics that can be measured. What does AI say about NOAAs winter outlook
The NOAA winter outlook is not a traditional forecast like “it will be 2.3°F warmer in Chicago.” It is exclusively a probability forecast — a statement of odds, not a single predicted outcome.Here’s the precise way to think about it:
NOAA never says “This winter will be warmer than average in Texas.” Instead, they say: “There is a 55% chance that the average temperature from December–February will end up above the 1991–2020 normal, a 33% chance it will be near normal, and only a 12% chance it will be below normal.”
Probability itself cannot be measured after the fact. Once the winter is over, the temperature was exactly what it was — say, +1.8°F above normal. At that point, the outcome is 100% certain, and the probability no longer exists. You can only verify whether the most likely category happened, not whether “55% probability” was “correct.”
This is why meteorologists use a special term for these products: They are forecasts of opportunity, not forecasts of certainty.A simple analogy:
If I flip a biased coin that lands heads 60% of the time and I say “60% chance of heads,” I’m giving a correct probability statement even if it lands tails the first time.
NOAA is doing the same thing with the atmosphere: “Given everything we know (La Niña, soil moisture, Arctic ice, model ensembles, etc.), the atmosphere is tilted toward a warmer winter in the South with roughly 50–70% likelihood depending on the exact location.”
So yes — the map is 100% a probability statement, not a deterministic forecast.
For that question, the honest answer from NOAA is always: “We don’t know for sure, but the odds are leaning this way.”
Is WeatherBell’s temperature and snow forecast for DJF an actual forecast?
YES. 100%. No hedging, no equivocation.Your WeatherBell temperature-anomaly map and your snowfall-%-of-normal map are fully verifiable, quantitative forecasts.
That holiday period looks like, at least out of the gate looks much better, unlike the summer outlook, where Texas waited till late to get warm and dry Notice the error in the hurricane impact forecast where the red zone this year, fortunately, wound up about 500 miles east of where we had it from preseason
we had great success last year from further out ( issued Dec 7,2023)
This year, you can see it wound up east and it was issued later, as I was not as certain. Impact was well overdone with the center of the congregation of tracks well out at sea
The center point of the red below is near 29 north and 75 west
This idea actually is an offshoot from my dad, who. even before he got into the field showed me maps linking loosely. the hurricane seasons of the 30s 40s and 50s, and the following winter. While I noticed it with the maps he showed, in the 70s and 80s, I could not see it at all, as there were fewer storms and it was colder. But I think with the warming, such back-weighted seasons are linked in that large-scale upward motion patterns that produce hurricanes in the late seasons are also the same pattern that produces early cold. Which is a big deal, given that the mean temperatures over the last 10 years overall have been very warm in the early part of the season. But we pointed out before the fact, in 2022, and last year to look for early cold, based on this novel idea. So it looks like it should work again.
I suppose if I tied it to MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING, I could get some research money, except I don’t think the warming is mainly man-made. In any case, I am bringing up the errors in some of my forecasts, which, as it may turn out, have led to a good forecast here.
At the least its novel to hear someone say his forecast was off, but if it leads to a better one, maybe it’s not a setback but a setup.
Time will tell. Looks like an interesting start to the winter season, and the last thing you want to hear from a rabid weather dog like me is the term “interesting” when it comes to the upcoming weather ( At the advice of my late father I have learned to tone down my description of patterns that could go wild, given there is a lot of impact that people may not like)
Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting.
He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore.
His new book The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate war can be found here. phonyclimatewar.com
Following discovery of asbestos lift brake pads in Chinese manufactured Aussie turbines, turbine operators are conducting a frantic audit.
Asbestos turbine threat spreads, as Tim Wilson calls for renewables supply chain investigation
More Australian windfarms have been placed under internal investigations for asbestos exposure, as a shadow minister calls for a probe into the nation’s renewables supply chain.
Max Aldred and Conor Breslin November 25, 2025 – 3:55PM
…
On Friday, operator Goldwind discovered asbestos in lift brake pads at its Cattle Hill wind farm in Tasmania.
The Clean Energy Regulator, SafeWork New South Wales, and WorkSafe Victoria all launched investigations into the discovery.
The investigations prompted other wind farm operators to check their brake pads.
Over the weekend, Goldwind revealed they tested the parts – supplied by Chinese manufacturer 3S Industries – and found they did contain asbestos.
…
Danish-owned Vestas, which operates more than one dozen projects across Australia, is also investigating any potential risks of asbestos exposure after ordering brake parts which may contain asbestos.
According to their website 3S Industry specialises in industrial elevator and safety equipment, the kind of elevator platforms which carry technicians who want to service equipment on top of the turbine. But 3S Industry doesn’t just supply wind turbines, their products are also widely used in the construction industry. It seems unlikely asbestos brake pads were only used in wind turbines, so there could be asbestos contamination in office buildings, food sourced from farms adjacent to wind turbines which use 3S equipment, playgrounds and schools – anywhere 3S industry elevator or lifting equipment has been used.
I also doubt the scandal is limited to Australia. How much Asbestos is being used in British and US wind turbines lifts?
