Day: December 18, 2025

Wrong Again PBS, UN Is Pushing Another False Climate Crisis Report

A recent story on PBS NewsHour, “UN says world must jointly tackle issues of climate change, pollution, biodiversity and land loss,” by Tammy Webber of the Associated Press (AP), reports on a new UN “Global Environment Outlook” that repeats the false assertion that the Earth is nearing a global tipping point that can only be avoided through “unprecedented change” and trillions of dollars in new spending to phase out fossil fuels. These assertions are bogus, lacking any basis in data or observable evidence. In fact, the UN has a long track record of failed disaster predictions tied to climate change, going all the way back to 1989, which PBS ignores.

A split image illustrating extreme weather phenomena, featuring lightning and a glacial wave on the left, and a tornado above a fiery landscape on the right.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

A person drives a small electric vehicle along a dirt road with a backdrop of a wildfire engulfing trees and smoke filling the sky, illustrating the urgent issues of climate change as highlighted by a UN report.

A recent story on PBS NewsHour, “UN says world must jointly tackle issues of climate change, pollution, biodiversity and land loss,” by Tammy Webber of the Associated Press (AP), reports on a new UN “Global Environment Outlook” that repeats the false assertion that the Earth is nearing a global tipping point that can only be avoided through “unprecedented change” and trillions of dollars in new spending to phase out fossil fuels. These assertions are bogus, lacking any basis in data or observable evidence. In fact, the UN has a long track record of failed disaster predictions tied to climate change, going all the way back to 1989, which PBS ignores.

Webber writes, “experts have warned that the world is nearing a tipping point on climate change, species, and land loss and other harms,” quoting Bob Watson, lead author of the UN report saying, “[i]t has to be done rapidly now because we’re running out of time.” Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, the last UN state of the planet report, and the one before that, and the one before that going back to the 1980s.

The story and report further assert that climate change is “contributing to wilder weather extremes, including more intense storms, drought, heat, and wildfires,” and that only a rapid, global transition away from fossil fuels can prevent catastrophe.

A history lesson is in order. This is not the first time the UN has announced that “we’re running out of time.” In 1989, 36 years of global warming ago, the UN Environment Programme’s Noel Brown told the Associated Press that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels” if global warming was not reversed by the year 2000, predicting up to three feet of sea-level rise by then, massive coastal inundation of Bangladesh and Egypt, and a wave of “eco-refugees.”

More than three decades later, each of these predictions have proven, not just false, but wildly inaccurate. Climate at a Glance’s “Sea Level Rise” documents long-term tide-gauge records and NASA satellite data showing global sea level rising at about 1.2 inches per decade, with, at best, a modest acceleration since the nineteenth century. Nor have we seen the millions of “climate refugees” that the UN forecast. The Maldives are still above water, Bangladesh has more people than ever, and the “10-year window” to avert disaster has been rolled over so many times it could qualify as a wrecked vehicle.

PBS/AP never mentions this failed track record. Nor does it acknowledge that the UN has now presided over 30 Conferences of the Parties (COPs) without changing the basic trajectory of global emissions or global temperature as seen in figures 1 and 2 below.

Graph showing the trend of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since 1960, with a comparison to United Nations COP climate conference events.
Figure 1. Plot of all U.N. Climate Conferences from 1992 to 2025 with global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Base graphic from NOAA, annotation by A. Watts Source: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
A bar graph displaying global temperature anomalies from 1980 to 2025, comparing the effectiveness of United Nations COP climate conferences with annual global temperatures. Data sourced from NOAA.
Figure 2. Plot of all U.N. Climate Conferences from 1992 to 2025 with global annual temperature. Base graphic from NOAA, annotation by A. Watts Source: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/tavg/12/12/1980-2024?filter=true&filterType=binomial

Even sympathetic analysts concede that the UN’s 2015 Paris Climate Agreement has not delivered; as Climate Realism noted in “Paris Agreement: Dead at 10 (James Hansen was right),” former NASA scientist James Hansen called the Paris Agreement “a fraud” and “worthless words” because there is “no action, just promises,” a verdict the subsequent decade has largely confirmed. When you hold 30 summits and emissions still hit a record high in 2024, as PBS  reports, that is not success; it is one more in a long-list of failed efforts to match the repeatedly failed predictions.

The article also exaggerates what the observational climate record actually shows about “wilder weather extremes.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) finds increased confidence only for certain types of extremes (such as hot extremes and heavy precipitation in some regions), while concluding there is low or limited confidence in global increases in many others, including hurricanes, floods, and droughts.

Climate at a Glance’s entries on “Deaths from Extreme Weather” and “Temperature-Related Deaths” highlight a crucial fact PBS never mentions over the past century, climate-related deaths have plummeted by more than 95 percent, even as global population has quadrupled and temperatures have risen. Independent analyses, such as HumanProgress’ review of disaster mortality, show climate-related deaths falling from about 485,000 per year in the 1920s to fewer than 20,000 per year in the 2010s, a drop of more than 99 percent on a per-capita basis, as seen in their graph below.

Line graph depicting deaths from natural disasters per 100,000 people from 1900 to 2016, showing fluctuating trends with significant peaks in the early 1900s and a decline in recent decades.
Figure 3. Deaths from natural disasters, 1900-2016. Source: https://humanprogress.org/trends/a-safer-world/

That is not what “running out of time” looks like.

