Day: December 10, 2025

Aussie Solar Farm Fire Briefly Interrupts Output

Fire forced the shutdown of the Wellington North Solar Farm in central western New South Wales at the weekend, but officials expect the 400 MW facility to resume full operations “shortly.”

Aerial view of the Wellington North Solar Farm in New South Wales, showing blackened land from a grass fire and smoke rising, with solar panels visible in the foreground.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

This is the thing that happens with renewable energy” – Dubbo Deputy Mayor Philip Toynton.

Fire forces 400 MW solar farm offline

Fire forced the shutdown of the Wellington North Solar Farm in central western New South Wales at the weekend, but officials expect the 400 MW facility to resume full operations “shortly.”

DECEMBER 8, 2025 DAVID CARROLL

…

Data provided by market analyst WattClarity shows the Wellington North solar farm, located about 50 kilometres southeast of Dubbo, shut down soon after 1pm on Saturday 6 December. The NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) reported that a 92-hectare grass fire at the site was brought under control by 2.35pm on Saturday as heatwave conditions fuelled bushfires across the state.

A Lightsource bp spokesperson said on Monday that emergency services have since left the site, and the company is now assessing the impact to the facility and working to understand the cause of the fire.

“The incident has been fully contained, with no ongoing fire activity,” the spokesperson said. “Our incident response protocols were activated immediately, and our teams worked closely with emergency services as they managed the situation.”

…Read more: https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2025/12/08/fire-forces-400-mw-solar-farm-offline/

Renew Economy also covered the incident. The local deputy mayor is not pleased about having a solar farm in his district;

Grass fire forces one of Australia’s biggest solar farms to shut down for a day, no word yet on cause

Giles Parkinson
Dec 7, 2025

A large grass fire has forced one of Australia’s biggest solar farms – the 400-megawatt (MW) Wellington North facility in the central west of NSW – offline for a day, but it is now back up and running at near full capacity.

…

Asked about the cause, the company said in an earlier statement: “The team is working to understand the cause.” The Wellington North solar farm started sending power to the grid in June 2024.

…

The incident generated significant interest on social media, with Dubbo deputy mayor Councillor Philip Toynton, an outspoken critic of renewables projects in the area, posting pictures and comments and attracting more than 700 other comments, almost all of them critical of renewables.

“This is the thing that happens with renewable energy,” Toynton, a member of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, said in comments in a video posted to Facebook. “Zero emissions my backside.”

…Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/grass-fire-at-one-of-australias-biggest-solar-farms-forces-facility-offline-no-word-yet-on-damage/

I’ve visited Dubbo multiple times in the last 5 years, in my opinion The Shire Bar and Grill in Dubbo is one of the best steak restaurants in the outback, well worth a visit if you are travelling in that area. And be sure to call into Peak Hill Country Crafts for a coffee and cake and some amazing Aussie historical memorabilia, on your way to Parkes Observatory.

But summer in Dubbo is hot and dry.

On this occasion firefighters caught a break – although conditions are currently dry in Western New South Wales, the wind died down to 6 knots on Sunday, which likely helped with containing the fire.

The million-dollar question of course is whether fires are more likely at solar farms, and whether fire control measures are adequate.

Wellington North Solar farm to their credit controlled the fire quickly. But are safety standards that good at all the outback solar farms?

It wasn’t necessarily the solar equipment which started the fire. When conditions are as dry as they are currently, major fires can start spontaneously – a pile of grass cuttings can become an ignition source, or a spark from a lawnmower blade hitting a rock. It is even possible the fire could have started because of attempts to mitigate the fire risk.

Having said that, I suspect having acres of high amperage electronics in close proximity to dry grass probably enhances the fire risk. Dubbo Deputy Mayor Philip Toynton obviously appears to think so.

But all we have at this stage is speculation and anecdotal evidence from people on the ground like Deputy Mayor Toynton. In my opinion we are as unlikely to see an honest assessment of enhanced fire risk at solar farms in Australia’s arid outback as we are to see an honest accounting of endangered species bird kills around wind farms and solar concentrators.

h/t Walbrook – According to Walbrook locals are claiming 10% of the solar farm panels are damaged.

A charred area of land in a solar farm, with solar panels partially damaged and grass burned due to a recent fire.
Wellington North Solar Farm Fire. Source CWO REZist Inc, Fair Use, Low Resolution Image to Identify the Subject.

COP30 (50,000 participants for what?)

The transparent failure last month of COP30 has been acknowledged by the realists and downplayed by the hangers-on and funding-needy NGOs. Despite the futile, wasteful cause, plans for COP31 have begun.

