Climate Policies

Value of Decarbonizing Pledges? Net Zero.

There are two reasons why Bill Gates and hundreds of Corporations and many countries are backtracking on commitments to decarbonize. One is disbelieving the false advertising that the planet is in danger and can be saved by Net Zero efforts. Second is sobering up to the fact that decarbonizing the world is an impossible fantasy. This post includes content from Gary Abernathy on the first point and some quotes from Vaclav Smil’s recent paper on the second.

Abernathy writes at Real Clear Energy In practice, ‘Net Zero’ Was Exactly How Much Such Pledges Were Worth. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The public “net zero” pledges by countless corporate and political entities in recent years were always baffling. How could the United States or much of the industrialized world reach “net zero” emissions without destroying modern living?

As a reminder, “net zero” is a term coined to illustrate a goal of “eliminating greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities, which is accomplished by decreasing global emissions and abating them from the atmosphere,” as defined by Net0.com, a company that describes itself as “the market leader in AI-First Sustainability, enabling governments and enterprises worldwide to enhance their environmental performance and decarbonize profitably.”

Net0 posits that “the global scientific community agrees that to mitigate the most severe impacts of climate change, we must reduce worldwide net human-generated carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 45 percent from their 2010 levels by the year 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by around 2050.”

In a political atmosphere shaming anyone who didn’t join the climate cult – led in the U.S. by the Biden administration and globally by the U.N. – attempting to outdo each other for the most aggressive “net zero” policy was all the rage.

“As of June 2024, 107 countries… had adopted net-zero pledges either in law, in a policy document such as a national climate action plan or a long-term strategy, or in an announcement by a high-level government official,” boasted the United Nations.

“More than 9,000 companies, over 1,000 cities, more than 1,000 educational institutions, and over 600 financial institutions have joined the Race to Zero, pledging to take rigorous, immediate action to halve global emissions by 2030.”

But as politicians know, promises and actions are often unrelated. Most people endowed with even a modicum of common sense and a grade-school understanding of basic science knew that meeting “net zero” goals would require a reduction in the use of our most affordable, effective and reliable energy sources to a degree that would devastate modern economies.

The fact that “net zero” pledges were nothing but a cruel joke was made clear last month in a story by NPR headlined, “Leaders promised to cut climate pollution, then doubled down on fossil fuels.” Most thinking people were as surprised by that headline as by discovering wet water, hot fire or flying birds. It was not necessary to read further. “Of course,” they said to themselves, moving on to the next story.

But there are, sadly, climate cult converts who, in their shock, likely needed more details.

They discovered: “The world is producing too much coal, oil and natural gas to meet the targets set 10 years ago under the Paris Agreement, in which countries agreed to limit climate pollution and avoid the worst effects of global warming,” NPR reported. The story said:

“A new report, led by the nonprofit research group Stockholm Environment Institute, shows countries plan to produce more than twice the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).”

For the true believers, here’s the real punch to the gut: “The SEI report shows the 20 most polluting countries, including China, the U.S. and India, actually plan to produce even more fossil fuels than they did two years ago, when the report was last updated.”

Of course, as he did in his first term, President Trump is pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement as he unleashes American industry and works to ensure energy affordability, independence and security for the nation. Legislation to roll back taxpayer subsidies for “renewables” and return to “reliables” has already been passed or introduced in various states and is soon likely to be fortified at the federal level.

After wasting billions of tax dollars on wind and solar subsidies that could have been directed toward schools, healthcare or other real needs, the fever is finally breaking. The world is slowly but surely awakening from the delusions of climate zealots who insisted that we were on the verge of catastrophe with constantly worsening weather disasters.

Just last May, for example, NOAA the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted an “above-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane season.” And just a few months earlier, PBS NewsHour reported on a study showing that “human-caused climate change made Atlantic hurricanes about 18 miles per hour (29 kilometers per hour) stronger in the last six years.”

The message was clear. More hurricanes.
Stronger hurricanes. This year’s reality so far?

“The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season is the first time in 10 years that a hurricane has not made landfall in the United States through the end of September,” according to American Press. While “hurricane season” extends through November, September is usually the busiest month.

The weather is – and has always been – unpredictable. Severe weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, monsoons, floods, blizzards and drought have always been with us, and always will. The attempt to demonize humankind for the frequency and severity of the weather has been politically motived and economically disastrous.

“Net zero” pledges are being revealed for the false promises they most often were, designed mainly to win plaudits from the Lecturing Left. For leaders grounded in facts, real-world needs have always meant that no one is easing off the gas.

2. Vaclav Smil’s paper is at Fraser Institute Halfway between Kyoto and 2050. Overview and keynote section are reprinted below with my bolds and added images.

Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
1. Carbon in the Biosphere
2. Energy Transitions
3. Our Record So Far
4. What It Would Take to Reverse the Past Emission Trend
5. The Task Ahead: Zero Carbon Electricity and Hydrogen
6. Costs, Politics, and Demand
7. Realities versus Wishful Thinking
8. Closing Thoughts

Executive Summary

♦ This essay evaluates past carbon emission reduction and the feasibility of eliminating fossil fuels to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050.

♦ Despite international agreements, government spending and regulations, and technological advancements, global fossil fuel consumption surged by 55 percent between 1997 and 2023. And the share of fossil fuels in global energy consumption has only decreased from nearly 86 percent in 1997 to approximately 82 percent in 2022.

♦ The first global energy transition, from traditional biomass fuels such as wood and charcoal to fossil fuels, started more than two centuries ago and unfolded gradually.

♦ That transition remains incomplete, as billions of people still rely on traditional biomass energies for cooking and heating.

♦ The scale of today’s energy transition requires approximately 700 exajoules of new non-carbon energies by 2050, which needs about 38,000 projects the size of BC’s Site C or 39,000 equivalents of Muskrat Falls.

♦ Converting energy-intensive processes (e.g., iron smelting, cement, and plastics) to non-fossil alternatives requires solutions not yet available for largescale use.

♦ The energy transition imposes unprecedented demands for minerals including copper and lithium, which require substantial time to locate and develop mines.

♦ To achieve net-zero carbon, affluent countries will incur costs of at least 20 percent of their annual GDP.

♦ While global cooperation is essential to achieve decarbonization by 2050, major emitters such as the United States, China, and Russia have conflicting interests.

♦ To eliminate carbon emissions by 2050, governments face unprecedented technical, economic and political challenges, making rapid and inexpensive transition impossible.

7. Realities versus Wishful Thinking

Since the world began to focus on the need to end the combustion of fossil fuels, we have not made the slightest progress in the goal of absolute global decarbonization: emission declines in many affluent countries were far smaller than the increased consumption of coal and hydrocarbons in the rest of the world, a trend that has also reflected the continuing deindustrialization in Europe and North America and the rising shares of carbon-intensive industrial production originating in Asia. As a result, by 2023 the absolute reliance on fossil carbon rose by 54 percent worldwide since the Kyoto commitment. Moreover, a significant part of emission declines in many affluent countries has been due to their deindustrialization, to transferring some of their carbon-intensive industries abroad, above all to China.

A recent international analysis of 1500 climate policies around the world concluded that 63 or 4% of them were successful in reducing emissions.

Denmark, with half of its electricity now coming from wind, is often pointed out as a particular decarbonization success: since 1995 it cut its energy-related emissions by 56 percent (compared to the EU average of about 22 percent)—but, unlike its neighbours, the country does not produce any major metals (aluminum, copper, iron, or steel), it does not make any float glass or paper, does not synthesize any ammonia, and it does not even assemble any cars. All these products are energy-intensive, and transferring the emissions associated with their production to other countries creates an undeservedly green reputation for the country doing the transferring.

Given the fact that we have yet to reach the global carbon emission peak (or a plateau) and considering the necessarily gradual progress of several key technical solutions for decarbonization (from large-scale electricity storage to mass-scale hydrogen use), we cannot expect the world economy to become carbon free by 2050. The goal may be desirable, but it remains unrealistic. The latest International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook report confirms that conclusion. While it projects that energy-related CO2 emissions will peak in 2025, and that the demand for all fossil fuels will peak by 2030, it also anticipates that only coal consumption will decline significantly by 2050 (though it will still be about half of the 2023 level), and that the demand for crude oil and natural gas will see only marginal changes by 2050 with oil consumption still around 4 billion tons and natural gas use still above 4 trillion cubic meters a year (IEA, 2023d).

Wishful thinking or claiming otherwise should not be used or defended by saying that doing so represents “aspirational” goals. Responsible analyses must acknowledge existing energy, material, engineering, managerial, economic, and political realities. An impartial assessment of those resources indicates that it is extremely unlikely that the global energy system will be rid of all fossil carbon by 2050. Sensible policies and their vigorous pursuit will determine the actual degree of that dissociation, which might be as high as 60 or 65 percent. More and more people are recognizing these realities, and fewer are swayed by the incessant stream of miraculously downward-bending decarbonization scenarios so dear to demand modelers.

Long-term global energy forecasts offering numbers for overall demand or supply and for shares contributed by specific sources or conversions are beyond our capability: the system is too complex and too open to unforeseen but profound perturbations for such specificity. However, skepticism in constructing long-term estimates will lessen the extent of inevitable errors. Here is an example of a realistic 2023 forecast done by Norwegian risk management company DNV that has been echoed recently by other realistic assessments. After noting that global energy-related emissions are still climbing (but might peak in 2024 when the transition would effectively begin) it concludes that by 2050 we will move from the present roughly 80 percent fossil/20 percent non-fossil split to a 48 percent/52 percent ratio by 2050, with primary energy from fossil fuels declining by nearly two-thirds but still remaining at about 314 EJ by 2050—in other words, about as high as it was in 1995 (DNV, 2023).

