Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We all know hurricanes are getting worse, don’t we? After the MSM keeps telling us so.
After Hurricane Melissa a few months ago, for instance, the BBC’s weathergirl, Sarah Keith-Lucas, was adamant that “The frequency of very intense hurricanes such as Melissa is increasing”. Similar claims abound across the networks and newspapers every time a big hurricane comes along. And that’s before we even mention the fake climate attribution studies designed to make headlines.
The only problem is that the data does not agree!
Full data has now been published for hurricanes globally in 2025 and it again confirms that long term trends remain flat, contradicting the fake news published by the media. (Please note that scientifically, hurricanes are strictly referred to as “tropical cyclones”. However, colloquially they are referred to as hurricanes in the Atlantic, typhoons in the Pacific and cyclones in the Indian Ocean – regardless of the name, they are exactly the same weather phenomenon. For the purposes of this article, I will refer to them all as hurricanes).
The two charts below are published by the Dept of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. The first shows the number of hurricanes by year and the second major hurricanes – the most powerful ones categorised as Cat 3, 4 or 5 on the Saffir Simpson scale. Data begins in 1980, which is generally regarded as marking the beginning of comprehensive, worldwide satellite coverage.
Total hurricanes numbered 52 last year, against the 30-year average of 47. Major hurricanes totalled 24, just below the average of 25.
There is no evidence of long-term increasing trends in either dataset.
Hurricane scientists also monitor Accumulated Cyclone Energy, or ACE – this measures a combination of wind speeds and duration. So, a Cat 5 storm will likely have a high ACE, but so would a weak one that had been meandering the Atlantic for a week or two.
Again, as with the first two graphs, there is no increasing trend in ACE.
Inevitably many more hurricanes are observed and counted nowadays than in earlier decades, simply because we have satellites to monitor them. Before 1980, many hurricanes stayed in mid-ocean and were consequently never spotted.
There is, however, a robust database for hurricanes that have hit the US, going back to the late 19thC. This data confirms that the absence of any worsening trend in hurricanes, whether frequency or intensity, goes as far back as the 1800s. According to the US Federal climate agency, NOAA:
“There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.”
This report presents and analyses the sea level data for 2025. It was a roller coaster year for sea level data that turned into a “Hunt the Data” exercise. As a consequence, the analyses main purpose is to link the new data to the old and produce a new methodology so that changes to sea levels in 2026 can be more easily judged.
This report presents and analyses the sea level data for 2025. It was a roller coaster year for sea level data that turned into a “Hunt the Data” exercise. As a consequence, the analyses main purpose is to link the new data to the old and produce a new methodology so that changes to sea levels in 2026 can be more easily judged.
produced data for January, April, July, August, September, November and December but in July 2025 NASA changed dramatically the amount of data being provided. Up to April 2025 the data consisted of 13 columns giving number of readings, standard deviations and results with and without a 60-day Gaussian type filter applied, with and without GIA not applied and with and without annual and semi-annual signal removed. The data analysed was from COLUMN 12 which was for smoothed (60-day Gaussian type filter) GMSL (GIA not applied) variation (mm); annual and semi-annual signal removed.
Whereas in July only 3 columns of data appear:-
HDR 1 year+fraction of year
HDR 2 GMSL (cm)
HDR 3 GMSL with 60-day smoothing applied (cm)
with the 3rd column being used in the analysis.
Also, up to April 2025 data appeared on a roughly 10-day cycle but in July this changed to a 7- day cycle. To add more misery the U.S. Government shut down stopped any data at all being provided for a couple of months.
To show he differences in the data used for the analyses Figures 1 and 2 give the diagrams provided by NASA for April and July 2025.
How to proceed?
Up to April 2025, after 7 years of studying the NASA data, several standard Excel spreadsheets had been created producing plots of the Full Data with best fit Linear, Quadratic and Sinusoidal curves with the associated equations and plots of residuals, measured from the linear line, with best fit Quadratic and Sinusoidal curves. Also, statistical results have been produced and historical plots of how the so called “accelerations” had changed with time.
One approach would be to use the data as it is with the old spreadsheets, but this would lead to very “bumpy” plots. The annual and semi-annual signal vary from -4.33 to 5.46mm which is quite large when compared with an annual average increase of about 3.3mm.
A second method would be to do a moving annual average which would eliminate the bumps but would also lose a lot of the El Niño/La Niña effects which are useful to show.