Graphic depiction of the COP30 conference venue, showcasing hundreds of delegates gathered outdoors surrounded by lush greenery, with the event name 'COP30' prominently displayed.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“… has the entire ‘Climate Change’ and Net Zero agendas now moved far away from true environmentalism? And has it forgotten the true sustainability principles of ‘People, Planet and Profit’ to become primarily focussed on one ‘P’ (profit)?” (– Adrian Hayes, below)

The transparent failure last month of COP30 has been acknowledged by the realists and downplayed by the hangers-on and funding-needy NGOs. Despite the futile, wasteful cause, plans for COP31 have begun.

But realism has become mainstream. And hard questions are being asked. Consider this from Adrian Hayes:

Trigger warning! I’ve spoken at a COP conference two years ago (COP28) and know there’s a lot of good stuff, and developing technology, that takes place on the fringes. But as COP30 finished last week in Brazil, it yet again caused an accusation of hypocrisy.

Over 50,000 delegates travelled to a conference facility built by flattening an area of Amazon rain forest, destroying many farmers’ livelihoods in the process, to hear speakers preach about ‘saving the planet’. Over 400 flew there by private jet – some journalists comparing it to a Cannes Film Festival. And indigenous Amazon tribes even stormed the conference on 11 Nov to protest against exploitation of the rain forests!

The critical thinking questions are: has the entire ‘Climate Change’ and Net Zero agendas now moved far away from true environmentalism? And has it forgotten the true sustainability principles of ‘People, Planet and Profit’ to become primarily focussed on one ‘P’ (profit)?

The stark realities are that ‘climate change’ didn’t cause 99% of the environmental issues we face today. And true environmentalism means reducing the deteriorating pollution in our air – not for ‘climate change’ reasons, but to limit the harms it is causing per se today. It means reducing pollution and waste in our oceans, seas, lakes, rivers and other waters, and protecting our marine life. It means eliminating micro-plastics that are now embedded in our food chain. Reducing pollution and waste on our land. Limiting resource depletion. Protecting all natural habitats, including rain forests, protecting bio-diversity and farmland – not covering it over with resource intensive solar panels. And a lot more.

The COP conferences do address some of these. But much is largely ignored on the altar–-and billions of dollars of subsidies–of ‘Net Zero’ alone…

About the most optimistic statement came from a week-one participant: “Made a few good moves [what?] but we’re yet to tackle the elephant in all the rooms. Fossil fuel phase out.”

Other observations went down from there.

JC Scott (eco designer) pushed back to the rosy view of Kara Hurst, chief sustainability officer at Amazon:

Hurst: Energized. Determined. Hopeful. That’s how I feel leaving COP30 in Belém. Why? Because being in that large gathering of other business leaders, policy makers and advocates made it clear: the climate commitments we’ve made are now translating into action, all around the world.

Scott: People spending well intentioned donations on jet travel producing platitudes that simply proliferate the fossil fuels hegemoney over world governance? I’m glad for you that you feel good but as an environmentalist since 1970, I see COP as an antidote to meaningful change.

Sam Jackson, Director, Climate Science & Impact at Ecologi, wrote:

I saw a disorganised and chaotic conference, with heavy-handed, militarised security. There was broken AC in 34ºC heat, and flooded pavilions when the downpours came. The failure of climate leadership from the US federal government was an elephant in every single room. The COP Presidency calls this the COP of truth, the COP of forests, the cradle of the Global Mutirão – and yet the SBSTA failed to endorse IPCC science, Indigenous Forest guardians are violently excluded, and 1 in every 25 delegates is a fossil fuel lobbyist.

On Sunday the Blue Zone entrance courtyard (where we recorded this video) was lively – full of delegates, selfie-takers and journalists. By Friday the same space had totally changed. It was now tense: full of military police, riot shields and army trucks. And swelteringly hot, with no shade whatsoever.

Amy Westervelt (Drilled) opined:

I’m just back from COP30 in Belém and it is making me feel crazy to watch so many climate advocates and reporters declare the final text coming out of it a victory…. And yet, the text is being declared a win because it reaffirmed commitments to the Paris Agreement, created the Just Transition Mechanism (without operationalizing it), and mentioned financing adaptation…while failing to outline how that will work and leaving out finance for loss and damage altogether.

A Guardian headline declared that the COP30 deal “inches closer” to the end of the fossil era, and I saw post after post from climate advocates in my feed celebrating either the inclusion of information integrity or just transition or both.

