Venezuelan Oil: Statism to Liberation?

Venezuela’s oil industry has long exemplified statism: full state control via Petrรณleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) after nationalization in the 1970s, intensified under Hugo Chรกvez’s 2007 expropriations of private assets. This model, combined with mismanagement, corruption, and U.S. sanctions since 2019, collapsed production from over 3 million barrels per day (bpd) in the early 2000s to around 1 million bpd by late 2025.

A political graphic contrasting the flags of the USA and Venezuela, with images of Nicolรกs Maduro and Donald Trump, highlighting themes of statism versus liberation and oil industry joint ventures.

Venezuela’s oil industry has long exemplified statism: full state control via Petrรณleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) after nationalization in the 1970s, intensified under Hugo Chรกvez’s 2007 expropriations of private assets. This model, combined with mismanagement, corruption, and U.S. sanctions since 2019, collapsed production from over 3 million barrels per day (bpd) in the early 2000s to around 1 million bpd by late 2025.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

A composite image featuring prominent political figures, including Nicolรกs Maduro and Donald Trump, set against a backdrop of oil infrastructure and a cloudy sky.

From Master Resource

Byย Allen Brooks

โ€œVenezuelan oil has been powering Cubaโ€™s electricity grid, and the Trump administration may use the fuel issue to effect changes in the island-nationโ€™s leadership.โ€

โ€œMore heavy oil from Venezuela will put pressure on Canadaโ€™s role as a supplier of heavy crude to the U.S. It may also pressure Saudi Arabia, which ships heavy oil to feed its refineries in the U.S.โ€

โ€œAccess to Venezuelaโ€™s substantial oil reserves is likely to put a cap on how high global oil prices might rise in the futureโ€ฆ.โ€

Little did we realize how interesting 2026โ€™s energy market would become when we finished writing our January 3 Energy Musings, โ€œEnergy Finishes 2025 In 8th Place Out Of 11 Sectors.โ€ Just a few hours after finishing and scheduling its publication, United States Special Forces and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, supported by military forces, mounted a military-style campaign to capture Venezuelan President Nicolรกs Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

Their arrest was to comply with a federal indictment in New York for narco-terrorism conspiracy and other charges. Those charges included cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Multi-Country Ramifications

This dramatic change will have implications for global oil markets. And it might be asked if the political change underway in Venezuela marks the first domino of totalitarian regimes to fall, especially given the growing anti-government protests in Iran.

There will be many geopolitical ramifications from the Venezuelan leadership change, including the termination of sanctions on Venezuela and its oil. President Trump indicated a willingness to sell oil to China, helping Venezuela to pay down its $60 billion debt to that country.

Regionally, removing Maduro ensures that the border dispute with Guyana, which could impact its oil development, will be a non-issue. The news for Cuba, however, is not as favorable. Venezuelan oil has been powering Cubaโ€™s electricity grid, and the Trump administration may use the fuel issue to effect changes in the island-nationโ€™s leadership. That would be consistent with the administrationโ€™s desire to enforce the Monroe Doctrineโ€™s policy of preventing foreign intervention in the governments of the Americas. Russia and Iran have long been supporters of the Cuban regime, as well as the Venezuelan regime. Putting these U.S. adversaries on notice to stop meddling in South American politics is an essential message from the Trump administrationโ€™s police action dealing with Maduro and his wife.

The decision to allow Venezuela to sell oil to China ensures that the nation will retain its commercial relationships, which are essential for ongoing international business activity. At the same time, it is a signal to China that the U.S. will enforce the Monroe Doctrine policies, removing the Americas as a focal point for increased Chinese involvement, which has involved significant investment in mines, ports, and other South American industries. The move also puts China on notice that its Venezuelan oil flows could be shut off instantly over unfriendly actions towards the U.S., changing the energy landscape for China. This risk may explain why China has been building its oil inventories despite flagging oil demand.

Oil Reserve Markup

Venezuela is estimated to have 303 billion barrels of crude oil reserves as of 2023, 17% of proven world reserves. Significantly, the reserve estimate was increased during the Chรกvez regime from 80 billion barrels to 303 billion barrels. While the reserve write-up was audited by the petroleum engineering company, Ryder Scott, it was prepared for the Venezuelan dictatorship.

The primary challenge for Venezuelan crude oil is its heavy, sour nature. That makes the oil a lower-quality supply, selling at a discount from world prices. Much of the oil comes from the Orinoco belt, which requires it to be mixed with diluent to enable transportation and refining. That also lowers the oilโ€™s value and creates logistical issues, because without the diluent, the oil cannot be converted into a commercial product. Securing diluent supplies has been a recurring logistical and financial challenge, and is unlikely to change materially in the near term.

Four Oil Charts

Based on data from the Energy Institute and from BP, we have created several charts that show the role of Venezuelan oil in the global oil mix and the nationโ€™s significance within OPEC since 1965. Venezuela was a founding member of OPEC in 1960 because it feared becoming a victim of international oil companies, which were unwilling to pay a fair price for oil extracted from OPEC member countries. [Ed note: The U.S. Mandatory Oil Import Program in 1959 created an oil surplus that sent prices down.]

It took more than a decade for the oil supply pendulum to swing in favor of OPEC members. When it did in the early 1970s, the international oil industry changed dramatically, with pricing power shifting into the hands of the host producing countries. In contrast, countries with mature production risked supply shortages and costly alternatives.

The first two charts show that Venezuela was a more important source of global and OPEC oil supplies in the 1960s and 1970s than it is today. They also show how Venezuelaโ€™s market share has declined sharply in recent years. What the charts show is how Venezuelaโ€™s output and market share fell sharply during those early years as other OPEC members rapidly expanded their outputs. Moreover, with lower-quality oil, Venezuelan supplies were less desirable to refiners seeking more low-sulfur, light crude oil to convert into gasoline and diesel fuels for the transportation market.

During that period of declining market share, the industrialized world was shifting its electricity generation away from oil to coal and natural gas, reducing the market potential for Venezuelan crude. Remember that this market shift was driven by a change in global oil pricing, from international oil companies to the Middle East OPEC host countries.

Chart 1: Venezuelaโ€™s global market share fell by nearly two-thirds between 1965 and 1977.

Chart 2: Venezuela has struggled to sustain relevance within OPEC in recent years.

For readers who prefer more granular oil production data, the following two charts show Venezuelaโ€™s output relative to the world oil supply and OPECโ€™s output. The challenges of sustaining and growing its oil production reflected the dynamics of Venezuelaโ€™s political situation and the tactics of its national oil company, Petrรณleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

Hugo Chรกvez assumed the Presidency of Venezuela on February 2, 1999. At that time, world oil markets were in turmoil, partly due to PDVSA policies to maximize output, disregarding OPEC quotas and price objectives. This was a major contributor to the 1998 oil price collapse. The prior Venezuelan government had nearly abandoned OPEC as it struggled to avoid a financial collapse.