The annual and semi-annual signal is a regular variation that repeats year in year out with the same shape, so the amount involved only depends on the date in the year. Using this fact the signal’s value at any time in the year can be ascertained from the readings with and without it included. This was done using the difference between columns 11 and 12 of the April 2025 data, creating a list of dates and differences then subtracting the year value from the date. This leaves 2 columns for the partial year date and the annual and semi-annual signal which is shown in figure 3.
An 8-order polynomial curve was fitted to the graph in figure 3 using the LINEST Function in Excel, resulting in
The order and accuracy may look excessive, but a 6-order was found to be too inaccurate at the extreme ends of the graph and although 2 less significant figures only changed the graph slightly it was decided to stay with this equation. Figure 4 shows a plot of the actual and fitted curves indicating only a small inaccuracy at the extreme ends of about 0.1mm.
The new data with annual and semi-annual signals can now be processed by taking the sea level and calculate the part year by using a calculation in Excel
Part year = year – INT(year)
and then calculating the annual and semi-annual signal using Equation 1. This can then be taken off the listed sea level and the normal processing carried out.
I wish life was that easy.
This process was applied to the NASA Aug 2025 data which only had data with the signal included. The result was not satisfactory with the Aug data having a seemingly larger variation than what was shown in previous data releases.
Another source of readings is from our friends at the University of Colardo. Their site https://sealevel.colorado.edu/data is a useful source of information even if you don’t like the conclusions they reach like extrapolated sea levels in 2100. The site has 2 sets of processed data shown in figures 5 and 6. The “acceleration” indicated is 0.071mm/year2 which is line with other estimations. Strangely this site has removed several figures for analyses carried out between 2020 and 2025.
Repeating the process shown in Figure 3 resulted in
The equation for an eight-order polynomial is given by Equation 2.
The comparison of this eight-order polynomial with the actual values is shown in Figure 8.
This shows a similar form with some small differences in shape and is generally about 30% more than in Figure 3. The best option therefore is to use the data as supplied by NASA and accept that any graphs will be affected by the annual signals.
The sets of data analysed are therefore January and April 2025 with the full data and July, August, September , November, and December 2025 with the reduced data. The data for April 2025 and December 2025 will both be processed for comparison.
Figures 9 and 10 show the linear and quadratic best fits of the full data.
The differences in the equation’s coefficients seem larger than would be expected but it is more revealing the change year on year with consistent sets of data so 2026 data will be more revealing.
The residuals are plotted in Figures 11 and 12 together with the quadratic best fit curves and the standard deviations of the errors added. To check this process is carried out correctly the quadratic terms are compared with that for the full data and the linear fits checked as being given by y = 0 x + 0.
Next in Figures 13 and 14, the residuals are plotted together with a sinusoidal curve having an amplitude of 4.2 mm and a period of 29 years. The value of 29 years has been used for a couple of years having been originally eyed in and is probably not quite the best fit curve but not far off.
The standard deviations of errors with the sinusoidal curve are lower than the quadratic for both the April and December analyses. The inclusion of the annual and semi-annual signal greatly increases the standard deviation for both curves.
Figures 15 to 18 show histogram plots of errors for the two analyses.
Figures 15 and 17 show more normal distributions whereas in Figures 16 and 18 the shape of the annual and semi-annual signal makes them slightly skew.
Figures 19 and 20 shows the result of the spectral analysis for the full data.
Both show that there is a very long-term variation and in figure 20 the annual and semi-annual signal appears as a spike at a period of 1 year. On this plot it appears very small compared with other peaks due to Solar and Lunar cycles but is better judged on the residual spectral analysis shown in figure 22 below.
Figures 21 and 22 shows the result of the spectral analysis for the residuals in the NASA analysis.
Figures 23 and 24 plot the “acceleration” values against the date they were determined based on the data from the start of 1993 up to that date. The effect of El Niños and the annual and semi-annual signal can be seen. If the residuals had followed a sinusoidal variation based on the 29-year sinusoidal curve an equivalent set of “accelerations” could have been determined. Remember the curve labelled “sinusoidal” is NOT a sinusoidal curve but a curve of “accelerations” based on the residuals having a sinusoidal variation.
Figures 25 and 26 show the “accelerations” as at the end of Jan 2025 with the long term predicted “accelerations” up to the 2060’s calculated using quadratic curve fitting to a set of data obtained from a 29-year curve. The validity or not of the curve will be seen earlier by about 2034 when, if correct, “accelerations” will be approaching values seen in the long-term Tidal Gauges i.e. values of about 0.01 mm/year2.
No conclusions about sea levels during 2025 have been deduced. The comparisons between April 2025 and December 2025 show no major differences and so the ongoing work must turn to the changes during 2026. Figure 26 is considered the most revealing graph, now somewhat complicated by the annual and semi-annual signal, which masks the El Niño variations, but assuming no more complications with data presentation by NASA there should be a steady drop in “accelerations” throughout 2026.