PBS/AP further blur the lines between measured science and political advocacy by repeating claims that we are on track for 2.4°C of warming by 2100 and that only an $8 trillion per-year transition away from fossil fuels can save us. These numbers are not the product of thermometers, tide gauges, or crop statistics; they are the output of flawed, not fit-for-purpose, economic and climate models built on long chains of assumptions about future technology, behavior, and policy. The UN’s AR6 report warns that modeled “pathways” entail large uncertainties, with global outcomes depending on highly speculative socio-economic scenarios. Treating these projections as inevitabilities rather than conditional “if-then” exercises is advocacy, not reporting.

PBS/AP also glosses over the fact that many of the harms it lists—land degradation, biodiversity loss, pollution—have causes and remedies largely independent of climate policy. Deforestation in the Amazon, soil depletion in parts of Africa, or plastic pollution in rivers are neither a cause of nor result of global warming, and won’t be solved by net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. By insisting that “if we don’t fix climate change, we’re not going to be able to fix these other issues,” as one quoted scientist puts it, PBS effectively uses legitimate environmental concerns as leverage for unrelated, highly speculative climate actions.

What the article and the UN report completely ignore is the role that affordable, reliable energy, overwhelmingly fossil fuels, has played in making human societies more resilient to environmental hazards. Mechanized agriculture, synthetic fertilizers, modern flood defenses, air conditioning, and rapid disaster response all depend on dense, on-demand energy. That is why climate-related deaths as documented by Climate at a Glance have collapsed over the past century. Yet the UN prescription, uncritically endorsed by PBS/AP, is to rapidly phase out the very energy sources that lifted billions from abject poverty, based on a track record of predictions that have repeatedly failed to materialize.

Climate Realism has chronicled this pattern for years. “UNFCCC Climate Report Lies About Its Own Science”  points out how UN political bodies routinely make sweeping claims about “intensifying destruction” that are not supported by the UN’s own scientific assessments, which identify little or no change in most types of extreme weather events and trends in natural disasters. In “The IPCC’s 1990 Predictions Were Even Worse Than We Thought”, Climate Realism reviews the early IPCC forecasts of rapid warming and sea-level rise and shows how they overshot reality. Despite this, every new report is marketed as the “most comprehensive ever” and used to justify more urgent demands for unprecedented, wrenching, transformational remaking of the world’s economy and governing institutions.

PBS/AP could have told its audience that the UN has now spent more than three decades issuing countdowns to catastrophe, from the 1989 “10-year window” to the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target to the current call for $8 trillion a year in climate spending, and that after 30 COP conferences emissions and temperatures have followed essentially the same trajectory they would have without the meetings. These outlets could have asked whether having a perfect record of failed predictions merited continued confidence that the UN would now get their predictions right, or whether the UN’s past performance might justify skepticism concerning its current disaster claims. Instead, PBS presents the latest UN report as if the institution has no history of predictions or as if its previous predictions have been accurate.

By omitting the long trail of failed UN climate pronouncements, ignoring the dramatic decline in climate-related deaths, and treating speculative model outputs as inevitable futures, PBS and the Associated Press badly mislead their audience concerning the true state of the Earth. A truly public-minded broadcaster would carefully scrutinize the UN’s record and available data rather than uncritically regurgitate its latest false alarm report.

Norway Avoids ‘Green’ Energy Quicksand

While the rest of Europe shivers under the self-imposed austerity of net zero mandates, Norway in the frozen north is keeping the lights on and the bank vaults full as it avoids the “green” ideological quicksand that has defined the continent’s energy policy.

An offshore oil rig illuminated under the Northern Lights, with colorful auroras lighting up the night sky above snow-covered mountains.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

While the rest of Europe shivers under the self-imposed austerity of net zero mandates, Norway in the frozen north is keeping the lights on and the bank vaults full as it avoids the “green” ideological quicksand that has defined the continent’s energy policy.

Despite pressures to decarbonize, Norway has increased efforts to exploit oil and natural gas reserves. The crown jewel of this fossil fuel renaissance is the Johan Castberg field. Located in the Barents Sea, 100 kilometers north of the 20-year-old Snøhvit natural gas field, Johan Castberg is expected to be a beast of a producer – 450 million–650 million barrels over 30 years, with a peak daily capacity of 220,000 barrels.

And the investments don’t stop there. The Norwegian government – ignoring wailing of the United Nations – has initiated plans for its 26th round of oil and gas licensing. Targeted will be “frontier areas” – little-explored regions that can reward high risk with massive returns. While the U.K. suffocates its North Sea industry with windfall taxes and regulatory hostility, Norway is effectively saying, “If you won’t drill, we will.”

Companies operating on the Norwegian continental shelf plan to pour about $25 billion into oil and natural gas projects in 2026. Almost $2 billion higher than a previous estimate because of rising development costs, the commitment signals determination to keep production climbing.

Since autumn 2024, the price of ongoing development has swelled by 17%, which is consistent with a rising trajectory that had Norway overtake Russia in 2022 as Europe’s principal supplier of natural gas.

Despite the country’s embrace of fossil fuels, “greens” enthusiasts often point to Norwegians’ widespread adoption of electric vehicles as a model for other countries. However, as is often the case, the pretense of a “green” utopia is promoted through a deception.