Chรกvez and his new oil minister, Ali Rodriquez Araque, completely reversed the situation. Along with the governments of Mexico and Saudi Arabia, a new understanding on quotas and higher prices was negotiated between OPEC and other oil-exporting countries.

A bit of personal history. In late February of 1999, as President of the National Association of Petroleum Investment Analysts (NAPIA), we were part of a group invited by PDVSA to spend a week touring Venezuelaโ€™s oil industry. PDVSA officials were hoping to curry favor from the investment community, as it would need to tap financial markets to sustain and grow its operations.

To appreciate the charade the Venezuelan government was attempting to conduct, on our first dayโ€™s lunch, Oil Minister Ali Rodriquez spoke. A condition was that he would talk in Spanish. Fortunately, we had a member fluent in Spanish who volunteered to conduct a contemporaneous translation. Sitting at the head table with other leaders of NAPIA and me was the U.S. Ambassador. When Rodriquez finished his talk and the Q&A, he sat down and conversed in perfect English with the Ambassador.

The new agreement between OPEC and other oil exporters led to a dramatically different oil market starting in 2000. That yearโ€™s Venezuelan oil export revenues were a record of $27.3 billion, a significant increase above the previous peak of $19.1 billion in 1981. However, there was a substantial difference in the impact on the Venezuelan governmentโ€™s take. In 1981, PDVSAโ€™s $19.1 billion in revenues generated $13.9 billion in royalties and income taxes. In 2000, the $27.3 billion in oil export proceeds generated only $11.3 billion in government income. Royalties and income taxes amounted to 73% of export revenues in 1981, but only 41% in 2000. This shift was mainly due to changes in how PDVSA structured its agreements after 1989, when it opened up its marginal oil fields to international oil companies. Those contracts were structured as service contracts rather than production agreements.

Furthermore, in 1989, when Venezuela came close to insolvency and was forced to subscribe to International Monetary Fund and World Bank adjustment programs and reforms, PDVSA adopted the worldwide accounting rules for reporting profits and losses. This brought down the ring fence around PDVSAโ€™s Venezuelan operations. It was forced to transfer to Venezuela the costs it incurred in its foreign ventures, thus increasing the profits deemed to have accrued outside the country. The difference in tax rates between Venezuela and the United States was 67.7% versus 34%. Moreover, PDVSA also charged its Venezuelan accounts with the financial costs of its nine billion dollars in foreign debt, further reducing domestic profits and the taxes it owed to the Venezuelan government.

Chart 3: Despite its best efforts to increase production, oil output has been in a free-fall.

Chart 4: Venezuela (in gold) remains a minor player in OPEC.

Given the unsettled leadership situation in the government, we should not expect any near-term change in the oil market from Maduroโ€™s removal. At the moment, his vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, has assumed leadership of the country. Unless the military leaders shift their allegiance away from her to the popularly elected politicians in 2024, the current turmoil is likely to continue. Will this lead to a further exodus of Venezuelans, or will people be willing to become active in demanding the leadership they desire?

An Oil Revival?

In the longer term, if the leadership changes to that of popularly elected officials, we can expect Western oil companies to re-enter Venezuela. There is also the possibility that PDVSA will be able to rehire prior professional employees who emigrated rather than live under the Chรกvez and Maduro regimes. A return of Western oil companies, with their technical talent and financial resources, plus long working histories and knowledge of the countryโ€™s oil resources for some companies, will put Venezuela on a path to increased oil output. Estimates are that the sector needs investments of $10 billion a year for many years to restore the industryโ€™s productive capacity.

Few people know the condition of the countryโ€™s oil fields, its transportation network, and refining capacity. There may need to be a significant investment before production growth can be achieved. How long will this take, and what price will the international oil companies demand to return to Venezuela? Those are impossible questions to answer now.

While we may be surprised by how quickly the domestic oil industry changes and improves, without a significant number of former PDVSA workers returning, it is safer to expect a long, slow improvement in Venezuelaโ€™s production growth. There may be a jump of 250,000 barrels a day in output, assuming PDVSA can acquire sufficient diluent. However, sellers may be reluctant to commit to PDVSA until political stabilization is achieved.

More heavy oil from Venezuela will put pressure on Canadaโ€™s role as a supplier of heavy crude to the U.S. It may also pressure Saudi Arabia, which ships heavy oil to feed its refineries in the U.S. China might become a buyer of Canadian and Saudi heavy oil output in the future, as a supply diversification move, further altering global supply chains.

Access to Venezuelaโ€™s substantial oil reserves is likely to put a cap on how high global oil prices might rise in the future, given the lack of industry reinvestment in recent years. That could be a good thing for the industry in the long term, as demand might grow more than the International Energy Agency predicts by 2050, with lower near-term oil prices.

The issue of energy dominance is a key outcome of the weekendโ€™s events in Venezuela. Europe struggles to understand it, while China and the U.S. fully comprehend its significance. Russia and Iran are in the process of learning the new energy landscape. Everyone will need to rethink their views of the geopolitical and energy landscapes after last Saturday nightโ€™s events.

โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€“

G. Allen Brooks has been actively engaged in the oil patch in various roles for the last half-century. He has been an energy securities analyst, an oilfield service company manager, a consultant to energy company managements and a director of various oilfield service companies.

Since early 2005, Mr. Brooks has been engaged in consulting as an advisor to PPHB LP, a boutique oilfield service investment banking firm, where he provides proprietary research for the firmโ€™s partners and analysts. PPHB also distributes Musings From the Oil Patch, the highly regarded energy newsletter authored by Mr. Brooks since 1999.

An Economics graduate of the University of Connecticut, Brooks also has an M.S. degree in Economics from Cornell University. He started his investment career in 1969. Mr. Brooks lives in Houston, Texas.

Energy Musings contains articles and analyses dealing with important issues and developments within the energy industry, including historical perspective, with potentially significant implications for executives planning their companiesโ€™ future.

Scots pine โ€˜could be wiped out by climateย changeโ€™

The headline “Scots pine โ€˜could be wiped out by climate changeโ€™” appears to stem from a January 2026 article in The Telegraph where horticulturalists warned of potential extinction of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) in the UK due to hotter, drier conditions stressing trees in southern England (e.g., Cambridge).

A scenic view of a forested landscape in Scotland featuring Scots pine trees and rolling hills, highlighting the natural beauty and diversity of the region.

The headline “Scots pine โ€˜could be wiped out by climate changeโ€™” appears to stem from a January 2026 article in The Telegraph where horticulturalists warned of potential extinction of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) in the UK due to hotter, drier conditions stressing trees in southern England (e.g., Cambridge).