If any readers have stayed the course, I wish them all the best for 2026 and hopefully I’ll be reporting on 2026 in twelve months’ time .
Britain has become as unattractive for investment as Venezuela because of Labour’s net zero crackdown on the oil industry, a North Sea boss has warned.
UK politicians accused of treating carbon reduction ‘like a religion’
Britain has become as unattractive for investment as Venezuela because of Labour’s net zero crackdown on the oil industry, a North Sea boss has warned.The Telegraph has the story.
Jim Johnson, the chief executive of engineering group Hunting, criticised ministers for adopting a religious zeal around cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which he said had left Britain “like the Venezuela of the North Sea”.
“The problem in the UK is that its politicians treat carbon reduction like a religion,” he said, accusing Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, in particular of having a “ridiculous approach to the energy transition”.
“In investment terms Britain is like the Venezuela of the North Sea. It’s uninvestable.”
Mr Johnson, an American, compared the UK’s offshore oil and gas sector to Venezuela – which contrary to much recent “hype”, he regards as an impossible place for new investment.
Despite boasting the largest reserves on Earth, Venezuela’s oil industry has become one of the world’s most dysfunctional.
After his seizure of Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan president, Donald Trump has promised to spend billions to upgrade creaking infrastructure. However, oil majors like ExxonMobil have described Venezuela as “uninvestable” because of its deep-rooted problems.
Mr Johnson warned that carbon levies and the high energy prices from Labour are set to destroy what’s left of Britain’s heavy industries.
London-listed Hunting is poised to reduce its UK workforce to the bone because of the decline of the North Sea.
Four of the company’s five UK centres, including its main Scottish site, are to close over the next six months with the 160 staff reduced to well under 100.
Its 30-strong London head office team will be retained because “it’s too expensive to list in New York,” said Mr Johnson – whose own office is in Houston, Texas.
It means the bulk of the company’s activities and remaining 2,500-strong workforce will be concentrated abroad – two thirds of them in North America. Its pre-tax earnings for 2025 totaled $135m (£100m), up 7pc on the previous year.
Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last month’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.
Previously I have demonstrated that temperature changes are predictive of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. That includes the remarkable GMT spike starting in January 2023 and rising to a peak in April 2024, then dropping down to end of 2025. The most recent study was Yearend 2025, Cooling Temperatures Reducing CO2 Rise employing Mauna Loa CO2 data and UAH GMT data.
I noticed at WUWT my post was included in Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #674 with a comment attached: [SEPP Comment: The time period of the claimed lower CO2 rise is too short to be clear.] Now if that is referring to a table detailing the two variables during 2024 and 2025, I can understand it. But it also disregards the complete study covering UAH satellite temperature changes clearly leading Mauna Loa CO2 changes over a period of 45 years.
Along with some comments on my blog, I wondered whether the entire ML record of CO2 levels could be predicted from global temperature changes, which would require a GMT dataset covering 1959 to the present. This post shows that HADCRUT5 qualifies and indeed confirms other studies by researchers. I was particularly interested in the lack of warming in the 1960s and 70s, before the satellite temperature data became available.
The answer is yes: Just as temperature spikes result in a corresponding CO2 spike as expected. Cooler temperatures are predictive of lower CO2 levels.
Above are HadCRUT5 temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year during 65 years from 1959 to present.
Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for HadCRUT5 are anomalies referenced to the 1961-1990 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 final proof that CO2 follows temperature due to stimulation of natural CO2 reservoirs is demonstrated by the ability to calculate CO2 levels since 1959 with a simple mathematical formula:
For each subsequent year, the CO2 level for each month was generated
CO2 this month this year = a + b × 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. The values for scaling HADCRUT5 and MLCO2 were “a” = 1.2 and “b” = 1.52 Here is the result of those calculations.
In the chart calculated CO2 levels correlate with observed CO2 levels at 0.9992 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.
For this recent period, the calculated CO2 values match well the annual lows, 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 0.98
Footnote:
Hadcrut v5 offers a choice of two GMT data sets, one which infills grid cells lacking data and one which does not, compiling data only from cells with sufficient data. The analysis here shows data from Hadcrut 5 Not Filled In, though results from the Filled In dataset are virually the same with a slight upward bias. The overall lower anomalies in UAH are due to a later baseline, 1991 to 2020.
Key Point
Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last month’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.