The gleaming EVs filling the streets of Oslo are subsidized by the government’s oil revenue.

The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund – known as the Government Pension Fund Global – is the largest of its kind in the world. As of November, its assets were valued at over $2 trillion. On paper, that is $340,000 for every Norwegian.

It is a delicious irony that the climate activists’ favorite “model” nation is funded by the very substance they despise. Every time Norwegians plug in an EV, they are effectively accepting a handout from drillers at Johan Castberg. The “green” lifestyle is a luxury purchased with petrodollars.

Norway is not without its problems. The country’s substantial electricity exports to the EU become toxic, as the continent uses Norway as a crutch to compensate for the failure of its own wind and solar investments.

Norwegian households, accustomed to decades of low energy prices from abundant hydropower, have been adversely affected by flexible pricing contracts that link their electricity costs to the high prices of European markets. Oslo – along with Stockholm and Helsinki – is tiring of mainland Europe treating the Nordic grid as a dumping ground for the costs of EU’s star-crossed love affair with so-called renewable energy.

Nonetheless, Norway is better off than European Union countries. Not being a member of the EU, Norway has been able to maintain energy sovereignty and out of the net zero suicide pact gripping EU capitals.

Free of the European Union’s authoritarian energy directives has turned into the greatest blessing Norway never asked for. While the EU suffers through “managed decline” in the name of climate salvation, Norway stands apart – enjoying relative wealth and secure energy supplies while watching the spectacle of a continent that chose ideology over arithmetic.

Among the foreign countries in which Gregory Wrightstone’s “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know” received wide distribution was Norway. (A Norwegian language version is available.)

Europe built its “green” cathedral on the shifting sands of a cult. Norway built its future on rocks that happen to float in black gold.

This commentary was first published by American Greatness on December 14, 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.

Environmental Groups Urge Congress to Ban Data Centers

Environmental groups seek to halt data center construction in the United States, warning that data centers consume enormous quantities of electricity and water and contribute to climate change. Further, environmentalists now oppose the artificial intelligence revolution (AI), the irresistible force that is transforming the US economy.

A humanoid robot interacting with a digital display showing the letters 'AI' composed of circuit patterns and binary code.

From Master Resource

By Steve Goreham

“Environmental groups fear the AI tidal wave will wash away the net zero energy transition…. The end result will be a victory for AI and common sense, and the failure of renewable energy and the ideology of Climatism, the fear of human-caused global warming.”

Environmental groups seek to halt data center construction in the United States, warning that data centers consume enormous quantities of electricity and water and contribute to climate change. Further, environmentalists now oppose the artificial intelligence revolution (AI), the irresistible force that is transforming the US economy.

Last week, more than 230 environmental organizations delivered a letter to Congress requesting a “national data center moratorium.” The letter stated, “The rapid expansion of data centers across the United States, driven by the generative artificial intelligence and crypto boom, presents one of the biggest environmental and social threats of pollution, straining water resources, and rising electricity prices across the country.”

Signatories of the letter include Friends of the Earth US, Greenpeace USA, and the US Climate Action Network, along with Democrat-aligned party organizations, including Progressive Democrats of America, New York Progressive Action Network, and the Seattle Democratic Socialists of America.

Background

The number of data centers in the US is exploding. According to USA Data Centers, about 2,700 centers existed at the start of 2024, but this number has risen to more than 4,000, a 50% increase in less than two years. Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle, and other large tech firms called “hyperscalers” are spending a combined total of over $380 billion this year to build data centers to run AI. This capital investment is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of more than 138 nations.

In addition to new centers, the servers of existing data centers are being upgraded to run AI. These new servers use six-to-ten times as much power as the old servers to solve problems, make predictions, and create text, images, music, and videos.

False Causality

Environmental groups are correct that AI uses vast amounts of electricity. Data centers were using about four percent of U.S. power at the start of 2024, but this is projected to triple to 12 percent by 2030. But they are wrong to assert that data centers are the cause of rising electricity prices.

From 2019 to 2024, power prices in the two states with the most data centers, Virginia (over 600) and Texas (over 400), rose far less than the rate of inflation. Virginia power prices were up only 13.2% and Texas prices up only 14.2%, well below the cumulative rate of inflation of 22.7% over the five-year period. Instead, Department of Energy data show that electricity prices are rising fastest in states pursuing green energy policies, including California, Massachusetts, and New York.

Environmental groups decry data center power consumption but ignore the power use of green energy programs. Electric cars, home electric appliances, and green hydrogen also use huge amounts of electricity compared to traditional fuels, but these initiatives are promoted by environmental groups in the name of fighting human-caused climate change.

President Trump called for the US to “do whatever it takes to lead the world in artificial intelligence.” With Progressive Left environmentalists now opposing data centers, the Democrat Party may be turning to oppose AI and Trump’s effort to win the AI race.

Data Center Ecology

Data centers consume vast amounts of electricity, but AI companies now provide facilities to minimize the impact on local communities. Builders are constructing new on-site power plants next to the data center, to avoid taxing the local power grid. For example, Tesla installed 35 gas turbines to power its Colossus xAI supercomputer facility near Memphis, Tennessee. Google is working with NextEra Energy to restart the Duane Arnold nuclear plant to support a new data center in Iowa.