A Scots pine tree stands in a misty forest, showcasing its twisting trunk and dense green foliage, surrounded by other trees in a lush, natural setting.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

A scenic landscape featuring a dense forest of Scots pine trees surrounded by rolling hills and lush greenery.

h/t Ian Magness

 God help us from the useless Telegraph!

Headline from The Telegraph: 'Scots pine 'could be wiped out by climate change', indicating potential extinction of Scots pine due to climate conditions.

The Scots pine could be wiped out in the UK by climate change, horticulturalists have warned.

The evergreen conifer, which can grow up to 120ft tall and live for 700 years, is the only pine native to the UK and can be found in the once extensive Caledonian forests of Scotland.

But Sally Petitt, the head of horticulture at Cambridge University Botanic Garden, has now warned that Scotlandโ€™s national tree is โ€œsufferingโ€ in the rolling heatwaves and lack of rain.

Ms Petitt said: โ€œHimalayan pines and Scots pines are suffering here. We have lost two mature Pinus wallichiana (Bhutan pine) in recent years, which we believe is due to lower rainfall and high temperatures.โ€

In 2025, the UK endured its driest spring in 132 years combined with the hottest summer since records began in 1884.

The Environment Agency has warned that even if England receives its full average winter rainfall, areas such as Cambridge will remain in drought conditions until early next year.

Horticulturalists at the 40-acre gardens have been modelling which trees and plants will be resilient to more extreme weather conditions in the UK.

Full story here.

So letโ€™s get this straight. Scots pines are suffering in Cambridge, because it is too hot and dry. And that is supposed to mean they will die off in the Scottish Highlands, where it is much cooler and wetter?

Is this the best the Telegraph can manage?

For a start, Scotland has been getting wetter, not drier:

A graph depicting annual rainfall amounts in Scotland from 1840 to 2020, showing fluctuations and an overall increasing trend in rainfall over the years.

But more to the point is that the tree thrives in places where the climate is much drier and where summer are much hotter than in Scotland, including Siberia:

Map showing the distribution of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) across Europe and parts of Asia, highlighting areas of isolated occurrences.
File:Pinus sylvestris distribution map.jpg – Wikimedia Commons

The USDA state:

Scotch pine is the most widely distributed pine in the world. It grows naturally from Scotland almost to the Pacific Ocean and from above the Arctic Circle in Scandinavia to the Mediterranean. Its altitudinal range is from sea level to about 2440 m (8,000 ft).

Climate

Scotch pine is adapted to a wide variety of climates as indicated by its extremely large natural range. It grows in areas with an annual precipitation exceeding 1780 mm (70 in) and in areas with an annual precipitation as little as 200 mm (8 in). Scotch pine survives in the Verkhoyansk Mountains of eastern Siberia where winter temperatures have been recorded as low as -64ยฐ C (-83ยฐ F). In some areas it grows where the subsoil is permanently frozen. Scotch pine can also survive high temperatures, and it is found at middle altitudes in the Mediterranean region. The primary distribution of Scotch pine, however, indicates that it is a tree of the continental climates (18).

  

https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/misc/ag_654/volume_1/pinus/sylvestris.htm

On fertile soils, the Scots pine tends to be squeezed out by other trees. According to Wikipedia, the pine formed much of the Caledonian Forest, which once covered much of the Scottish Highlands. Overcutting for timber demand, fire, overgrazing by sheep and deer, and even deliberate clearance to deter wolves have all been factors in the decline of this once great pine and birch forest. Only comparatively small areas remain.

But why ignore the facts, when you can write another silly climate scare story?

Meanwhile, I am sure Cambridge Botanical Gardens will be on the receiving end of nice fat grants to keep peddling the scare!

A Scots pine tree displaying a twisted trunk and lush green foliage, surrounded by a forest path and undergrowth.

Science Without Skepticism Is Just Politics in a Lab Coat

That’s a sharp and provocative statement- one that captures a growing concern about the intersection of science and ideology.
Scientific skepticism is the engine of genuine scientific progress. It’s the commitment to questioning claims, demanding reproducible evidence, and remaining open to falsification, no matter how inconvenient or unpopular.

A male scientist in a white lab coat and a female scientist in a blazer stand confidently in a courtroom setting, holding a clipboard labeled 'EVIDENCE,' with a science lab backdrop featuring various equipment.

That’s a sharp and provocative statement- one that captures a growing concern about the intersection of science and ideology.

Scientific skepticism is the engine of genuine scientific progress. It’s the commitment to questioning claims, demanding reproducible evidence, and remaining open to falsification, no matter how inconvenient or unpopular.

As Carl Sagan put it, science is “a way of thinking” rooted in skeptically interrogating ideas while understanding human fallibility. Without that rigorous doubt- organized through peer review, replication, and debate science risks becoming dogmatic.

When skepticism erodes and scientific authority aligns too closely with political agendas, advocacy can masquerade as objectivity. Scientists are experts in their domains, but expertise doesn’t confer moral or policy infallibility.

A person wearing a white lab coat adorned with various colorful pins and badges representing diverse symbols, including peace signs, light bulbs, globes, and national flags.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

A scientist in a lab coat stands behind a podium labeled 'EVIDENCE,' holding a gavel and a clipboard, in a courtroom-like setting with scientific equipment in the background.

How Conflating Advocacy with Evidence Undermines Science and Self-Government

Screenshot of the article titled 'Scientists as policymakers: Greenlighting restoration and climate action' published in the Earth Stewardship journal, featuring authors Kathleen K. Treseder and Adam J. Cavecche.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eas2.70032

The perspective paper โ€œScientists as Policymakers: Greenlighting Restoration and Climate Actionโ€ is presented as a sober reflection on how scientists might better โ€œengageโ€ with public decision-making. What it actually offers is something far more radical and far more dangerous: a blueprint for erasing the institutional boundary between science and political power, while insisting that this collapse somehow strengthens objectivity rather than destroying it.

The authors do not hedge their ambitions. After lamenting that elected officials rarely read peer-reviewed literature, they arrive at what they clearly regard as the logical conclusion:

โ€œIf we want ecology to help fight climate change, we need to create a direct line of communication between scientists and policymakers. Better yet, we need scientists who are policymakers themselves.โ€

That sentence should stop any serious reader cold. It is not an argument for better advisory mechanisms or clearer translation of research. It is an argument for scientists to occupy positions of coercive authority while retaining the cultural prestige of scientific neutrality. History suggests this combination rarely ends well.

From the outset, the paper frames political disagreement as a moral and epistemic failure rather than a legitimate feature of democratic governance. The authors describe policy decisions they oppose as โ€œanti-science,โ€ a term they deploy repeatedly but never define with precision. For example, the catalyst for the lead authorโ€™s entry into politics is described this way:

โ€œShe was becoming more concerned with each new anti-science action, and one event convinced her to act.โ€

This framing does enormous rhetorical work. Once policy disagreement is labeled โ€œanti-science,โ€ the debate is effectively over. Opponents are no longer citizens weighing costs, risks, and priorities; they are enemies of knowledge itself. Under those conditions, advocacy is not merely permittedโ€”it becomes morally mandatory.