The massive fluxes from natural sources dominate the flow of CO2 through the atmosphere. Human CO2 from burning fossil fuels is around 4% of the annual addition from all sources. Even if rising CO2 could cause rising temperatures (no evidence, only claims), reducing our emissions would have little impact.
A recent, surprising article in the usually climate-alarmist Washington Post (WaPo) describes how President Trump’s recent efforts to streamline and promote the development and expansion of nuclear power plants is great for the climate, will reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, and help meet growing energy demand.
A recent, surprising article in the usually climate-alarmist Washington Post (WaPo) describes how President Trump’s recent efforts to streamline and promote the development and expansion of nuclear power plants is great for the climate, will reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, and help meet growing energy demand. While the climate angle is not something necessary to prioritize because there is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels, the article is correct that nuclear power has been hamstrung for too long, and more development of the technology will aid in covering growing energy demand more effectively than so-called renewables like wind and solar.
The article, titled “Trump’s Surprising Win for the Climate,” written by Ted Nordhaus, explains how the Trump administration has accelerated the commercialization of new nuclear energy technology, particularly small modular nuclear reactors, despite describing climate change “as a Chinese hoax.”
Nordhaus writes that Trump “has withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate agreement, slashed funding for climate research and laid waste to greenhouse gas regulations.”
All of this is true, and a good thing. Climate change is not an existential threat to mankind’s survival or prosperity, as even Bill Gates lately acknowledges. However, the burdensome and frankly tyrannical efforts to stop the climate from changing, as they have been passed down by organizations like the United Nations, remain a real threat.
In fact, the modest warming and growing concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide of the past hundred-plus years seems to have had a net benefit to life on Earth, evidenced by a trend towards more precipitation in the mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere, decrease in deadly extreme cold spells, and greening of the planet. Plus, alongside technological improvements driven mainly by the use of oil and gas, agricultural productivity has skyrocketed across the globe.
Nordhaus has nothing but good things to say about Trump’s efforts on the nuclear energy front:
Love Trump or hate him, his administration’s determination to quickly demonstrate, license and commercialize new nuclear technology is unprecedented. Executive orders that mandated sweeping reform at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are underway. […] the White House has appointed two remarkably qualified commissioners, Ho Nieh and Douglas Weaver. Both are nuclear engineers and seasoned regulators who were confirmed by the Senate with bipartisan votes.
[T]he NRC is expected to make public a revision of its regulatory code. The Energy Department is on track to review, approve and demonstrate multiple small test reactors at the Idaho National Laboratory this year. The Defense Department has started a program to offer contracts to deploy small reactors at military bases […] the Energy Department is revamping radiological health standards, setting practical thresholds for exposure rather than assuming, without well-established epidemiological evidence, that exposure to vanishingly low doses of radiation creates significant public health risks.
It does make sense that someone concerned about carbon dioxide emissions would be appreciative of the administration’s efforts, even if that concern is misplaced. Nuclear energy is emission-free aside from water vapor from cooling towers. The main benefit, though, of nuclear energy above all other “green” technologies, like wind and solar, is that it doesn’t take up so much land, and it doesn’t depend on the weather to work.
Nuclear is also less expensive than wind and solar (as discussed in thisClimate Realism post) when one accounts for the Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity, which includes the cost of the intermittency of weather-dependent sources, the fact that they require some kind of equivalent power backup, and the cost of balancing to grid to manage the uneven and unplanned ebb and flow of electricity generated by them.
Compared to oil, gas, and coal, nuclear is more expensive because it is dependable and nuclear plants are very long lived. Thus, it is a worthwhile energy source to pursue. Moreover, most of the expense of nuclear is driven by excessive government regulatory cost, which the current administration could alleviate.
In the end of the WaPo piece, Nordhaus says Trump’s efforts qualify as “climate moon shots” despite Trump’s disinterest in pursuing climate goals. Unsurprisingly, Nordhaus maintains that even if Trump’s nuclear agenda is successful, it still won’t solve “the problem of climate change.”
Climate change is not a problem that needs solving, nor does the world need to reduce “dependence on fossil fuels.” More dependable energy available is a good thing, especially if it means the government will stop pouring money into wind and solar boondoggles that destroy pristine lands for the same – or, very often, less – available electricity.
The calendar had just barely heralded the new year when President Donald J. Trump got 2026 off to a rollicking start with the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission.
The calendar had just barely heralded the new year when President Donald J. Trump got 2026 off to a rollicking start with the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
The operation had been openly foreshadowed by Trump’s repeated warnings to Maduro, the systematic destruction of sea-going vessels and their crews moving drugs, and the amassing of an impressive U.S. military presence just off Venezuela’s coast.