Data centers use large amounts of water to cool AI servers, particularly if evaporative cooling is used. But new centers increasingly use closed-loop cooling systems to reduce water consumption. In addition, some projects are building new water facilities near data centers. Google financed the building of a water treatment plant for the Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority to support a new data center near Atlanta, Georgia.

Natural Gas vs. Net Zero

Environmental groups fear is that the AI tidal wave will wash away the net zero energy transition. Intermittent green energy systems can’t supply the 24-hour, seven-day-per-week power needs of data centers. Wind and solar systems are dilute and spread over wide areas, requiring hundreds of miles of transmission lines and many years to be brought online.

Gas power plants are concentrated power and can be built in less than two years onsite to minimize transmission needs. More than 200 new gas-fired power plants are in planning or under construction across the U.S., with more than 100 plants in Texas alone. It is estimated that 60 percent of the electricity needed for new data centers will come from natural gas, with nuclear plants providing a sizable portion of the rest.

Driven by the AI revolution, states are stepping back from green energy policies. Last month, Pennsylvania withdrew from RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which requires businesses to pay a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. After two decades of pipeline blockage, New York approved a new gas pipeline to New York City. New York also postponed their statewide ban on gas appliances in new construction that was scheduled to begin in January.

Conclusion

The battle is joined. Environmental and Democrat groups are lining up to oppose the artificial intelligence revolution, a technological advancement on the scale of the internet. The end result will be a victory for AI and common sense, and the failure of renewable energy and the ideology of Climatism, the fear of human-caused global warming.

——————–

Steve Goreham, a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy, is author of the Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure (2023); Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development (2017); The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania (2012); and Climatism!: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic (2010). His previous posts at MasterResource can be found here.

Miliband’s Bunch of Wallies

I see Mad Miliband has excelled himself this time!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

I see the idiot Miliband has excelled himself this time!

Image of a LinkedIn post by Chris Stark CBE announcing new appointments to the Clean Power Advisory Commission, with a professional profile picture.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7406454622435049472/

Merlyn Hyman just happens to have been for three years Non-Executive Director at the failed Bristol Energy company which went tits up during his tenure, as the BBC reported in 2020:

A city leader has apologised for the “Bristol Energy disaster” which cost residents tens of millions of pounds.

The troubled council-run supplier’s residential customer base was sold for £14m – far less than the £36.5m Bristol City Council had invested since 2015.

Labour Deputy Mayor Craig Cheney said it “didn’t achieve the ambitions” the founders had envisaged it making.

But the Conservatives said “no amount of political spin… can hide the true scale of this financial failure”.

Conservative group leader Mark Weston said local taxpayers would “be glad to see the curtain finally fall on this misadventure”.  

“It is just a pity this action was not done much sooner as we had advised the mayor [Marvin Rees] before Bristol Energy was allowed to rack up such huge losses.

“However, I urge people not to be taken in or fooled by these sale figures”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-54092638

The job of a non-exec is primarily oversight, which is the one thing plainly that Hyman failed to carry out. Can’t think of a better man to advise DESNZ on ways to throw away billions more of taxpayer money! After all, he is an expert in it.

Meanwhile Juliet Davenport founded the renewable energy company, Good Energy. She currently sits on the board of the Renewable Energy Association, so we can hardly expect any original thinking from her.

Alastair Phillips-Davies is CEO of SSE and Craig Bennett is the woke CEO of the Wildlife Trusts, which have deserted their original purpose in life and have morphed into yet another shill for climate change. Robert Gross works at the widely discredited Imperial College.

All in all, this bunch of charlatans and clowns will supply Ed Miliband with just the sort of advice he needs to continue his destruction of the country on the altar of stupid Net Zero!

Climate Faithful Admit Need for Fossil Fuels

For years, sensible voices outside the climate establishment warned that a future free of fossil fuels was physically impossible. As energy sources and as feedstocks, oil, natural gas and coal are the foundation of modern civilization. Hardly any product – whether the fertilizer that makes possible food for billions or the plastics for medical devices, smartphones and thousands of other items – is not dependent on hydrocarbons in some fashion.

An offshore oil rig silhouetted against a colorful sunset over the ocean.

From CO2 Coalition´s Substack

By Vijay Jayaraj

An oil pump jack against a blue sky with some clouds and green trees in the background.

For years, sensible voices outside the climate establishment warned that a future free of fossil fuels was physically impossible. As energy sources and as feedstocks, oil, natural gas and coal are the foundation of modern civilization. Hardly any product – whether the fertilizer that makes possible food for billions or the plastics for medical devices, smartphones and thousands of other items – is not dependent on hydrocarbons in some fashion.

Yet, green activists sold the fantasy of a “decarbonized” world as inevitable. Supposedly upon us was peak oil – the point at which the production of probably the planet’s most useful commodity begins a terminal decline.

Operating like a pagan religion, the climate establishment punished dissent, silenced debate and enforced conformity. Governments, corporations and media outlets mindlessly repeated the mantra of “net zero,” neither understanding the objective was impossible to achieve nor foreseeing the damage that would be done in pursuing it. The public has endured relentless sermons, impassioned pleas and terrifying predictions from a powerful cabal of activists, subsidized media platforms and cynical politicians.