The authors acknowledge that scientists have traditionally worried about exactly this problem. They note that many researchers have argued that political advocacy risks destroying public trust and scientific credibility:

โ€œThey argued that scientistsโ€™ roles should be limited to communicating objective facts, leaving policy recommendations to others.โ€

But this concern is quickly dismissed as outdated squeamishness. Urgency replaces restraint. The possibility that advocacy might corrupt scientific judgment is treated as a secondary issue, outweighed by the need for action.

That logic is repeated throughout the paper. Climate change is described as an โ€œexistential threat,โ€ a โ€œcode red,โ€ and a crisis demanding immediate intervention. Yet nowhere do the authors grapple seriously with uncertainty ranges, competing risk assessments, or the track record of prior large-scale environmental interventions. Urgency becomes a solvent that dissolves skepticism.

The authors formalize this worldview in what they present as a helpful engagement model: research, outreach, and policymaking. They explain:

โ€œEssentially, research provides critical knowledge; outreach communicates the knowledge to officials and the public; and policymaking uses this knowledge to develop laws, allocate funds, perform casework, etc.โ€

This model assumes that once โ€œthe knowledgeโ€ exists, policy decisions follow naturally, almost mechanically. Missing entirely is any serious acknowledgment that policy choices involve value judgments, trade-offs, and opportunity costs that cannot be resolved by data alone. Science can inform decisions; it cannot make them.ย Pretending otherwise is not evidence- based governance- it is technocracy.

The central case study of the paper illustrates this problem in concrete terms. The authors celebrate the allocation of roughly $100 million in public funds for a restoration project justified in part by climate mitigation goals. The language used to support this decision is revealingly speculative:

โ€œOpen spaces could potentially be managed to increase soil carbon storage and offset these sources.โ€

โ€œCould potentiallyโ€ is doing heavy lifting here. This is a hypothesis, layered atop several others: assumptions about wildfire frequency, carbon permanence, ecological response, and long-term management success. Yet these uncertainties are never quantified in a way that would allow comparison with alternative uses of the funds.

Instead, possibility is quietly converted into justification.

The paper repeatedly relies on conditional claimsโ€”โ€œcould,โ€ โ€œmight,โ€ โ€œcan be acceleratedโ€โ€”while treating the resulting policies as self-evidently necessary. This is not how scientific reasoning is supposed to work. Hypotheses are meant to be stress-tested, not fast-tracked into budget line items.

Even more troubling is the paperโ€™s explicit endorsement of emotional persuasion as a scientific communication strategy. The authors argue that traditional scientific modes of explanation are ineffective with the public and should be replaced with storytelling:

โ€œScientists are trained to focus on data and informationโ€ฆ Yet, telling stories can be more successful with members of the public.โ€

They elaborate approvingly:

โ€œTo ask for climate action, a speaker might tell a story about someone evacuating from a wildfireโ€ฆ the focus would be more on emotions than facts.โ€

This is not a minor stylistic recommendation. It is a wholesale abandonment of the norms that distinguish science from propaganda. Emotional narratives are powerful precisely because they bypass analytical scrutiny. Encouraging scientists to rely on them while retaining the authority of science is an invitation to manipulate trust rather than earn it.

The authors are clearly aware that trust is central to their project. They emphasize that:

โ€œThe public tends to trust scientists more than close family, neighbors, coworkers, religious leaders, and the President of the United States.โ€

This fact is presented not as a reason for caution, but as a strategic advantage. Trust becomes a resource to be leveraged in pursuit of policy goals. Once scientists openly adopt advocacy, however, that trust becomes fragile. It is far easier to spend credibility than to rebuild it.

Throughout the paper, the authors describe โ€œearth stewardshipโ€ as the deliberate reshaping of both ecological and social systems:

โ€œEarth stewardship is the deliberate shaping of biological and social systems to sustain important earth system services.โ€

This is an extraordinary claim, offered with no apparent awareness of its historical baggage. The deliberate reshaping of social systems by credentialed experts has been attempted many times before. The results are rarely as tidy as the models predicted.

The technocratic impulse is unmistakable. Scientists, we are told, should โ€œprovide a vision for a sustainable world,โ€ โ€œincentivize sustainable consumption,โ€ and help place โ€œeconomic value on earth system services.โ€ The publicโ€™s role in this vision is largely passive: to be informed, persuaded, and guided toward preferred behaviors by those who โ€œknow better.โ€

The paperโ€™s final sections make explicit what has been implicit all along. The authors openly identify themselves as political actors with defined ideological commitments:

โ€œShe identifies as a progressive Democrat, climate change scientist, academic, researcher, and local decision-maker.โ€

This transparency is commendable, but it fatally undermines the paperโ€™s claim to be offering a general model for science in society. What is being proposed is not โ€œscientists as policymakersโ€ in the abstract, but scientists who share a specific political worldview using scientific authority to advance it.

That is advocacy, not objectivity.

The danger here is not that scientists lack intelligence or good intentions. It is that complex systems do not yield to centralized design, no matter how well credentialed the designers may be. When scientists become politicians, storytellers, and moral advocates, the incentives that safeguard scientific skepticism begin to erode. Dissent becomes denial. Uncertainty becomes obstruction. Alternative priorities become โ€œanti-science.โ€

A society that values both knowledge and liberty must resist this convergence of expertise and power. Scientists play a vital role in informing public debate. They do not acquire special moral authority to govern simply by virtue of publishing papers. The moment science becomes indistinguishable from political advocacy, it forfeits the very credibility that made it valuable in the first place.

This paper does not defend science. It repurposes it.

And that should concern anyone who still believes that skepticism is a virtue rather than an obstacle.


Addendum: Earth Stewardship is a new journal, and likely to provide endless fodder for posts.

Earth Stewardship serves as a forum for the cultural exchange of diverse knowledge systems and collective understanding on how we can protect our planet. Earth Stewardship calls for a broad spectrum of scientifically and technologically innovative and groundbreaking contributions including cross-cultural perspectives from leading researchers, policymakers, traditional custodians of land and sea and indigenous communities. Earth Stewardship publishes applied and theoretical articles to promote a broad, intercultural, and participatory foundation for earth stewardship.

A man in a lab coat holds a clipboard labeled 'EVIDENCE' while standing beside a woman in a dress, set against a background of a government chamber and a laboratory.

Britain ‘faces paying huge sums to EU for single market access’ under Keir Starmer’s ‘Brexit betrayal’ reset

This article accuses UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer of a “Brexit betrayal” by potentially committing Britain to large financial payments to the EU for enhanced single market access.
Starmer has pursued a “Brexit reset” since taking office, aiming for closer economic ties without rejoining the EU, single market, customs union, or restoring freedom of movementโ€”key Labour manifesto red lines he has repeatedly reaffirmed.