Is the scandal just confined to the lifts? Wind turbines also contain large friction clutches, which used to contain Asbestos until Asbestos was banned. Can we be sure there is no Asbestos inside Chinese turbine friction clutches, without dismantling them for inspection?
Asbestos is a long-term cancer risk, the fibers have been linked to Mesothelioma, a nasty form of cancer which mostly affects the lungs and stomach. The microscopic fibers get stuck in vulnerable tissues, where they cause long term irritation leading to cancer. While the risk rises with amount of exposure, it only takes one microscopic fiber stuck in the wrong place to potentially kill you.
Spare a thought for the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt as he makes his sorry and uneasy way down the treeless ‘Highway of Shame’ to Belém airport and considers the wreckage of the collapsed COP30. He is not a man devoid of intelligence so he can work out that most of the world has just dodged the bullet of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ let loose by the Net Zero fantasy.
Spare a thought for the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt as he makes his sorry and uneasy way down the treeless ‘Highway of Shame’ to Belém airport and considers the wreckage of the collapsed COP30. He is not a man devoid of intelligence so he can work out that most of the world has just dodged the bullet of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ let loose by the Net Zero fantasy. The unease arises when he considers his heyday spent spinning an ever more improbable ‘settled’ climate science narrative that deliberately ignored any facts and opinions that troubled the Net Zero political agenda. All for nothing, he might be thinking, except of course the lavish adoration he enjoys in the North London BBC bubble. But now that Net Zero is dying, he, and the numerous other activists on the BBC climate gravy train, must be vaguely aware that following a simplistic, pre-determined but increasingly out-dated narrative can be easily replicated in future by an AI replacement.
Opinions may differ, but suitably prompted AI could easily replicate much of the climate output of the BBC over the last two decades.
If you spend years following a defined narrative by cherry-picking the worst computer modelled climate scare inventions to induce mass climate psychosis, AI is coming for you. It is the work of seconds to load a science paper into Grok and ask it to produce an alarmist story focusing on the most scary ‘scientists say’ predictions in the style of a chosen mainstream media activist. It will be easy, and considerably cheaper, to keep the climate hoax going since all debate will continue to be cancelled, any competing opinions ignored and the intelligence of the British people, as per, insulted on a daily basis.
The BBC is one of the ultimate backers of the Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN) that runs a six-month grooming course for journalists. One of its recent testing tasks was to ask participants to write an article noting why a fruit such as a mango was less tasty this year than last due to climate change. Why not ask Grok to do it using a set number of words – it is so much easier. But Grok has more balance than fake climate journalists – it will also provide a plausible article of similar length explaining why mangoes are more tasty at present due to the changing climate.
Your correspondent has been around the journalism game for a few decades and witnessed astonishing changes. One of his first jobs was compiling a monthly ‘Major Losses and Catastrophes’ page that entailed writing brief compilations from a variety of news sources. It took some time and entailed good educational grunt work, but these days it could be compiled by AI in seconds. Writing to a narrative, producing copy subbed from press releases, parroting what every other captured journalist says, is increasingly something that can be left to the automated process. AI is particularly good at replicating an echo chamber.
Over 100 journalists from around the world sign up for the OCJN course every six months. Why do they think that learning the same narrative, and being told what is the ‘correct’ way to write about a so-called climate crisis, is appropriate behaviour for an inquiring journalist? The Green Blob in the form of past Extinction Rebellion paymaster Sir Christopher Hohn is paying for their education, and it is naïve not to assume that the Green Blob expects a published return on its considerable investment.
Earlier this year, the BBC lead weather presenter Simon King told us that since 1970, the average UK spring temperature has increased by 1.8°C.
This is what he wrote:
The average spring temperature has increased by 1.8°C since 1970, making it the fastest warming season for all four nations of the UK.
This is what a press release issued by the Green Blob-funded Climate Central said:
The average spring temperature for the UK has increased 1.8°C since 1970, making spring the fastest warming season for the UK as a whole.
Where is the added reporting value in that? Why is the BBC’s lead weather presenter seemingly unable to look at the Met Office’s own temperature graph, which shows clearly that temperatures have risen in that period by 1.3°C? But it is worse than that since 1970 is a date cherry-picked by the Climate Central activists as a low point following a decline in UK temperatures from around 1940. Go back 80 years for a more useful climate trend and the figure drops to 0.85°C. And these temperatures, particularly recent ones, are bloated with large unnatural heat corruptions that are an obvious feature of Met Office readings. All in all, the rise in temperatures in the British spring is likely to be similar to the 1°C warming that has occurred since the lifting of the Little Ice Age in the middle of the 19th century.
Paul Homewood wrote an excellent article in the Daily Sceptic on Tuesday noting that one of the takeaways of Belém was the eclipse of Europe as a force in world politics. “While rich, Western countries are still determined to pursue Net Zero regardless of the cost and damage entailed, the rest of the world long ago worked out that fossil fuels are an essential, not a luxury,” he noted. No longer does the rest of the world pay attention to anything pipsqueaks like Ed Miliband and Wopke Hoekstra, the EU Climate Commissioner, have to say, he added.