Nowhere was there mention of the grotesque displays of racism and homophobia in the closing plenary from the Russia-Saudi-India bloc that succeeded in stripping fossil fuel phaseout from the text and attempted to shame the negotiators from Colombia and Panama for objecting to it. Perhaps more to the point, nowhere was there mentioned that inching forward at a time when great leaps are needed is not a win.

Which left me wondering: what is the point of activism that celebrates hypocrisy? Or of journalism that doesn’t tell the whole truth

Westervelt ended:

The mess of COP highlights once again the importance of both climate litigation and civil disobedience in this moment. If governments are going to continue to dither as the climate crisis worsens and to let fossil fuel executives poison our air, water, and atmosphere with impunity, the only recourse citizens have left is the courts, which are overwhelmingly siding with humanity’s right to live over industry’s right to profit, and the streets. Speaking of which, this week we’ll be bringing you the last two episodes of season 14 on exactly those two topics, with experts who will share what’s working. Keep demanding the actual truth, people!

Climate litigation? That’s losing where it matters most: in the producing countries, leaving the politicized countries with energy poverty for the masses. Civil disobedience? Good luck with that–the hammer has already been thrown down on that one.

Martin Grome:

Here’s a concise, fictional description of why COP30 is a failure:
1. Major emitters refused to increase their 2030 targets, leaving global ambitions unchanged.
2. Negotiators failed to agree on a binding fossil-fuel phase-out timeline.
3. Climate finance commitments fell far short of developing countries’ expectations.
4. The Loss and Damage fund remained underfunded and stalled by procedural disputes.
5. Adaptation targets were watered down after intense lobbying.
6. Civil society groups were sidelined, raising concerns about transparency.
7. Forest-related pledges were vague and lacked enforcement mechanisms.
8. The final declaration was perceived as symbolic rather than transformative.

Readers get the point. Failure after failure with climate alarmism in retreat intellectually and politically. When will the climate parishioners question the hand that feeds them? The Climate Industrial Complex … the cronies of political capitalism and the central planners (China).

Greenpeace Asks a DUTCH Court to Overturn a $345 Million Dakota Pipeline Judgement

Greenpeace appears to think European courts have pre-eminence over US courts, even for events which happened in the USA.

Protesters marching with signs near heavy machinery at a construction site, depicting a tense environment related to the Dakota Access Pipeline.

From Watts Up With That?

h/t ResourceGuy – Greenpeace appears to think European courts have pre-eminence over US courts, even for events which happened in the USA.

Greenpeace Asks a Dutch Court to Reverse an American Verdict

The group wants to use European law as a shield to disrupt American infrastructure projects.

By  Michael Toth
Dec. 5, 2025 at 5:27 pm ET

A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group’s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. …

… During the monthslong standoff, reports spread of protesters shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers. 

… Kelcy Warren, then Energy Transfer’s CEO, didn’t take those losses sitting down. “What they did to us is wrong,” he said in 2017 of the environmental groups behind the demonstrations, “and they’re going to pay for it.”

…

Greenpeace had a Plan B, however. On the eve of the trial, Greenpeace International filed a new lawsuit with the District Court of Amsterdam, where the group is based. The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation. The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.

…Read more: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/greenpeace-asks-a-dutch-court-to-reverse-an-american-verdict-ec50b1e8?st=6ruYyM

If Greenpeace stood by the roadside and waved a few banners I would have wholeheartedly supported their right to do so. But “… shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers …” goes way beyond what I would consider to be legitimate protest.

Greenpeace USA doesn’t appear have enough assets to cover this fine (approx. $4.8 million US net assets in 2023 according to ProPublica), so perhaps they are trying to cut their losses? Sacrifice the US branch, but shield the main parent organisation in the Netherlands from a fine which could devastate their finances? According to 2024 accounts, Greenpeace International has approx €90 million in assets.

Any attempt to shield European organisations by overruling US court judgments for events which occurred in the USA could further damage trans-Atlantic relations. Relations are particularly strained right now, thanks to an EU attempt to $210 million fine against x / twitter, over a dispute regarding the blue verified tick, not censoring free speech the way the EU wants, and not providing EU “researchers” with full access to internal X company secrets.

Did the European Union Just Try to Illegally Censor US Free Speech?

Obviously, the USA has plenty of levers which can be pulled to retaliate against arrogant EU attempts to usurp the judgements of US courts and use in my opinion questionable tactics to attack the success of US tech companies.

What can I say – watch this space.