An animated illustration of a man and a woman smiling at each other, set against a backdrop featuring the British and EU flags, symbolizing discussions between the UK and EU.

This article accuses UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer of a “Brexit betrayal” by potentially committing Britain to large financial payments to the EU for enhanced single market access.

Starmer has pursued a “Brexit reset” since taking office, aiming for closer economic ties without rejoining the EU, single market, customs union, or restoring freedom of movementโ€”key Labour manifesto red lines he has repeatedly reaffirmed.

A digitally altered image of two individuals, one with glasses and the other with blond hair, both wearing humorous devil horns, standing in front of flags representing the UK and the EU.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Britain faces handing huge sums to the EU for better access to the single market under Keir Starmer‘s ‘reset’.

The PM is pushing for closer ties with the bloc under huge pressure from Europhile Labour MPs and ministers, arguing it can boost the economy. Daily Mail Online has the story.

Legislation expected as soon as next month could sign the UK up to EU rules on food standards, the electricity market, animal welfare and pesticide use.

That has been billed as implementing a deal agreed last year, but Sir Keir has already made clear he wants to go further – while stressing that fully rejoining the customs union and single market are off the table. 

Downing Street said today there were โ€˜clear, indisputable benefits of closer alignment.โ€™

Brussels sources have been making clear the government will have to ‘pay to play’ if Labour wants to remove more barriers.

Diplomats told the Financial Times that the bloc’s ‘red lines’ meant the UK would have to obey EU rules and contribute to its budget. 

Another official questioned whether there was any appetite in Europe for another renegotiation.

‘Brussels is now preoccupied with the Ukraine war, European rearmament and internal negotiations over the next budget cycle,’ they said. 

‘There is no remaining bandwidth at this point, while arguably there might have been back in July 2024.’

Sir Keir sparked a storm at the weekend by telling the BBC that he was looking at better access to the single market.

‘I think we should get closer and if it’s in our national interest to have even closer alignment with the single market, then we should consider that,’ he said. 

‘If it’s in our interest to do so, we should take that step.’

Critics fear the PM will be forced into more concessions as he desperately hunts for ways of saving his leadership.

The EU is pushing for a ‘youth’ free movement deal that could mean large numbers of people coming to the UK to work. 

Before Christmas the government announced it is paying ยฃ570million to rejoin the Erasmus student exchange programme.

On an annual basis the sum is double what Boris Johnson rejected as too expensive in 2021. 

It is equivalent to roughly a fifth of the entire EU funding envelope for Erasmus+, although the government insists a chunk of the money will go on travel for British youngsters.

Read the full story here.

A digitally altered image showing two individuals, one wearing glasses and a dark suit, and the other in a light-colored blazer, both with playful devil horns, standing in front of flags representing the United Kingdom and the European Union.

A Warm, Pleasant, Sunnyย Year

In 2025, the UK experienced what many described as a warm, pleasant, sunny year โ€” one of the warmest and sunniest on record, according to the Met Office.

A woman sitting on a picnic blanket in a sunny field, reading a book and enjoying a drink, surrounded by flowers and trees.

In 2025, the UK experienced what many described as a warm, pleasant, sunny year โ€” one of the warmest and sunniest on record, according to the Met Office.

Skeptical analysts noted that the warmth stemmed largely from extended sunny periods, especially in spring and summer, rather than dramatic shifts. It was a year of reliable good weather, with temperatures reminiscent of past decades but boosted by abundant sunshine.

A sunny view of Tower Bridge in London with rays of sunlight shining through trees and onto green grass.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

A busy street scene in London near the Houses of Parliament, featuring the iconic Big Ben clock tower under a clear blue sky with fluffy clouds. People are walking along the sidewalk, enjoying the pleasant weather.

Predictably, the Met Office have just announced last year was the hottest and sunniest on record. Laughably, the year was supposedly 0.06C warmer than 2022.

No serious scientific organisation would claim accuracy to such a tiny margin, which says an awful lot about the Met Officeโ€™s credibility in these matters. Given the dreadful siting of nearly all the weather stations that make up their UK temperature dataset, they cannot possibly know the average UK temperature to within even a whole degree centigrade โ€“ eight out of ten stations are officially classified according to World Meteorological Organisation standards as having at least two degrees of artificial heating.

The Met Office do not bother showing margins of error in their press releases โ€“ they obviously think their data is perfect. But even just using 1C as a margin would demote 2025 to a rank of 30th.

In any event, it is hardly a surprise that the year was so warm, given the fact that it was so sunny during the spring and summer. In fact, 2025 was considerably sunnier than any other year on record.

A Met Office study a few years ago found that there is strong correlation between sunshine hours and temperatures โ€“ the sunnier it is, the warmer it is. (I refuse, by the way, to use the term โ€œhotโ€, as the UK climate is definitely not a hot one! The use of the term by the Met Office is deliberately intended to convey alarm.)

A line graph depicting sunshine duration in the UK from 1910 to 2020, with various colored lines indicating the lowest, highest, and trend averages over the years.

The Met Office has naturally jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Head of climate attribution at the Met Office, Dr Mark McCarthy, said:

โ€œ2025 was the warmest year on record for the UK, surpassing the previous record set in 2022, in a series dating back to 1884.

โ€œWeโ€™re increasingly seeing UK temperatures break new ground in our changing climate, as demonstrated by a new highest UK mean temperature record just three years after the last record.

โ€œThis very warm year is in line with expected consequences of human-induced climate change. Although it doesnโ€™t mean every year will be the warmest on record, it is clear from our weather observations and climate models that human-induced global warming is impacting the UKโ€™s climate.โ€

CO2 emissions donโ€™t make the weather sunnier. What has definitely increasedthe amount of sunshine we get nowadays is the massive reduction in air pollution in recent decades, the result of successive Clean Air Acts beginning in the 1950s.

I should also point out that โ€œclimate attributionโ€ is not science and has been dismissed by scientific experts as alchemy. It is shameful that the Met Office is resorting to such gutter practices, in order to push its political agenda.

The real story of the year is summed up in the daily CET temperature data:

Line graph depicting the Central England Maximum Temperature for the year 2025, showing trends and fluctuations in temperatures throughout the months.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_max2025.html

This chart plots the daily max temperatures, within the historical bands between 1961 and 1990. Warmer than average days dominated the year, but at no stage did temperatures go above the ceiling for the time of year.

In short, every day last year, we had the same weather and temperatures we had regularly decades ago. The year was warmer than average because of WEATHER not CLIMATE CHANGE.

As the chart indicates, most of the warmer days were during spring and summer, a direct result of the sunny weather.