Still, the dead-of-night swiftness and skill demonstrated by the United States military was enough to bring a collective worldwide gasp of both astonishment at a mission so expertly accomplished and a reminder of the consequences when America decides to flex its muscles.
Maduro was a South American dictator who, like his predecessor Hugo Chavez, ruled his country with an iron fist, squashing freedom and democracy, all while cozying up to U.S. adversaries like Russia and China.
Most presidents after successfully removing such an authoritarian from power would defend those actions by citing the loftiest of ideals. It was a blow for freedom, they would insist, a righteous strike for democracy, a liberation of an oppressed population yearning to live free.
As we know, Donald Trump is not most presidents. In his remarks the morning following the successful operation, as Maduro was being uncomfortably escorted to the U.S. to stand trial, Trump barely let any such high-minded rhetoric pass his lips.
Instead, he noted that Maduro had been indicted in the U.S. on narco-terrorism charges and – most importantly – had “stolen” oil from the U.S. and a number of American oil companies. In fact, it was crystal clear, based on the time and attention the president allotted to the subject, that the capture and control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves was the primary justification for removing Maduro from power and for the U.S. taking the reins there, at least for a while.
Some may fault Trump for being so blunt about the real objective of the action. But it is entirely admirable for Trump to remind the U.S. and the world of the importance of energy dominance, and it is entirely keeping with Trump’s “America First” policies. The nation that controls the energy will largely control the world, as Russia and China well know.
“We’re going to be taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground,” Trump told the assembled reporters at his press conference, while “promising that American companies would be able to tap more of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves,” as the New York Times reported.
The Times story added, “The money made, he said, would go not only to the people of Venezuela, but also to American oil companies and ‘to the United States of America in the form of reimbursement for the damages caused us by that country.’”
What damages? Trump reminded everyone of Venezuela’s history.
“We built Venezuela’s oil industry with American talent, drive, skill, and the socialist regime stole it from us,” Trump said, correctly. “This constituted one of the largest thefts of American property in the history of our country.” He added, “They stole our oil. They took it over like it was nothing.”
As Forbes described it, “While Venezuela formally nationalized its oil industry in the 1970s, beginning in the early 2000s under President Hugo Chávez, Venezuela moved beyond its earlier state ownership model and launched a wave of expropriations that fundamentally reshaped its oil sector.”
The U.S. government and American companies suffered the damages. In fact, “international tribunals later awarded billions of dollars in compensation” to such companies, which Venezuela has mostly failed to pay.
Later Saturday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told CBS, “We are going to get American companies in there. We are going to get investment in there. These oil depots have been operating at 20 percent capacity. That’s going to change.”
Trump’s political opponents will wring their hands over the constitutionality of the military action. Even many Trump supporters will worry that it violates Trump’s “America First” agenda and commits the U.S. to at least a limited degree of “nation building.”
But Trump understands a truth that supersedes any such concerns – the country that loses the struggle for energy supremacy will risk its national security, put itself at the mercy of foreign actors who could turn off our lights on a whim, and surrender the ability to ensure affordable and reliable energy for homes and businesses for generations to come.
Trump’s actions in Venezuela represent an acknowledgment that every aspect of “affordability” in regard to our economy starts with low-cost, reliable energy – a belief in line with legislation introduced in Congress to affirm America’s energy dominance. If passed, the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Act – ARC-ES – will codify into U.S. law the kind of energy preeminence and security that Trump routinely champions.
Asked how his actions against Maduro line up with his “America First” agenda, Trump replied, “We want to surround ourself with energy, we have tremendous energy in that country. It’s very important that we protect it. We need that for ourselves. We need that for the world, and we want to make sure we can protect it.”
It’s comforting to know that when it comes to energy’s crucial role in America’s future, Trump completely gets it. So must we all.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
The gross cost to the UK economy of achieving the 2050 target could exceed even the highest official predictions of £7.6tn, an Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) paper said.
Reaching 2050 target could exceed even highest official predictions of £7.6tn amid ‘faulty assumptions’
Reaching net zero will cost Britain even more than feared, a report has found.
The gross cost to the UK economy of achieving the 2050 target could exceed even the highest official predictions of £7.6tn, an Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) paper said. The Telegraph has the story.
The report said that previous estimates of the financial impact of net zero were based on “fantasy assumptions” of the cost of renewable energy and low-carbon technology.
Lord Frost, the head of the IEA, said the low estimates were also the result of “heroic assumptions” of the cost of household technologies such as heat pumps and electric cars.
David Turver, the paper author, said: “The various public bodies responsible for working out the costs of net zero have not been entirely truthful in their analysis. They have made fantasy assumptions about the cost of renewables and low-carbon technologies.