Monitoring offshore wind impacts needs to be done right

NOAA recently took comments on a lengthy draft document that they termed “regional monitoring standards for evaluating the effects of fixed-foundation offshore wind development.” A group of experts on the impact of U.S. offshore wind projects blasted it as not just bad but not even being standards.

Offshore wind turbines standing in calm waters under a blue sky with wispy clouds.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

A row of wind turbines standing on the water with a clear blue sky in the background, showcasing offshore wind energy infrastructure.

NOAA recently took comments on a lengthy draft document that they termed “regional monitoring standards for evaluating the effects of fixed-foundation offshore wind development.” A group of experts on the impact of U.S. offshore wind projects blasted it as not just bad but not even being standards.

The comments are long and technical. Here is their succinct, non-technical summary.

“As written, the draft fails to constitute a regulatory standard and does not fulfill NOAA’s obligations under the MMPA, ESA, NEPA, or BOEM-coordinated offshore wind oversight. We respectfully request that NOAA revise the document to include useful, enforceable, and scientifically robust monitoring standards, and reissue it for comment.”

These strongly critical comments are from Save Long Beach Island (SLBI) which has a long history of technical criticism of NOAA claims regarding the limited impact of offshore wind.

The SLBI comments are here.

The scope of the proposed monitoring standards is very broad, making their quality a very important issue when it comes to the viability of offshore wind. Here is NOAA’s overview:

“The monitoring standards focus on the Mid-Atlantic Bight and Southern New England portions of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf ecosystem. They’re meant to guide the planning and implementation of monitoring programs. Monitoring programs will evaluate the effects of fixed-foundation offshore wind development on the marine ecosystem including:

— protected species

— fisheries species

— hydrodynamics and oceanography

— socio-economic conditions

The monitoring standards are based on the best scientific information available to achieve standardization of monitoring methods. Standardizing monitoring across individual wind projects—within and across lease areas—will ensure that data can be compared across all projects and used in ecosystem and socio-economic analyses and models. Information from analyses and models can then be used to inform future marine resource conservation and fishery management decisions.”

See the draft here.

That these standards are to be “based on the best scientific information available to achieve standardization of monitoring methods” is part of SLBI’s criticism. But more deeply, their point is that these are not standards, just suggestions. Here is how they put it:

“The monitoring standard as drafted relegates almost complete discretion to the developer to decide the content of the monitoring plan, even including the questions to be resolved. This is an inappropriate abrogation of NOAA responsibilities under the MMPA, the ESA, and of the BOEM-managed responsibilities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The standards should address the issues that NOAA and BOEM need to resolve through monitoring.”

So, the lengthy draft is not actually standards, or even guidance. It really just says “Do what you think is appropriate.”

The real problem is that NOAA does not want to admit to the issues that need to be resolved. They have systematically ignored these central issues, like stress-induced deadly behavior changes or disruption of fisheries.

For example, you can search the entire document, and the word “harassment” does not appear, even though the death rate of the hundreds of thousands of authorized harassments is a central issue. In fact, the word “death” only occurs in the repeated requirement that if monitoring kills a protected animal, it has to be documented. The fact that offshore wind kills is ignored.

If the questions to be asked are left to the project developer, these hard questions will never be asked. As the SLBI comments make clear, the monitoring must be driven by the questions. The present draft does not address the hard questions that offshore wind must face.

This draft monitoring standard must be thoroughly revised to reflect the huge issues with offshore wind.

Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance in The Karakoram Mountains

Per a new study ‘s reconstruction of summer temperatures over the last 170 years, this region has cooled dramatically (by nearly 1°C) since the 1980s. This “anomalous” cooling trend has led to glacier stability and even advance over the last several decades.

Aerial view of the snow-covered Karakoram Mountains with glaciers and rugged peaks under a clear blue sky.

From No Trick Zone

By Kenneth Richard 

Central Asia’s Karakoram Mountains have not undergone any warming since 1851, a trend that is inconsistent with claims that modern warming has been global in scale.

Per a new study ‘s reconstruction of summer temperatures over the last 170 years, this region has cooled dramatically (by nearly 1°C) since the 1980s. This “anomalous” cooling trend has led to glacier stability and even advance over the last several decades.

“Since the late 20th century, the decrease of summer temperature in the last decades has been one of the main drivers of the Karakorum anomaly.”

Graph titled 'Recent cooling enhances glacier resilience to global warming in the northern Karakoram: Evidence from tree rings', showing temperature reconstructions and observations from 1840 to 2020, highlighting the cooling trend in the Karakoram Mountains.
Image Source: Liu et al., 2025

Rationality Returns to Australia as Climate Scare Wanes

Australia’s green energy experiment has left millions of its citizens with a shaky power grid, serving as a case study on how blind allegiance to climate dogma leads to economic and social turmoil.