The four charts below demonstrate that the highest temperature for each season were nowhere near being unprecedented. They also broadly show that the same for the last few years, with the exception of the 2022 โ€œ40C dayโ€ and the winter of 2015.

As similar monthly analyses have borne out, average temperatures have been pushed up in recent years by the relative absence of extreme cold weather.

Line graph showing the highest and lowest daily maximum temperatures recorded in the UK from 1878 to 2025, with a red line indicating high temperatures and a blue line indicating low temperatures.
Line graph showing the highest and lowest daily maximum temperatures in degrees Celsius for spring from 1878 to 2025, with a red line representing highs and a blue line representing lows.
Line graph showing the highest and lowest daily maximum temperatures for summer in the CET from 1878 to 2025, with red representing high temperatures and blue representing low temperatures.
A line graph depicting the highest and lowest daily maximum temperatures during autumn from 1878 to 2025, with a red line for high temperatures and a blue line for low temperatures.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html

A lot of nonsense is talked about climate anyway. It is often claimed that โ€œclimateโ€ is the 30-year average of weather. But this is no more than an arithmetical convenience. Why not 500 years, or 1000?

The UKโ€™s climate is not an arithmetic formula; it is officially classified according to the Koppen system, as โ€œtemperate oceanicโ€, characterized by mild temperatures year-round, moderate to high rainfall, frequent cloud cover, and changeable weather influenced by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf Stream.

Interestingly, Scotland has exactly the same climate as England, despite the fact that it is colder and wetter on average. It is untrue, therefore, that British climate is โ€œchangingโ€, as McCarthy claims.

But the Met Office, of course, have to maintain the fiction of a โ€œchanging climateโ€. A message that says our weather is now a bit more pleasant and milder than it used to be, without the horrifically cold winters of the past, is hardly likely to persuade the public to back Net Zero.

Berlinโ€™s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day as Tens of Thousands Suffer in Cold Without Heat!

There is an ongoing major power blackout in southwest Berlin (primarily affecting districts like Steglitz-Zehlendorf, Lichterfelde, Nikolassee, Wannsee, and parts of Lankwitz) that began on January 3, 2026, following a fire on a cable bridge over the Teltow Canal. This damaged high-voltage cables connected to the Lichterfelde power station.

A dark street in Berlin during a power blackout, with minimal lighting and blurred red light trails from passing vehicles.

There is an ongoing major power blackout in southwest Berlin (primarily affecting districts like Steglitz-Zehlendorf, Lichterfelde, Nikolassee, Wannsee, and parts of Lankwitz) that began on January 3, 2026, following a fire on a cable bridge over the Teltow Canal. This damaged high-voltage cables connected to the Lichterfelde power station.

This has highlighted vulnerabilities in Germany’s energy infrastructure, with people relying on torches, generators, and community support in the cold. If you’re in the area or need specific help resources, check official sites like berlin.de or stromnetz.berlin for updates.

A dark street scene in Berlin during a power blackout, featuring illuminated vehicle lights and dimly lit buildings in the background.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From No Trick Zone

Byย P Gosselinย 

A humanitarian catastrophe unfolds in Berlin after leftwing fanatics sabotage power gridโ€ฆ

Itโ€™s as if the green movement canโ€™t destroy Germanyโ€™s energy supply quickly enough. Now fanatics are resorting to sabotage attacks on lifeline power grids.

Map highlighting the districts in southwest Berlin affected by a major power blackout, including Steglitz-Zehlendorf, Lichterfelde, Nikolassee, Wannsee, and parts of Lankwitz.
Epicenter of Berlinโ€™s January 3rd terror attack blackout.ย 

For the second time in less than four months, lunatic fanatics have sabotaged Berlinโ€™s power supply through a deliberate arson attack on a cable bridge over the Teltow Canal. The fire severely damaged high-voltage cables connected to the nearby Lichterfelde heat and power station. The blackout began in the early hours of Saturday, January 3, 2026, with emergency services first alerted to the cause around 5:45 AM.

45,000 households, 2,200 businesses go cold and dark

The primary areas affected include Zehlendorf, Steglitz, Wannsee, Nikolassee and Lichterfelde. Initially, the outage impacted approximately 45,000 to 50,000 households and over 2,200 businesses. While some residents were reconnected over the weekend, roughly 25,000 to 30,000 households remained without power as of today.

Terrorist attack on fossil fuels, AI centers

A far-left extremist group known as the โ€œVulkangruppeโ€ (Volcano Group) has claimed responsibility โ€” again โ€” stating they targeted the infrastructure to protest โ€œthe fossil fuel economyโ€ and the rising energy demands of AI data centers.

The attack appears to have been timed to cause as much pain and suffering as possible, coinciding with a mid-winter cold snap with temperatures hovering well below freezing. The situation is quickly escalating into a humanitarian disaster as city, state and federal authorities incompentently bungle and dither about.

Services, communications, heat pumps cease

Most homes in the area rely on electric pumps or grid-connected systems for heat; some residents reported indoor temperatures dropping to 13ยฐC (55ยฐF). Mobile phone networks, landlines, and internet services have been disrupted. Elevators are out of order (trapping elderly residents in high-rises), traffic lights are dark, and local trains (S-Bahn) have faced significant delays.

There have already been reports of looting as residents have been forced to leave their homes, making them open targets for thieves.

Numerous schools and shops remain closed. Hospitals initially relied on emergency generators, though most have now been reconnected to the grid.

More days needed to restore power

The grid operator, Stromnetz Berlin, estimates that power will be fully restored by the afternoon of Thursday, January 8, 2026. The delay is due to the complexity of replacing heavy high-voltage cables and the fact that the ground is currently frozen, making repair work more difficult.

In the meantime, the city has opened emergency shelters (such as the Cole Sports Centre and Zehlendorf Town Hall) and the German Armed Forces are providing hot meals to residents.

Harsh criticism: incompetent authorities

Bungling authorities have faced sharp criticism, primarily centered on the cityโ€™s lack of disaster preparedness.

There has been significant public outcry over the โ€œchaoticโ€ distribution of information. Outlets like Blackout News and local social media feeds have described the relief efforts as โ€œphotos with politicians instead of leadership,โ€ highlighting cases where elderly residents (some in their late 90s) were left in cold emergency shelters on simple cots.

The UVB (Lobby Group for Berlin-Brandenburg Businesses) has criticized the lack of security for critical infrastructure. They pointed out that a single bridge fire could cause millions of euros in damage and shutter over 2,000 businesses, calling for a radical rethink of how the city protects its energy โ€œlifelines.โ€

2nd major attack in less than 4 months

Meanwhile, members of the opposition in the Berlin House of Representatives have questioned why, after a similar attack in September 2025 and the Tesla factory attack in 2024, the Senate andย Stromnetz Berlinย had not implemented better physical security or โ€œredundancyโ€ (backup) systems for these vulnerable cable bridges.