An illustration depicting several cartoon mice fleeing from a sinking ship labeled 'NET ZERO', with smoke rising from the ship.

Nonetheless, the truth has broken through from the most influential global energy information body, the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA’s latest policy outlook shatters the core pretense of the environmental movement, acknowledging emphatically that demand for oil and natural gas will continue to grow until 2050.

The IEA says that oil demand is not only holding steady but rising – expected to reach 113 million barrels per day by mid-century, roughly 13% higher than 2024 levels. The same report projects that natural gas demand will expand dramatically, especially through liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets, which are forecast to grow from 560 billion cubic meters in 2024 to more than 1,000 billion cubic meters by 2050.

After years of manipulative modeling to validate climate illusions, the agency had to confront hard data that showed rising consumption, growing populations, industrial expansion and the energy needs of AI, cloud computing and electrified transport. These forces mean the need for fossil fuels will remain for decades to come.

The IEA’s new forecast also recognizes a demand surge from the Global South. Countries like India, Nigeria and Indonesia are prioritizing energy access over ideological purity. They are building refineries, coal mines and energy infrastructure to secure their future. Clear-eyed leaders know that raising millions out of generational poverty takes precedence over indulging the lunacy of wealthy elites who profess to lose sleep over a theoretical warming of a couple degrees 100 years in the future.

The massive expansion of AI data centers and electrification efforts – once cited as proof of a “green” revolution – are driving higher demand for fossil fuels. The digital age requires continuous power and the hydrocarbons to provide it.

An infographic depicting the phrase 'The end of oil' overlaid on a graph showing fluctuating oil prices alongside black barrels and an oil pumpjack.

The death certificate for the “peak oil” delusion has been issued.

Why did the energy establishment get it so wrong? Because physics never cared about political narratives. The laws of nature and economics are immutable. Replacing the proven power of hydrocarbons with politically favored technologies was fundamentally infeasible.

Wind and solar are dreadfully bad on every front – land-intensive, resource-heavy and often unavailable when most needed. Wind, hydrogen and solar are impracticable. Period.

Claims that these technologies are economical are based on metrics that exclude the staggering costs of backup power (usually natural gas plants) for intermittent wind and solar, of new transmission lines and of stabilizing a power grid made unstable by “green” machines.

Fossil fuels, therefore, will remain the backbone of electricity generation, as IEA’s data indicates. Even under optimistic assumptions for the growth of nuclear power, oil and gas are projected to dominate through mid-century.

The number of climate crusaders willing to deny this reality seemingly dwindle with each passing week.

This commentary was first published by CO2 Coalition’s Substack on December 16, 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.

What’s New!

The CO2 Coalition has released its first episode of Climate Debrief featuring Dr. William Happer. Watch the full video here!

In case you missed it, Dr. William Happer and Dr. Richard Lindzen joined Joe Rogan on his podcast The Joe Rogan Experience.

A digitally created image featuring a man in a suit standing in front of a stylized landscape that includes landmarks and industrial structures, with a large sun in the background and flying birds.

New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability to Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature

A 2007 math proofs study that asserted a global mean temperature does not exist in reality (because a temperature average can only be defined in equilibrium systems) has never been disproved.

World map displaying different climate zones marked in various colors, with labeled oceans.

From No Trick Zone

By Kenneth Richard

“Temperature is an intensive property that is defined only in equilibrium systems and cannot be meaningfully averaged across non-equilibrium systems.” − Cohler, 2025

A 2007 math proofs study that asserted a global mean temperature does not exist in reality (because a temperature average can only be defined in equilibrium systems) has never been disproved.

For example, determining whether a cup of coffee is warming or cooling – and by how much – is entirely dependent on the averaging formula one arbitrarily chooses. In the study 4 averaging methods were chosen to assess change in the average coffee temperature over time. All four were shown to yield different warming vs. cooling results.

A scientific article discussing temperature assessment methods in non-equilibrium systems, featuring mathematical equations and graphs illustrating different averaging techniques.
Image Source: Essex et al., 2007

A new study reopens this debate by reasserting there are “infinite ways to average temperature.” The averaging method chosen in modern “climate science” is arbitrary, non-physical, and yields fundamentally different results vs. other methods.

“Each method produces different numerical results and different [average temperature] trends over time.”

Journal cover of 'Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons' Winter 2025 issue, featuring the article titled 'The Father of Lies Hijacking Climate Science: Global Mean Surface Temperature Does Not Exist' by Jonathan Cohler, B.A.
Image Source: Cohler, 2025

A 2020 study illustrating this unheralded statistical problem fundamental to modern “climate science” pointed out that a large volume of scientists had calculated the global average surface temperature as ranging from 14.0 to 15.1°C from 1877 to 1913, or approximately 14.5°C.

And yet according to calculations from HadCRUT4, NASA GISS, and Berkeley Earth, the global mean temperature was 14.4°C, 14.5°C, and 14.5°C, respectively, from 1991-2018. In other words, it can be shown that there has been “no change for the past 100 years” in the global mean temperature.

Academic article discussing historical zonal averages of temperatures and their implications for global mean temperature assessments.
Image Source: Kramm et al., 2020

Today’s IQ Test: Which Is Cheaper To Produce Electricity, Wind/Solar Or Fossil Fuels?