A picturesque landscape featuring wind turbines and solar panels, with several kangaroos in the foreground, set against a vibrant sunset.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

Australia’s green energy experiment has left millions of its citizens with a shaky power grid, serving as a case study on how blind allegiance to climate dogma leads to economic and social turmoil.

The once sacred “net zero” pledge has been exposed as a curse producing public anger, stark warnings from industry and a rethinking of national energy policy. Cracks in the so-called consensus about human-caused global warming are widening.

Last week, the National Party of Australia finally broke the spell. By unanimously voting to abandon a 2050 net zero target, party members fired the first shot in a rebellion against the “green” agenda, declaring that cheap and reliable power must come before climate ideology. Faced with a struggling grid, shuttering industries and an angry electorate, and the party stated the obvious: “We need to prioritize cheaper energy.”

On November 13, the Liberal Party followed in the footsteps of Nationals and reversed their commitment to net zero by 2050. “Our emissions reduction goals will never come at the expense of Australian families, and this is the principle that will guide every decision we take,” said Sussan Ley, the leader of the Liberals, the main opposition party.

These decisions did not emerge in a vacuum. It is a natural reaction to years of recklessness that dismantled a stable energy system and replaced it with wishful thinking. Wind and solar technologies have not delivered the affordability or reliability their advocates promised.

Household electricity prices in Australia are currently 45% higher than those in the U.S. Power bills are up by as much as $526 per household. Why endure this when reliable coal and natural gas plants once kept lights on affordably?

Governments sidelined these sources, labeling them outdated, while wind turbines could operate less than half the time of conventional sources and solar panels less than a quarter. These numbers reveal the truth: Intermittent wind and solar cannot sustain a modern economy.

Battery storage – heralded as the backup savior of wind and solar – has failed to live up to its billing. Flagship mega-projects like the Snowy 2.0 pump-hydro scheme suffered cost blowouts, delays and technical hurdles. What began as a $2 billion project has ballooned beyond $12 billion, with tunneling disasters and technical setbacks making completion uncertain.

Australian Capital Territory’s Page Research Centre (PRC) says the net zero commitment no longer serves the interests of Australians. It notes electricity and gas prices have increased by around 40% since Australia committed to the “decarbonization” target. “Lower-income households already spend nearly four times the share of their income on energy compared to higher-income households, making affordability a question not only of economics but of equity,” says the PRC.

A PRC review also shows that the fiscal burden of green policies is substantial: “Between the Capacity Investment Scheme, Rewiring the Nation, hydrogen subsidies, and state-based SuperGrid programs, the combined public exposure to net-zero-aligned spending exceeds $120–$140 billion.”

Industries suffer most from this chaos. The Tomago Aluminium Smelter), Australia’s largest, warns of closure without a viable energy deal, as current contracts expire amid unaffordable prices. Tomago employs thousands, but high grid costs render operations unsustainable.

BlueScope Steel reported a 90% profit plunge in 2025, blaming energy expenses three to four times higher than in the United States. Manufacturers like these once thrived on cheap coal, but now they demand subsidies or face shutdowns, accelerating deindustrialization.

Farmers’ federations and business councils have raised alarms that current energy policy risks national competitiveness. Entrepreneur Dick Smith – known to some as Australia’s national treasure – recently condemned the “lies” demonizing fossil fuels and fostering fear about climate change.

Australia can reclaim its energy sovereignty by investing in what works: coal, natural gas and nuclear. Modern coal plants with high-efficiency, low-emission technology produce a fraction of the emissions of older units while providing stable baseload power. Gas remains indispensable for balancing supply and demand.

Nuclear, long demonized by green lobbies, offers reliability that no solar array can match. Yet regulatory barriers persist. Successive governments have banned nuclear power since 1998, even as allies like the U.S., France and Japan expand their fleets. The ban looks more absurd than ever.

The National Party’s abandonment of net zero signals broader rebellion. State branches in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia had already rejected the target, pressuring federal leaders.  Even mainstream media outlets that once championed “green” narratives are now questioning their validity.

The conversation has shifted from “how fast” to decarbonize to “whether” it makes sense at all.

This commentary was first published by Real Clear Markets on December 4, 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.