Speculation spready over state-sponsored sabotage

Some critics point out that that carrying out an attack of this quality requires a โ€œhigh level of technical sophisticationโ€, thus leading to speculation on the Internet that insider knowledge or state-sponsored sabotage may have been involved.

Security analysts and grid experts have noted that the attack was not a random act of vandalism. The perpetrators precisely targeted a cable bridgeโ€”a known โ€œsoft spotโ€ where multiple high-voltage lines are concentrated and exposed.

The Vulkan groupโ€™s 2,500-word letter claiming responsibility for the attack contained specific technical details about the incendiary devices and the specific cables targeted, leading the Germanyโ€™s State Security Service to classify it as highly credible. 

Save LBI Says Offshore Wind Projects Grossly Underestimate Harm to Marine Mammals, Challenges NOAA to โ€œProve Us Wrongโ€ with a Focused Monitoring Program

Save Long Beach Island (Save LBI), a New Jersey-based grassroots organization opposed to offshore wind development, issued a press release on January 6, 2026, claiming that offshore wind projects significantly underestimate noise-related harm to marine mammals, including whales and dolphins.

Two seagulls swimming in the ocean in front of several offshore wind turbines under a cloudy sky.

Save Long Beach Island (Save LBI), a New Jersey-based grassroots organization opposed to offshore wind development, issued a press release on January 6, 2026, claiming that offshore wind projects significantly underestimate noise-related harm to marine mammals, including whales and dolphins.

A stranded whale on a beach with offshore wind turbines in the background under an overcast sky.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From Watts Up With That?

Bob Stern

LONG BEACH ISLAND, NJ, January 6, 2026 โ€” Save Long Beach Island, Inc. (Save LBI), a grassroots organization dedicated to sound energy policies and preserving our shore and ocean environment, has long contended that the high levels of noise generated during the surveying, construction, and operation phases of an offshore wind project have a detrimental effect on sea mammals โ€” an assertion backed by previous scientific measurements and calculations.

Because hearing acuity plays a central role in the ability of a whale or dolphin to navigate its surroundings โ€” especially during migration โ€” elevated noise can cause serious harm, including impaired or permanent hearing loss, and behavioral disturbances that can also lead indirectly to harm and death.

For years, NOAA has ignored research presented by Save LBI and maintained there is no evidence that marine mammals are directly harmed by wind energy activities. This inaction prompted Save LBI to take two steps in November: (1) petition the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and NOAA to overhaul the flawed methodology being used for calculating โ€œTakesโ€ โ€” instances of fatality, serious harm, or behavioral disturbance to whales and other marine mammals โ€” and (2) submit formal comments in response to the Regional Standards for Offshore Wind Project-Level Monitoring draft proposal released by NOAAโ€™s Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

The Save LBI petition, which NOAA agreed to consider in late December, cites major scientific and mathematical errors in NOAA approved โ€œTake estimationโ€ methods and presents calculations that show significant harm and disturbance to whales and other mammals in the vicinity of offshore wind projects. The petition is available on SaveLBI.org.

Save LBI has also asked NOAA in a formal 11-page technical critique of its proposed monitoring standards to define and require a specific monitoring program that will either verify the assumptions and calculations in its Take estimation methods or, if not, revise those methods. Existing regulations require the agency to verify Take estimates, particularly under Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations (50 CFR ยง402.14(i)(5), to do new take estimates based on measurements and animal observation and compare to those used for Biologic Opinion approvals, and if the new results exceed the prior, to re-initiate ESA consultation immediately. Toward that end, Save LBI has asked that any monitoring plan provide the data to verify (or not):

โ—       The 10-decibel (dB) noise source reduction assumed from placing bubble curtains or similar systems around the pile driving operation, by measuring the noise level near the pile driver with the bubble curtains on and off

โ—       The pile driving noise level versus distance numbers in the noise exposure modeling reports supporting project approval that were asked for in the BOEM โ€œRecommendation Document for Offshore Wind Pile Driving Sound Exposure Modeling and Sound Field Measurementโ€

โ—       The 30 dB and higher noise loss factors in the pile driving noise exposure modeling reports  versus the 20 dB and lower factors that Save LBI has contended are valid and that show up in the recent sound field measurement study for the Vineyard Wind 1 project; since the elevated noise range and area increase exponentially with a lower dB noise loss factor, this discrepancy alone would result in a many-fold increase in the number of animal Takes

โ—       That no permanent hearing loss will occur from the accumulated noise energy received by a whale passing by a pile driving activity or an operating wind complex, based on the noise versus distance measurements and observing the time it takes for a while to pass by; straightforward calculations by Save LBI show that such hearing loss will occur within 5 miles of pile driving and 2.25 miles of the perimeter of an operating wind complex, but the noise exposure modeling reports supporting project approval do not show that

โ—       That the North Atlantic right whaleโ€™s migration will not be impaired or blocked by measuring the noise levels both within and outside the operating wind complex to find the distance where the noise level drops below the 120 dB whale disturbance level, and compare that distance to the width of any overlapping migration corridor

โ—       That very little animal disturbance occurs at levels below 160 dB for pile driving and 120 dB for turbine operation as NOAA has contended by observing animal behavior at the distances corresponding to those noise levels

โ—       That the elevated noise range from vessel surveying is small, as the approvals assumed versus the several miles that Save LBI calculated, by measuring the noise levels from the vessel for various sparker device energy inputs as was required in leases, but apparently never done, or if done, not publicly reported.

Save LBI President Bob Stern points out that โ€œthe decibel (dB) scale that measures noise level is logarithmic and that an incorrect 10 dB lower number underestimates the noise actually being received by the animal by 90%, so for the whaleโ€™s sake we humans need to get these dB numbers rightโ€.

โ€œThe NOAA monitoring proposal also seeks to establish developer-defined plans in place of true standards, making it unlikely that any questionable  assumptions that supported project approval will be culled out,โ€ he added.

โ€œIt is heartening that NOAA leadership will consider our petition regarding our concerns with the underestimates of animal Takes,โ€ Stern concluded. โ€œWe ask them to put forward a monitoring program in conjunction with that review that will either verify or disprove the concerns we have raised. If our concerns are verified, then NOAA should define and require the use of new mathematically and scientifically defensible methods for calculating marine mammal Takes.โ€

About Save LBI

Save LBI is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization that has been active in ongoing litigation and other efforts to protect the coastal and marine environment from the senseless industrialization of our oceans. The organization is led by Beach Haven, N.J. resident Bob Stern, a Ph.D. scientist with experience in environmental planning and environmental law. He is a former manager of the U.S. Department of Energy office responsible for overseeing environmental reviews related to energy projects and of the Bureau of Air Quality Planning within the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). For more information on Save LBI and its efforts, please SaveLBI.org

A deceased whale washed ashore on rocky terrain with wind turbines visible in the background against a clear blue sky.