Wind and solar, due to intermittency, are not capable of powering a full-time electrical grid on their own. To make the grid capable of fulfilling customer demand 24/7/365, wind and solar require large amounts of additional capital infrastructure — dispatchable back-up generation, energy storage, additional transmission capacity, and more. If wind and solar prove insufficient to eliminate dispatchable back-up generation, then you find yourself running (and paying for) two duplicative systems, when you could have had only one.

A landscape featuring damaged solar panels and wind turbines under a dark, cloudy sky, with smoke rising in the background.

From The Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

A cartoon depicting two characters in front of wind turbines, discussing the high costs associated with wind energy, while one character expresses skepticism about its affordability.

I have been writing here for about a decade that wind and solar would inevitably prove to be far more expensive for producing useful electricity than other methods like fossil fuels, nuclear, or hydro. The reasons are not difficult to understand. Wind and solar, due to intermittency, are not capable of powering a full-time electrical grid on their own. To make the grid capable of fulfilling customer demand 24/7/365, wind and solar require large amounts of additional capital infrastructure — dispatchable back-up generation, energy storage, additional transmission capacity, and more. If wind and solar prove insufficient to eliminate dispatchable back-up generation, then you find yourself running (and paying for) two duplicative systems, when you could have had only one. Energy storage as a potential solution to intermittency turns out to be impossibly expensive. If the only back-up generation you can find that works is powered by fossil fuels, then you haven’t even succeeded in achieving zero carbon emissions in the electricity sector.

And yet we have been, and continue to be, subjected to a constant drumbeat of advocacy claiming that wind and solar are now the cheapest ways to produce electricity. I’ll give you a few examples of that in a moment.

So, who is right? We’ve had a long wait here in the U.S. as groups of states have incrementally differentiated their energy systems, and then as data have accumulated as to relative costs between states that have emphasized the “renewables” and those that have stuck with fossil fuels. At this point I think that we can make a definitive call. The answer is that increasing penetration of wind and solar generation on the grid drives electricity costs higher. And not by a little.

Earlier this week a think tank called the Institute for Energy Research came out with a Report titled “BLUE STATES, HIGH RATES ELECTRICITY PRICES: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.” The Report takes a deep look at five states in particular — California, Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky and New York. Two of those — California and New York — have sought to make themselves the “climate leaders” and have raced to increase use of the renewables and reduce the use of fossil fuels. The other three — Florida, Louisiana and Kentucky — have stuck with fossil fuels. Over time, the prices for electricity as between these two groups of states have diverged dramatically.

But before getting to the details, let’s take a brief look at the party line from those who continue to contend that electricity from wind and sun is cheaper. The unquestioned leader of the advocacy is the International Renewal Energy Agency, or “IRENA,” which is some kind of adjunct of the UN. A good example of their propaganda is their July 22, 2025 Report titled “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024.” From the introduction:

Renewables continue to prove themselves as the most cost-competitive source of new electricity generation. On an LCOE basis, 91% of newly commissioned utility-scale renewable capacity delivered power at a lower cost than the cheapest new fossil fuel-based alternative.

“LCOE” is the thoroughly fraudulent “levelized cost of electricity” measure that simply excludes all the ancillary costs of running a grid on renewables (costs like backup, storage, and extra transmission). Unfortunately, when the consumer gets the bill, the ancillary costs get included.

Also in the forefront of the advocacy is the usual gaggle of lavishly-funded environmental groups. From example, consider this from the Environmental Defense Fund on March 21, 2025:

The U.S. is going to need more affordable electric power to supply data centers, manufacturing and homes around the country. . . . Our country’s vast supplies of wind and solar resources are ready to be tapped to support that demand . . . . And these clean energy sources paired with battery storage are cost-effective too. Electricity from wind and solar costs less than electricity from gas and coal.

EDF’s link goes to an IRENA Report. And of course, don’t forget the New York Times. From a piece titled “Want Cheap Power, Fast? Solar and Wind Firms Have a Suggestion,” March 21, 2025:

Wind, solar and battery storage are relatively quick and cheap to construct. That could help avert energy shortages and keep prices low, an argument that renewable energy firms are making to policymakers.

Well, if those claims were true, then California and New York should be beating the pants off Florida, Kentucky and Louisiana on electricity prices. But of course, it is the opposite. Fortunately, we are now far enough into this process to have clear data on the diverging prices among the states. Here is a national map from the IER Report:

A color-coded map of the United States displaying state electricity prices compared to the national average, with blue indicating prices below the average and red indicating prices above. It highlights the differences in electricity costs across various states.

For New York, IER bases much of its discussion on the November 25 Report from the Progressive Policy Institute that I also cited extensively in my post of December 3. For the case of California, here are some details from the IER Report:

California is second in the nation in total electricity generation from renewable resources and leads the country in utility-scale solar generating capacity. California’s generation mix is 42% natural gas, 39% non-hydroelectric renewables, 12% hydroelectric, and 7% nuclear.

And how has that turned out for consumer electricity rates?

California’s electricity rates are the second-highest in the nation. Rates are double the national average. Governor Newsom and California’s state legislature have embraced numerous policies that intentionally increase electricity rates, including a carbon dioxide reduction mandate, renewable mandates, solar cost-shifting (net metering), nuclear reactor closures, and EV charging subsidies, to name a few.