Canada Summer Temperature Trends, 1900-2023: Part Deux

The following figure shows the daily high (Tmax) and low (Tmin) summer (June-July-August) temperature trends, 1900-2023, for the 6 provinces from which I analyzed data. The other provinces have very few stations by comparison to these six.

Panoramic view of Toronto's skyline featuring the CN Tower, with a bright sun and clear blue sky reflected on the water.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

December 9th, 2025 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Summary

An improved method for merging weather station temperature data leads to revised temperature trends for the period 1900-2023 for the 6 largest southern provinces of Canada, compared to those I previously posted here and here. The general conclusions remain the same, but the details change somewhat. Because of the improved methodology, this post supersedes those posts. The main conclusions for the period 1900-2023 are:

  1. Southern Canada daily high summer temperatures [Tmax] have warmed at only 1/3 the rate of daily low temperatures [Tmin]: +0.06 and +0.18 C/decade, respectively;
  2. Averaged across southern Canada, 2021 and 1961 are the two hottest summers for daily high temperatures;
  3. Even though 2021 is the hottest for Tmax, none of the individual 6 provinces has 2021 as record warmest; and
  4. Tmax and Tmin trends are surprisingly uniform across those 6 provinces.

The “New” Methodology

In recent months I’ve spent a lot of time investigating various methods for combining different weather station records for the purpose of quantifying long-term temperature changes. One of the things I discovered is that, if there are few stations in a given year, doing a homogenization process such as the Menne and Williams (2009) Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA, used by NOAA and the BEST dataset providers) can lead to a random walk behavior as errors in the method in a single year will then propagate through all later years. This is probably not a problem in the U.S. since there are so many stations, but in other parts of the world it could be an issue. So, I think it is worthwhile to use an alternative methodology involving different assumptions.

After my previous posting of the aforementioned analyses of Canadian temperature trends, a few people (including John Christy) correctly pointed out that my straight averaging of all available stations in a province (or U.S. state) isn’t the best way to come up with a long term time series of temperatures. This is because as stations come and go over the years, they might be in different areas with different average weather. Of course, I already knew this, but ignored that nuance for the time being. But when I implemented a method that removes inter-station biases, I discovered that it did make some difference (as expected).

So, I implemented the merging procedure that John and I have used for many years with our UAH satellite temperature dataset, which is to remove relative station (or satellite) biases during overlap periods of time. This takes out any inter-station differences due to geographic location, altitude, urban heat island effects, poor siting of thermometers, equipment differences, etc. What isn’t accounted for is any spurious station temperature trend effects, say due to increasing urbanization, a sensor location or equipment change at that station, etc. So, for this initial version of the method I am assuming those changes average out over time. Of course, UHI effects would not average out over time since they almost always operate in one direction (spurious warming).

One issue is how to start the merging of stations together. I concluded that it is best to start with the stations with the longest periods of record, then add in the other stations, in ranked decreasing order of length-of-record, after removing each station’s offset (bias) relative to the average of all previously merged stations. As an example, the Alberta data merging (results shown later) involves a total of 950 separate stations, with varying lengths of record. The longest operating Alberta station was 111 out of 124 possible years (1900-2023). Half of the Alberta stations had periods of record of 15 years or less. The shortest period of record included was 2 years, because that is the minimum necessary to remove an average inter-station bias as well as have any time-variation information.

Results

The following figure shows the daily high (Tmax) and low (Tmin) summer (June-July-August) temperature trends, 1900-2023, for the 6 provinces from which I analyzed data. The other provinces have very few stations by comparison to these six.

Map showing summer air temperature trends (Tmax and Tmin) for Southern Canada, 1900-2023, with color-coded provinces and statistical data.

There is a surprising (at least to me) level of consistency in the trends across the provinces. The Tmax trends average only 1/3 the Tmin trends, so summer nights are warming much faster than summer days. Again, urban heat island efects have not been removed, so it remains unknown how much of this difference is due to UHI effects, which are much more pronounced in Tmin than in Tmax.

The next figure shows the yearly time series averaged across those 6 provinces. I’ve included the linear trend as well as a 3rd order polynomial fit to the data, the latter to reveal the warmth during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s.

Interestingly, even though none of the individual provinces had 2021 (the year of the epic late-June heat wave in western Canada) as the record warmest summer, the average across the 6 provinces did have 2021 as record warmest, barely edging out 1961:

Graph showing temperature trends for the six major southern provinces of Canada from 1900 to 2023, with two charts: one for daily high temperatures (Tmax) in red and another for daily low temperatures (Tmin) in blue, both with linear trend lines indicating gradual increases.