Yearend 2025, Cooling Temperatures Reducing CO2ย Rise

The phrase “Yearend 2025, Cooling Temperatures Reducing CO2 Rise” appears to reference a November 2025 blog post from Science Matters, by Ron Clutz.

Map illustrating global temperature changes and CO2 levels at year-end 2025, highlighting areas of cooling temperatures and varying CO2 concentrations.

The phrase “Yearend 2025, Cooling Temperatures Reducing CO2 Rise” appears to reference a November 2025 blog post from Science Matters, by Ron Clutz.

Map showing global temperature and CO2 concentration data for 2025, highlighting areas of high CO2 levels and indicating weak La Niรฑa conditions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From Science Matters

by Ron Clutz

Graph depicting CO2 levels (blue line) and temperature anomalies (magenta line) from 1976 to December 2025, showing trends in atmospheric CO2 and temperature changes.

2025 ended with a steadily declining rate of rising CO2 in the atmosphere following a 20 month cooling since April 2024, peak of an unusual and unexplained warming spike.  Historical records show that around 1875 was the coldest time in the last 10,000 years.  That was the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA), and since then temperatures have warmed at an average rate of about 0.5C per century.  The recovery of the biosphere and ocean warming resulted in rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Graph depicting historical global temperatures from 1800 to 2100, showing trends including recovery from the Little Ice Age and IPCC predictions for future warming.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founder of the University of Alaska Fairbanksโ€™ Geophysical Institute reported on this pattern in 2009.

At times, there are warming spikes, in the 1930s and 40s for example, and the rate of rising CO2 goes up. At other times, such as 1950s and 60s, temperatures cool, and rising CO2 slows down. More recently, in 2023 and 24, we saw  temperatures spike up before falling back down in 2025. [Note: A study of ocean biochemistry processes confirms that since the end of the LIA rising temperatures have been accompanied by rising CO2 at a rate of ~2 ppm per year. [ See: Slam Dunk: ฮ”temp Drives ฮ”co2, Ocean Biochemistry at Work ]

Furthermore, going back to previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.

Chart showing Global Mean Annual Temperatures from 1900 to 2020, with temperature data highlighted in a light blue color.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate.  On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles. And in 2024 we saw an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean air warming in all regions, along with rising NH land temperatures, now dropping well below its peak.

Previously I have demonstrated that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels follow changes in Global Mean Temperatures (GMT) as shown by satellite measurements from University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). A link to that background post is provided later below.

My curiosity was piqued by the remarkable GMT spike starting in January 2023 and rising to a peak in April 2024. GMT has declined steadily, and now 20 months later, the anomaly is 0.30C down from 0.94C.  I also became aware that UAH has recalibrated their dataset due to a satellite drift that can no longer be corrected. The values since 2020 have shifted slightly in version 6.1, as shown in my recent report UAH Ocean Stays Cool, SH Land Warms, October 2025, 

The data here comes from UAH record of temperatures measured in the lower troposphere (TLT).

This post updates the analysis with the complete observations for 2025, testing the premise that temperature changes are predictive of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  The chart at the top shows the two monthly datasets: CO2 levels in blue reported at Mauna Loa, and Global temperature anomalies in purple reported by UAHv6.1, both through December 2025. Would such a sharp increase in temperature be reflected in rising CO2 levels, according to the successful mathematical forecasting model? Would CO2 levels decline as temperatures dropped following the peak?

The answer is yes: that temperature spike resulted
in a corresponding CO2 spike as expected.
And lower CO2 levels followed the temperature decline.

Graph showing annual differences in CO2 levels and temperature anomalies from 1976 to December 2025, with blue lines representing CO2 levels and purple lines indicating temperature anomalies.

Above are UAH temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year.

Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for UAH are anomalies referenced to the 1991-2020 period. CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example December 2025 minus December 2024).  Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month. Note the recent CO2 upward spike and drop following the temperature spike and drop.

The table below shows clearly the pattern of observed temperatures declining along with declining rates of rising observed CO2. The CO2 rate peaked at 4.41 ppm, then declined over the next 21 months to 2.09 ppm, nearly the baseline rate since the LIA. There are fluctuations in the CO2 monthly response since the differential is influenced by the previous year as well as current year.  By 2025/12, the rate of 2.09 ppm was less than half the peak rate of 4.41 ppm.

Monthtemperature anomalyco2 Diff. from previous year
2024\10.793.32
2024\20.864.23
2024\30.874.41
2024\40.943.14
2024\50.782.87
2024\60.703.25
2024\70.743.72
2024\80.753.31
2024\90.803.53
2024\100.733.56
2024\110.643.39
2024\120.623.54
2025\10.463.85
2025\20.502.54
2025\30.582.77
2025\40.613.13
2025\50.503.61
2025\60.482.70
2025\70.362.32
2025\80.392.49
2025\90.532.34
2025\100.532.49
2025\110.432.61
2025\120.302.09

The final proof that CO2 follows temperature due to stimulation of natural CO2 reservoirs is demonstrated by the ability to calculate CO2 levels since 1979 with a simple mathematical formula:

For each subsequent year, the CO2 level for each month was generated

CO2  this month this year = a + b ร— Temp this month this year  + CO2 this month last year

The values for a and b are constants applied to all monthly temps and are chosen to scale the forecasted CO2 level for comparison with the observed value. Here is the result of those calculations.

A graph depicting observed and generated CO2 levels from 1976 to December 2025, showing the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and time.

In the chart calculated CO2 levels correlate with observed CO2 levels at 0.9988 out of 1.0000.  This mathematical generation of CO2 atmospheric levels is only possible if they are driven by temperature-dependent natural sources, and not by human emissions which are small in comparison, rise steadily and monotonically.  For a more detailed look at the recent fluxes, here are the results since 2015, an ENSO neutral year.

Chart comparing observed and generated CO2 levels from January 2015 to December 2025, displaying CO2 concentrations in parts per million (ppm) with a timeline on the x-axis.

For this recent period, the calculated CO2 values match well the annual highs, while some annual generated values of CO2 are slightly higher or lower than observed at other months of the year. Still the correlation for this period is 0.9942.

Key Point

Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last monthโ€™s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia. Since CO2 is the lagging variable, it cannot logically be the cause of temperature, the leading variable. It is folly to imagine that by reducing human emissions of CO2, we can change global temperatures, which are obviously driven by other factors.

A portrait of a man smiling, with a quote overlay reading: 'More CO2 actually benefits the world. It is not a pollutant at all, and we should have the courage to do nothing about CO2 emissions --Dr. William Happer.'

Background on Analytics and Methodology

Graph depicting the lag time between temperature anomalies and CO2 levels during the Little Ice Age, showing a ~250-year correlation.