“The true cost of net zero is much higher than we have been led to believe. If we are to have a serious debate about net zero, the various public bodies need to be more transparent and frankly more honest.”
While 60% Britons support net zero, the majority say that the cost of living is a greater priority than reducing carbon emissions
The Government’s approach to reaching net zero has come under increasing scrutiny over the last year, with pressures to go further on green policy from inside Labour.
On Monday night, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said it rejected the IEA analysis, which it said ignored the costs of “staying on the fossil fuel roller-coaster”.
In September, the Prime Minister overruled Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, by snubbing plans for a green energy plant on Teesside, and instead endorsing a rival “AI growth zone” development.
The Cabinet row over the decision was seen as a test of Labour’s commitment to its net zero plans, which threaten to clash with hopes of being a world leader in AI.
In May, the US president called for more drilling in the North Sea. He also said Britain should “stop with the costly and unsightly windmills” and claimed that energy costs “would go way down, and fast”.
As a follow-on to my recent post regarding global surface air temperature trends (1979-2025) and how they compare to climate models, this is an update on a similar comparison for tropical tropospheric temperature trends, courtesy of tabulations made by John Christy. It also represents an update to my popular “epic fail” blog post from 2013.
As a follow-on to my recent post regarding global surface air temperature trends (1979-2025) and how they compare to climate models, this is an update on a similar comparison for tropical tropospheric temperature trends, courtesy of tabulations made by John Christy. It also represents an update to my popular “epic fail” blog post from 2013.
As most of you know, climate models suggest that the strongest warming response the climate system has to increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (mainly CO2 from fossil fuel burning) is in the tropical upper troposphere. This produces the model-anticipated “tropical hotspot”.
While the deep oceans represent the largest reservoir of heat energy storage in the climate system during warming, that signal is exceedingly small (hundredths of a degree C per decade) and so its uncertainty is rather large from an observational standpoint. In contrast, the tropical upper troposphere has the largest temperature response in climate models (up to 0.5 deg. C per decade).
This shown in the following plot of the decadal temperature trends from 39 climate models (red bars) compared to observations gathered from radiosondes (weather balloons); satellites; and global data reanalyses (which use all kinds of available meteorological data).
The sonde trend bar in the above plot (green) is the average of 3 datasets (radiosonde coverage of the tropics is very sparse); the reanalysis trend (black) is from 2 datasets, and the satellite trend (blue) is the average of 3 datasets. Out of all types of observational data, only the satellites provide complete coverage of the tropics.
Amazingly, all 39 climate models exhibit larger warming trends than all three classes of observational data.
Time Series, 1979-2025
If we compare the average model warming to the observations in individual years, we get the following time series (note that complete reanalysis data for 2025 are not yet available); color coding remains the same as in the previous plot:
The unusually warm year of 2024 really stands out (likely due to a decrease in cloud cover letting in more sunlight), but in 2025 the satellites and radiosondes show a “return to trend”. Of course, what happens in the future is anyone’s guess.
“So What? No One Lives In the Tropical Troposphere”
What is going on that might explain these discrepancies, not only between the models and the observations, but even between the various models themselves? And why should we care, since no one lives up in the tropical troposphere, anyway?
Well, the same argument can be made about the deep oceans (no one lives there), yet they are pointed to by many climate researchers as the most important “barometer” of the positive global energy imbalance of the climate system caused by increasing GHGs (and maybe by natural processes… who knows?).
The excessive warming of the tropical troposphere is no doubt related to inadequacies in how the models handle convective overturning in the tropics, that is, organized thunderstorm activity that transports heat from the surface upward. That “deep moist convection” redistributes not only heat energy, but clouds and water vapor, both of which have profound impacts on tropical tropospheric temperature. While moistening of the lowest layer of the troposphere in response to warming no doubt contributes to positive water vapor feedback, precipitation microphysics governs how much water vapor resides in the rest of the troposphere, and as we demonstrated almost 30 years ago, that leads to large uncertainties in total water vapor feedback.
My personal opinion has always been that the lack of tropical warming is because positive water vapor feedback, the primary positive feedback that amplifies warming in climate models, is too strong. Climate models actually support this interpretation because it has long been known that those models with the strongest “hotspot” in the upper troposphere tend to have the largest positive water vapor feedback.
Will Climate Models Ever Be “Fixed”?
I find it ironic that climate models are claimed to be based upon fundamental “physical principles”. If that were true, then all models would have the same climate sensitivity to increasing GHGs.
But they don’t.