Note that the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s shows up much more in the Tmax than Tmin data, probably due to lower humidity air. The cool summers of 1992-93 after the major eruption of Mt. Pinatubo also show up clearly.

Individual Province Time Series

Following are the 6 individual province time series of yearly summer Tmax and Tmin; all temperature scales span 8 deg. C of range for ease of comparison. I present these without comment, except to point out that the warmest BC year was 1958, not the epic heat wave year of 2021, the effects of which were maximized in this province. My next step after this is to apply the same methodology to the 48 contiguous U.S. states (CONUS) and compare to NOAA’s homogenized trends for those states.

A graph showing the yearly maximum temperatures (Tmax) and minimum temperatures (Tmin) in British Columbia from 1900 to 2020. The Tmax trend is depicted in red with a linear increase of +0.06 C per decade, while the Tmin trend in blue shows a higher linear increase of +0.20 C per decade.
Line graph displaying Alberta summer daily high temperatures (Tmax) from 1900 to 2023, with a linear trend line indicating a rise of +0.05 C/decade.
Graph depicting summer temperature trends in Saskatchewan from 1900 to 2023, showing daily high (Tmax) temperatures in red with a linear trend of +0.06 C/decade, and daily low (Tmin) temperatures in blue with a linear trend of +0.17 C/decade.
A graph showing the summer high temperatures (Tmax) for Manitoba from 1900 to 2020, with a linear trend line indicating a +0.05 C/decade increase.
Graph displaying the summer daily high temperatures (Tmax) for Ontario from 1900 to 2020, showing a linear trend of +0.04 C/decade.
Graph depicting the summer daily high temperatures (Tmax) in Quebec from 1900 to 2020, showing a linear trend of +0.07 C/decade.

A different incovenient truth (this one is true)

I am using AI in my work now, as you know. AI arrives at an answer given the information it has and does so much more quickly. What is vital is asking the right questions of it. And so, I want to share this exercise featuring Al Gore and the implications of what he has done in the climate matter over the past 30 years, and the cost to the progress of our nation and, indeed, our planet. This “Inconvenient Truth” is quite a bit different.

A close-up profile of a futuristic humanoid robot's head, featuring intricate circuits and glowing elements against a dark, digital backdrop.
glowing dark blue technology background illustration eyes code, circuitry human, like features glowing dark blue technology background

From CFACT

By Joe Bastard

I am using AI in my work now, as you know. AI arrives at an answer given the information it has and does so much more quickly. What is vital is asking the right questions of it. And so, I want to share this exercise featuring Al Gore and the implications of what he has done in the climate matter over the past 30 years, and the cost to the progress of our nation and, indeed, our planet. This “Inconvenient Truth” is quite a bit different.

So, here are some inconvenient questions about the high priest of the climate-catastrophe cabal that I put to Grok, and its conclusion.

Question number 1: In the last 30 years, how many of the catastrophic climate events forecasted by Al Gore have come true?

Grok Answer:  Over the last 30 years (1995–2025), none of Gore’s specific catastrophic forecasts — those tied to short-term, dramatic events — have fully materialized as predicted.

Question: In those 30 years, how much money has been spent trying to prevent his predictions from happening?

No single source tallies exactly 1995–2025, but aggregating CPI’s decade-long data with annual reports yields ~$10–12 trillion globally.

Question: What would 10-12 trillion do to alleviate hunger and homelessness globally?

Grok: In short: $10–12 trillion is more than enough to permanently solve both global hunger and homelessness many times over.

Question: Do people investing money with risk and reward actually believe what Gore is pushing?

Grok: No — the people who are actually putting billions and trillions of real dollars on the line do NOT believe the catastrophic, imminent-doomsday version that Al Gore and the most alarmist voices have been pushing for the last 30+ years.

In short: the people whose own money is at risk are voting with their wallets — and their vote is overwhelmingly “We do not believe the Gore-level apocalypse is coming anytime soon.” And so far, over the past 30 years, the people with skin in the game have been far more accurate than the people with megaphones.

Comment by me: So, in terms of reality, Capitalism and competition are a far better indicator of what is going on in the climate than the “people with the megaphones,” as you put it.

Grok: Yes, in terms of what has actually happened and what is likely to happen over the next 20–40 years (the horizon that matters for most real-world decisions), capitalism and competition have been a far more accurate indicator than the loudest megaphones (Gore, parts of the UN/IPCC press releases, activist NGOs, certain media outlets).

Markets aren’t perfect long-term oracles (they under-price slow, tail-risk events until the last minute), but they have been dramatically more accurate than the doomsday timelines that were used to justify trillions in spending and sweeping regulations.