The BBC seems to be dying. Unable to properly relate to the concerns of its nationwide audience, hazy on the difference between a man and a woman, seemingly keen on open border migrant overload, its increasingly ridiculous funding flow is starting to evaporate. Whether it could survive in the free market with its biased, identikit news service, along with the thin offerings of audience-lite, woke-obsessed drama, is not certain. Big savings might have to be made. AI looms large over future BBC scripts from Doctor Who to climate change.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Electricity prices are rising, and Democrats blame President Trump. For years, articles in the media have said that renewables provide the lowest-cost electricity, claiming that wind and solar generators were cheaper than coal, natural gas, and nuclear. But prices are soaring in green energy states that install wind and solar and close coal plants.
Electricity prices are rising, and Democrats blame President Trump. For years, articles in the media have said that renewables provide the lowest-cost electricity, claiming that wind and solar generators were cheaper than coal, natural gas, and nuclear. But prices are soaring in green energy states that install wind and solar and close coal plants.
Rahm Emanual, former Democrat mayor of Chicago and White House chief of staff, recently said that bigger electric bills “are a direct result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which cut green energy subsidies.” But the OBBB became law in July, subsidy cuts don’t take place until 2027, and power prices have been rising for many years while subsidies were in place. Green energy states obsessed with climate policies are suffering from escalating prices.
Data from the US Department of Energy (DOE) show that electricity prices in California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York have risen more than 30 percent in the last five years compared with just 22.5% nationally. Because of climate policies, these states closed their coal-fired power plants over the last 15 years, with the exception of one coal plant in Maryland and one in Maine. In comparison, prices in Georgia, Florida, Missouri, Texas and other states hampered less by green energy initiatives are rising less than the U.S. average. These states continue to be more friendly to lower-cost hydrocarbon fuels for electricity generation.
California’s electricity prices are up 59% over the last five years. The state closed all but one of its coal plants and all nuclear facilities except the Diablo Canyon plant. California now has the nation’s second highest residential electricity prices at 31.9 cents per kilowatt-hour, almost double the national price of 16.5 cents. The state’s massive investment in renewable sources, which accounted for more than half of California’s in-state electricity generation in 2024, has driven the price jump.
Power prices in Massachusetts are up 31% over the last five years. Residential prices are 29.4 cents/kWh, the third highest in the nation. The state produces only about half of the electricity it produced in 2010 because of closures of coal plants and the Pilgrim nuclear plant in 2019. Commercial and residential solar provided about one-fourth of Massachusetts power generation in 2024. Plans call for all new generating capacity to be wind and solar.
Surging electricity prices were a top issue in the New Jersey gubernatorial election. Candidates Jack Cittarelli and Mikie Sherrill both criticized the power policies of retiring governor Phil Murphy. Driven by green energy goals, New Jersey closed one nuclear plant, five coal plants, and two gas plants during the terms of governors Murphy and Chris Christie. Because of the plant closures, the state must now import about one-fifth of its power from other states. Both Murphy and Christie promoted offshore wind, but these projects are now stalled due to rising costs and Trump Administration opposition.
Green policies have created a costly natural-gas shortage in New England. In 2024, gas generated 55% of electricity for New England homes. But for more than a decade, New York blocked the construction of gas pipelines to New England in an effort to decarbonize. To reduce the shortage, the region imports liquified natural gas from Canada and overseas locations at higher prices.
The lack of pipelines forces residents in Connecticut and other New England states to pay as much as double the price for gas compared to residents in other states. Connecticut electricity prices have climbed 31% in the past five years largely because of gas restrictions. The Trump Administration is pushing to revive the Constitution and NESE pipelines to bring lower-cost gas to New England, projects that were blocked by New York.
New York electricity prices rose 37% over the last five years. The New York State Scoping Plan calls for 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% zero-emissions electricity by 2040. The state closed its last coal plant and also the Indian Point nuclear plant in 2020, planning to generate increasing output from wind and solar sources. But renewables have not grown fast enough, and the New York Independent System Operator now warns of a growing power shortfall.
Power prices in Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and Texas have risen 21% or less over the last five years. These states continue to rely on lower-cost hydrocarbon fuels for electricity generation: Florida (73% gas, 6% coal), Georgia (41% gas, 16% coal), Missouri (14% gas, 67% coal), and Texas (54% gas, 21% coal).
Other DOE data shows that, in most cases, electricity prices in the leading wind states are rising faster than the national average. From 2008 to 2024, national prices rose 33.4%, with most of the increase over the last five years. But power prices in seven of the top 12 wind states rose faster than the national average, including California (116%), Minnesota (59%), Oregon (57%), Kansas (51%), Colorado (42%), Nebraska (40%), and Iowa (37%). Wind is more expensive than traditional electricity sources because wind uses huge amounts of land, requires two or three times as much transmission infrastructure, and is intermittent, requiring backup from dispatchable power plants.
Democrats should stop blaming Republicans for soaring energy prices in blue states that their own green energy policies cause. If they want prices to reverse course, then they should use the electricity sources that are actually cheaper.
You must be logged in to post a comment.