The cases of the three example states that have avoided pursuit of the renewables are equally simple. Louisiana:

In 2025, Louisiana had the third-lowest electricity rates in the United States. The reasons are simple—73% of Louisiana’s electricity is generated by natural gas and unlike California or New York, Louisiana has not attempted to implement carbon dioxide or renewable energy goals through its electricity generation system.

Florida:

Florida delivers electricity at prices 2% below the U.S. average at 13.27 cents per kWh for all sectors. It achieves this mainly by generating 75% of its power from natural gas, even though the state has no significant natural gas production of its own and must import virtually all of it.

And Kentucky:

In 2025, Kentucky had the 13th-lowest electricity rates in the United States and the lowest rates of any state east of the Mississippi River. Kentucky’s rates are 21% lower than the national average. The reasons are straightforward—67% of Kentucky’s electricity is generated by coal and 26% by natural gas. Unlike states such as California or New York, Kentucky has not burdened ratepayers with the carbon dioxide reduction mandates or renewable energy requirements that inflate electricity costs.

To be fair, the IER Report does not cover some states with relatively high penetration of renewables on the grid that nevertheless have below average electricity costs. Prominent examples are Texas and Iowa. Both of those also have full fossil fuel backup capacity, meaning that their electricity costs could be lowered further by eliminating the wind turbines and just paying for one generation system. And, in my view, both Texas and Iowa have reached a practical maximum of wind generation on a grid. My prediction is that attempts in either state to meaningfully increase wind generation from current levels and eliminate fossil fuels will drive electricity costs dramatically higher. But let them go ahead and try. Prove me wrong!

Meanwhile, despite the evidence now available, Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey just won the governorship with a campaign substantially focused on providing more “affordable” electricity through mostly wind and solar generation. Her chances of success are about zero.

Shell Oil Sued Over “Causing Typhoon” in Philippines in Major Test Case

A massive ‘lawfare’ claim backed by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth has been filed in the UK’s Royal Courts of Justice claiming that Shell Oil played a part in a devastating typhoon in the Philippines in 2021. At the centre of the case is a Green Blob-funded weather ‘attribution’ study that claims Typhoon Rai, also known as Odette, was made significantly worse due to human caused climate change. The study has been recently published and is heavily linked to academic institutions funded by the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham.

Satellite image of Typhoon Rai making landfall in the Philippines, with geographical markers highlighting Manila and Davao.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Rescue workers in orange vests assist people stranded in floodwaters, with a partially submerged boat visible amid rushing water.

A massive ‘lawfare’ claim backed by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth has been filed in the UK’s Royal Courts of Justice claiming that Shell Oil played a part in a devastating typhoon in the Philippines in 2021. At the centre of the case is a Green Blob-funded weather ‘attribution’ study that claims Typhoon Rai, also known as Odette, was made significantly worse due to human caused climate change. The study has been recently published and is heavily linked to academic institutions funded by the green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham.

The action has been filed by a number of survivors of the Philippines storm that caused considerable damage in parts of the Philippines in late 2021. It claims financial compensation as well as “injunctive relief to curb Shell’s destructive activities”.

Typhoons are not unknown in this part of the world, but recent evidence suggests there has been little change in the overall trend over the last 100 years. Numbers and intensity of storms rise and fall over shorter periods but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has seen little evidence that humans have recently caused the trend to get worse. In fact, a recent paper published in Nature found “robust declining trends in the annual number of tropical cyclones at global and regional scales during the 20th century”. The paper was titled: ‘Declining tropical cyclone frequency under global warming.’

The key attribution paper in the Shell case uses a standard technique measuring the outputs of two computer model simulations. This imagines an atmosphere where humans have emitted carbon dioxide by burning hydrocarbons and one where there is no such contribution. To say the process is controversial would be an understatement. It cannot count as scientific work under the Popperian principle since the results are unable to be tested and are unfalsifiable. The field of weather attribution is dedicated to grabbing media headlines and providing ammunition for lawfare cases.

If the Shell case ever gets to court, it will be interesting to see how weather attribution claims stand up to forensic cross examination. Shell could call on the services of the distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr., who has noted that he can think of no other area of research “where the relaxing of rigour and standards has been encouraged by research in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy and even lawsuits”. Pielke suggests that the rise of individual event attribution studies coincides with frustration that the IPCC cannot say that the frequency and intensity of most types of extreme weather have increased in an era where humans are using oil and gas. In his view, they offer “comfort and support” to those focused on climate advocacy.

The Typhoon Rai attribution paper is written by four academics from the University of Sheffield and Imperial College London. Both universities have financial links with Jeremy Grantham. The fourth author Nathan Sparks works at the Grantham Institute at Imperial. The Philippines’ Category 5 Cyclone Rai caused widespread damage across the southern-central part of the country, with compounding effects of extreme rainfall, high winds and storm surges. It is claimed that a “multi-method, multi-model probabilistic event attribution” found that wind speeds of landfalling storms like Rai had become 70% more likely due to humans emitting ‘greenhouse’ gases. Looking of course at you in particular Shell Oil. Lawsuits and lawyers thrive on precise numbers so “multi-method probabilistic” modelling along with “compound event attribution theory” produces the conclusion that human-caused climate change “has likely more than doubled the likelihood of a compound event like Typhoon Rai”.