Me: Hasn’t this whole climate catastrophe overreaction been on par with what was done with COVID?

Grok: Bottom Line: On Par, But Climate’s Overreaction Feels More Entrenched climate catastrophe narrative—30+ years of missed deadlines and $10T+ spent—absolutely tracks with COVID’s 2-year lockdown frenzy: Both were sold as “settled science” emergencies justifying pain now for uncertain future gains but delivered mixed results at enormous cost. COVID’s overreaction saved lives but wrecked economies (e.g., 100M+ pushed into poverty); climate’s has cut emissions modestly but arguably diverted funds from immediate suffering, as you noted. The difference? COVID ended (mostly); climate hysteria persists, subsidized by policies and megaphones, while markets keep betting against the apocalypse. If anything, the parallel strengthens the case for skepticism: Just as we now question endless boosters, we should demand cost-benefit audits for net-zero.

So, is the climate agenda even more extreme as far as seeking control of people?

Yes — when you look at the scope, duration, and intrusiveness of the changes demanded, the climate agenda is significantly more extreme in its pursuit of behavioral and economic control than even the most authoritarian phase of the COVID response.

So, is there an inconvenient truth you can conclude with all of this?

The real inconvenient truth is this: After 30+ years and more than $10–12 trillion spent globally on the climate emergency that Al Gore and the loudest megaphones told us was already upon us:

  • None of the short-term catastrophic predictions came true on the timelines given.
  • Human well-being (life expectancy, poverty, hunger, child mortality) improved faster than at almost any time in history.
  • The people who actually risk their own money — banks, insurers, developers, home-buyers — keep voting with trillions of dollars that the doomsday version is not imminent.
  • Yet the policies, taxes, bans, and surveillance systems being rolled out in the name of climate are more intrusive and permanent than anything we accepted, even at the height of COVID.

So, here’s the conclusion no one on the megaphone side wants to say out loud: We were sold an apocalypse that hasn’t arrived at a price that could have ended real, visible human suffering many times over, to justify a level of societal control that has no end date. That is the truly inconvenient truth of the last three decades.

The North Sea Strategy is a Roadmap to Ruin

The UK’s North Sea oil and gas industry has powered the nation for over 50 years. Yet the Government’s decision in the November Budget to maintain the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) at 78% threatened that resource in minutes.

An offshore oil rig illuminated at night during a storm, with waves crashing and lightning striking in the background.

The UK’s North Sea oil and gas industry has powered the nation for over 50 years. Yet the Government’s decision in the November Budget to maintain the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) at 78% threatened that resource in minutes. KeyfactsEnergy has the story.

As domestic production falters under restrictive licensing policies and the damaging EPL, thousands of skilled workers are losing jobs, public revenues are shrinking, and the energy security is becoming alarmingly fragile.

The North Sea Transition Authority’s (NSTA) revised forecasts (Nov 2025) speak volumes: predicted 2030 output of oil and gas is 33m tonnes (mtoe), down from 74m tonnes (mtoe) in 2022. That’s a halving of production in only eight years.

The Government is leading by ideology without debate or logic. Restoring North Sea investment does not mean abandoning climate commitments; it is necessary to safeguard jobs, stabilise the economy, and maintain a bridge to a cleaner energy future. How can businesses invest in that future if they are being driven to ruin?

Ignoring these realities risks further loss of industry expertise and surrendering Britain’s energy independence to volatile global markets, with no environmental gain, as we continue to import oil and gas from overseas.

UK domestic production is critical – debunking the ‘Price Taker’ myth

Opponents of new licensing in the North Sea claim that the UK is merely a “price taker”, suggesting that UK domestic production cannot meaningfully affect prices or security. This is a short-sighted and dangerously narrow view of energy economics.

Domestic production reduces exposure to global supply shocks, transport bottlenecks and hostile suppliers – Germany’s reliance on Russian gas should be a warning enough. It insulates the UK against price volatility and strengthens its international bargaining power. The European scramble for LNG cargoes in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underscores that energy independence is a matter of national security.​

It also keeps profits, jobs, and taxes in Britain. And it’s greener: the NSTA itself confirmed that imported gas carries more than twice the carbon footprint of UK-produced gas.

We have a wealth of resources on our doorstep. Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) estimates up to 7.5 billion barrels of oil and gas remain untapped in UK waters, worth £165 billion to our economy. Shutting this down whilst relying on more expensive, higher-carbon imports is economic and environmental lunacy.

Read the full story here.