Climate models range over a factor of three in climate sensitivity, a disparity that has remained for over 30 years of the climate modeling enterprise. And the main reason for that disparity is inter-model differences in the moist convective processes (clouds and water vapor) which cause positive feedbacks in the models.
Maybe if the modelers figured out why their handling of moist convection is flawed, models would then produce warming more in line with observations, and more in line with each other.
Much of global warming alarmism arises from scientific publications biased toward (1) the models that produce the most warming, and (2) the excessive GHG increases (“SSP scenarios“) they assume for the most dire climate change projections. Those scenarios are now known to be excessive compared to observed rates of global GHG emissions (and to the reviewer of our DOE report who said this conclusion was in error because I didn’t account for land use changes, no, I removed land use changes from the SSP scenarios… it was an apples-to-apples comparison).
Finally, I don’t want to make it sound like I’m against climate modeling. I am definitely not. I just think the models, as a tool for energy policy guidance, have been misused.
The house of cards built on computer models and manipulated emotions is collapsing under the weight of a stubborn, inconvenient reality. The “climate emergency” exists only in the frantic press releases of a movement that knows it’s time is up.
The house of cards built on computer models and manipulated emotions is collapsing under the weight of a stubborn, inconvenient reality. The “climate emergency” exists only in the frantic press releases of a movement that knows it’s time is up.
For decades, activists have anchored their case in dramatic warnings about species extinction, melting ice caps and the end of polar life, failing ecosystems and vanishing biodiversity.
The goal was always the same: spread fear, drive policy, accumulate power, and if sufficiently clever or corrupt, make money. But what is the actual evidence telling us now?
Some of the world’s largest nations have actually expanded their forest area significantly, even as alarmists predicted ecological disaster. Between 2015 and 2025, China added approximately 4 million acres of forest. In the same period, Russia gained more than 2 million acres and India gained nearly a half million. The list goes on. Turkey added almost 300,000 acres. Australia, France, South Africa, and Canada all posted significant increases.
Perhaps the starkest example of failing prediction is the so-called extinction of species. For 20 years, images of healthy polar bears on melting summer ice were used to manipulate emotions. Yet, reports from 2025 show that bear populations are stable and even booming compared to the 1950s. Bears have not declined in numbers over the past 10 to 15 years, and populations demonstrate resilience even as summer sea ice oscillates.
India’s Bengal tiger population, majestic cats that I have observed closely in my work as a wildlife researcher, is another contradiction of fearmongering. Between 2014 and 2022, the number of India’s tigers grew from 2,226 animals to 3,682. This represents a 65% increase over eight years, with an annual growth rate exceeding 6%.
Further, a 2025 landmark study of data from nearly 2 million species found that extinction rates have not accelerated. Instead, they peaked over a century ago and have been in decline since the early 1900s. The great die-off turned out to be a phantom. The study reveals that past extinctions were largely driven by invasive species on isolated islands, not by the “climate crisis” or the effects of modern civilization.
Global agricultural performance demolishes another cornerstone of environmental pessimism. Famine failed to materialize as farmers across the globe brought in record harvests. Crop yields have increased substantially, enabling farms to feed more people while using less land.
This productivity gain carries profound implications: When agriculture becomes more efficient, fewer acres are needed to sustain the global population. Crop yields in 2024 have defied every Malthusian prediction. Carbon dioxide, the gas demonized as a pollutant, has fulfilled its role as a plant food, fertilizing crops and feeding a global population that has doubled since the 1970s. The planet is not dying; it is being fed.
Why does this matter? Because it proves that the core premise of the anti-fossil fuel movement is false. Industrial society is not destroying Earth. The data show the opposite: As nations get richer and more industrialized, they gain the capacity to protect ecosystems, expand forests and sustain more people.
The silence from the climate establishment regarding these victories is deafening. Have you seen a single headline from the mainstream press celebrating the millions of acres of new forest? Have you heard a whisper about the University of Arizona study debunking the extinction crisis? No.
These stories are buried because they don’t sell fear. The fact that these positive developments are barely acknowledged outside niche scientific reporting reveals more about the movement’s priorities than about the planet’s health.
In science, when a hypothesis is contradicted by data, the hypothesis is revised or abandoned. Yet climate alarmists have doubled down on their rhetoric.
The climate industrial complex’s business model depends on public panic, but spreading recognition of the truth has heightened the anxiety of the purveyors of doom.
Voters across the world are waking up. Recent elections in Europe and the Americas have ushered in new governments that are openly hostile to the net-zero agenda. They were elected on mandates to restore energy sanity, lower prices, and reject the shackles of globalist climate treaties.