As noted, it will be interesting to see how all this modelling stands up to examination in a civil law court. The less charitable might note that this probabilistic guff would not last five minutes in a criminal court where hard and conclusive evidence, such as DNA, fingerprints, confessions and observations, is generally considered a basic requirement to secure a conviction.

The Rai civil lawsuit has been filed under Philippines tort law in the London Courts due to the domicile of Shell in the UK. The case is backed by three large activist groups who are thought to be covering the legal and organisational costs. Greenpeace is providing advocacy, research and mobilisation support, while Legal Rights and Natural Resources Centre, the local member of Friends of the Earth International, is said to be handling local legal coordination matters. Also involved is a local grouping under the banner of Philippine Movement for Climate Justice. Shell is accused of being responsible for producing 2% of global fossil fuel emissions that have directly contributed to human-caused atmospheric warming. For good measure, Shell is said to have known about the alleged risks for decades, a common claim made by activists that will no doubt be tested in any future court hearing. The mainstream rules around ‘settled’ climate science, where discussion is effectively banned in the interests of promoting the Net Zero fantasy, are unlikely to apply in the London High Court.

The Shell litigation is an important test case. Activists have spent years seeking financial support and recognition for their pseudoscientific claims that they can measure a chaotic and non-linear atmosphere. Such is the level of refinement and expertise that they claim, many people believe they are able to pin the blame for individual weather events on humans. Most mainstream media hype their alchemistic pronouncements without question, but it will be interesting to see how the attribution claims stand up to the attention of m’Learned Friends in a combative court forum.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

Panic-Stricken Climate Alarmists Resort to Bolder Lies

The panic is real among climate alarmists as their scaremongering of the past three decades loses its power over a public awakening from a spell induced by a corrupt political class and sustained by a compliant business community and media.

A dramatic landscape depicting a turbulent sky with lightning, swirling clouds, and a rocky terrain. On one side, dark storm clouds loom over tall pine trees, while on the other side, waves crash against a rocky shore, with icy formations visible.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

The panic is real among climate alarmists as their scaremongering of the past three decades loses its power over a public awakening from a spell induced by a corrupt political class and sustained by a compliant business community and media.

So, what is the response of those holding onto the fantasy that humankind is driving the planet to an overheated apocalypse and that politicians who struggle to manage public services could control something as complex as the climate? They attempt to spice up warmed-over lies with more outrageous ones.

This theater of pathetic prevarication was encapsulated perfectly in humid, overcrowded halls of the recent COP30, the 30th version of the United Nations’ annual climate conference. Year after year, celebrities of politics, business and entertainment fly to exotic locations, burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel, to admonish working people who insist on driving to their jobs and to pressure the Third World to accept energy poverty for the sake of a world that theoretically might be cooler by a degree or two. The hypocrisy is matched only by the thirst for power and other people’s money.

Held this year in Belém, Brazil, with the Amazon providing a lush backdrop, the smell of desperation was in the air. And speaking of public services, so was the occasional stench of cranky indoor plumbing.

Al Gore, the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stood before cameras warning of imminent catastrophe, never acknowledging that previous predictions had failed to materialize.

Here is a sampling of falsehoods:

  • The Lie: “The transition away from fossil fuels is inevitable and accelerating.” The Truth: Global demand for oil, gas, and coal is at an all-time high. The “transition” lives only in press releases of Western governments. The rest of the world is drilling and mining.
  • The Lie: “Climate action creates jobs and wealth.” The Truth: “Green mandates destroy industry.” Look at Germany’s deindustrialization and the wreckage of the automotive sector in the U.S. and Europe. “Green jobs” are subsidized mirages that vanish the moment government subsidies disappear.
  • The Lie: “We are running out of time.” The Truth: “We have heard this for 50 years and counting.” In the 1970s, it was a coming ice age. In the 2000s, it was Arctic ice that would be gone by 2013. The timeline of doom makes the promise of a used car salesman look like a Boy Scout’s pledge.

Gore attacked President Donald Trump’s move away from the cultic climate movement, knowing that without the checkbook of the U.S. taxpayer the U.N.’s redistribution schemes are dead.

Gore even turned his fire on one of his own, Bill Gates. Why? Because Gates dared to suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, more immediate threats like hunger and disease should be prioritized over the climate crusade’s nebulous, ever-shifting goalposts. Members of the climate elite have become so intoxicated by their own dogma that any deviation – even from a fellow traveler like Gates – is considered treason.

Something as ambitious as COP30’s “Global Ethical Stocktake” – an initiative to create a governance structure superseding national sovereignty – can ill afford dissent among the faithful. Their vision is to direct countries away from coal plants, oil drilling, meat consumption and so on to “save the planet” from a made-up crisis.

To manage dissent, COP30 advanced a “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change.” While framed as a defense of truth, it would be Orwellian worldwide censorship.

The real misinformation has been repeated predictions of apocalypse, fabricated links between bad weather and a harmless gas necessary for life on Earth and attacks on the reputations of those who question climate orthodoxy.

Gore ended his main COP30 speech urging data-driven action. Following that advice would include examinations of crop harvests, changes in standards of living and deaths from natural disasters. All have been trending in a positive direction for decades – good news that only adds to the panic.

This commentary was first published by Townhall on December 6, 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.