This commentary was first published by BizPacon January 10, 2026.
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.
Ed Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has just announced the results of the new CfD auction, in what must go down as one of the most blatantly dishonest and arguably fraudulent Government press releases in recent years.
Ed Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has just announced the results of the new CfD auction, in what must go down as one of the most blatantly dishonest and arguably fraudulent Government press releases in recent years.
Britain has taken a monumental step towards ending the country’s reliance on volatile fossil fuels and lowering bills for good, by delivering a record-breaking offshore wind result in its latest renewables auction.
The results deliver the biggest single procurement of offshore wind energy in British and European history – confounding the global challenges facing the industry – a major vote of confidence in the UK’s new era of energy sovereignty and abundance.
The Government inherited the fiasco of the previous government’s failed Auction Round 5, in which not a single offshore wind project was secured. The last auction round, AR6, got the industry back on its feet. Now this auction round, known as Contracts for Difference AR7, has secured a record capacity of 8.4 GW of offshore wind which will generate enough clean electricity to power the equivalent of 12 million homes. The ground-breaking result puts Britain firmly on track to achieve its clean power mission by 2030.
These results show offshore wind is cheaper to build and operate than new gas. In new figures published today using the LCOE industry metric, the cost of building and operating a new gas fired power station is £147 per megawatt hour. By contrast, the results for fixed offshore wind in today’s auction were £90.91 per megawatt hour on average – or £65.25 in the commonly used benchmark of 2012 prices – 40% cheaper than the cost of building and operating new gas.
This auction will unlock around £22 billion in private investment, supporting around 7,000 jobs, bringing growth and good jobs to all regions of the country – and particularly to the country’s industrial heartlands. Clean power is also essential to tackle the climate crisis, the greatest long-term threat the country faces.
Below are the successful schemes:
Let’s start with the big lie:
Price for offshore wind agreed at 40% lower than the cost of building and operating a new gas power plant …
These results show offshore wind is cheaper to build and operate than new gas. In new figures published today using the LCOE industry metric, the cost of building and operating a new gas fired power station is £147 per megawatt hour. By contrast, the results for fixed offshore wind in today’s auction were £90.91 per megawatt hour on average – or £65.25 in the commonly used benchmark of 2012 prices – 40% cheaper than the cost of building and operating new gas.
The PDF analysis contains this table – I have highlighted the relevant column for Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) technology:
The data annexes confirm that the cost of new CCGT is estimate as £109 per MWh at 2024 prices – but this includes £41 per MWh for carbon tax, which is not a “cost” at all but a Government imposition. (It relates to the Emissions Trading Scheme, which could be torn up tomorrow, if the political will was there.)
The Government claim that offshore wind is 40% cheaper than gas implies a cost of gas power of about £150 per MWh. That is a fake claim, even if you allow for carbon costs.
The simple reality is that the real cost of new gas power would be £68 per MWh, around a quarter less than these new contracts for offshore wind. Of this, fuel costs account for £45 per MWh.
The second lie concerns the use of “2024 prices”, on which the “90.91 per MWh” price for offshore wind is based.
It has probably occurred to you that we are now in 2026! Since 2024, CPI has risen by 4.5%. As CfD strike prices are index linked, that “£90.91” has already risen to about £95 per MWh.
The wholesale price in Q4 2025 was £74.44 per MWh, according to the Government’s Low Carbon Contracts Company. Offshore wind will therefore be subsidised to the tune of £20 per MWh at these prices.
Indeed, the Government admits as much, because the AR7 published results confirm that subsidies could top £1.9 billion a year by the time all the schemes are operational. These subsidies will have to be paid for 20 years, and index linked.
Note: The “monetary Budget impact” is the expected subsidy payment i.e., strike price minus market price.
Then we come to the third big lie.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is comparing new offshore wind with new CCGT. The true comparison however should be with existing CCGT, as we already have under-utilised CCGTs. It is generation from these that new wind power will replace.
As we have already paid for all of the fixed costs anyway, the only cost of producing additional electricity at CCGTs is the fuel cost, which as we have seen is around £45 per MWh. That means the cost of sourcing power from these new wind farms will be about £50 per MWh dearer than the gas power they are replacing.
We are tight on CCGT capacity and will need to construct new plants if older ones close as expected. But – crucially – we will have to do that anyway, whether we build new wind farms or not as gas will remain our back-up for intermittent renewables for the foreseeable future.
What Miliband wants is to spend tens of billions building offshore wind farms in addition to paying for that new gas capacity. It will not “lower bills for good”, as the presa release blurb states. It will raise bills yet further.
You must be logged in to post a comment.