Again, that is what any serious student of global energy transitions would expect. Individual components change at different speeds and notably rapid transformations are possible, but the overall historical pattern quantified in terms of primary energies is one of gradual changes. Unfortunately, modern forecasting in general and the anticipation of energy advances in particular have an unmistakable tendency toward excessive optimism, exaggeration, and outright hype (Smil, 2023b). During the 1970s many people believed that by the year 2000 all electricity would come not just from fission, but from fast breeder reactors, and soon afterwards came the promises of “soft energy” taking over (Smil, 2000).

Belief in near-miraculous tomorrows never goes away. Even now we can read declarations claiming that the world can rely solely on wind and PV by 2030 (Global100REStrategyGroup, 2023). And then there are repeated claims that all energy needs (from airplanes to steel smelting) can be supplied by cheap green hydrogen or by affordable nuclear fusion. What does this all accomplish besides filling print and screens with unrealizable claims? Instead, we should devote our efforts to charting realistic futures that consider our technical capabilities, our material supplies, our economic possibilities, and our social necessities—and then devise practical ways to achieve them. We can always strive to surpass them—a far better goal than setting ourselves up for repeated failures by clinging to unrealistic targets and impractical visions.

US Nuclear Power Revival

Posted on November 3 by Ron Clutz

Duggan Flanakin writes at Real Clear Energy Data Centers, Trump Spark U.S. Nuclear Revival. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

With a strong push from the Trump White House, for the first time since Three Mile Island, the nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is bullish about its future. It’s about time, given that the average existing U.S. nuclear power plant was built based on 1980s technology.

A major reason for the virtual standstill in nuclear energy development in the U.S. was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s near-maniacal effort to reassure a skittish public that they would not issue permits to any nuclear power plant that had the potential for public harm.

The shot heard round the world signaling a change in U.S. nuclear energy policy was the summary firing of NRC Commissioner Christopher Hanson, whose divinity school background may have contributed to a perception he viewed his job as more a gatekeeper for regulatory control than a partner in building a U.S. nuclear future. As Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chair Shelley Moore Capito (R, WV) said,

“For decades, the NRC took too long, cost too much, and did not have a predictable and efficient process to approve new licenses or modernize outdated regulations.”

Newly installed NRC Chair David Wright has called the Trump directives not “just regulatory reform” but a “cultural transformation that positions the NRC to be a forward-leaning, risk-informed regulator for the future.” The agency’s internal culture is being reshaped into a more efficient and modern agency without sacrificing public safety, Wright said.

Several MEPs (mainly Greens) hold up anti-nuclear posters at the debate.

But it’s not just the NRC that is being transformed. Under presidents from Carter to Biden, nuclear was largely relegated to the closet as the primary focus was the media-driven “green energy” crusade. Wind and solar permits were issued without the cleanup requirements and prepayments mandatory for nuclear and fossil fuel facilities. Nuclear was deemed “dirty.”

The first Trump term was so mangled by political infighting (both intra-party and cross-party) that any real nuclear energy agenda lay buried among the lawsuits. In the interim, however, artificial intelligence made giant leaps and the demand for electric power for fast-growing data centers was exploding. Wind and solar cannot be relied upon by entities dependent upon 24/7/365 power – and nuclear is still viewed as the “cleaner” option vis-à-vis natural gas.

Even before Trump’s reelection, tech giants were busily signing nuclear energy deals to power their data centers. Last September the owner of the long-shuttered Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear power plant announced plans to restart operations in 2027, thanks to a 20-year power purchase agreement with Microsoft for a nearby AI data center.

Last October Amazon and Google both announced they would be investing in small modular reactors for AI data centers. Two months later Meta said it planned to follow suit. The amazing thing is the uncertainty that the SMR manufacturers will be able to deliver as quickly and as affordably as the tech giants demand. The simple reason? They have no track record yet. But energy demand is so high that waiting is not an option.

In the last few weeks, what was already a fast train picked up even more speed. On October 16 the U.S. Army unveiled its next-generation nuclear power Janus Program for the deployment of small modular reactors to support national defense installations and critical missions. Commercial microreactor manufacturers will partner with the Army’s Defense Innovation Unit with a goal of an operating reactor by September 30, 2028.

On October 26, Hyundai Engineering & Construction announced a basic design contract with Fermi America to construct four large nuclear reactors on a 8.1-square-mile property outside Amarillo, Texas. The Hyundai-designed AP1000 nuclear reactors will generate 4 GW for the HyperGrid complex, the world’s largest integrated energy and AI campus. The 11-GW project also includes 2 GW from small modular reactors, 4 GW from gas combined cycle plants, and 1 GW from solar and battery storage systems.

The integrated license application for the $500 billion project, the brainchild of former Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Fermi co-founder Toby Neugebauer, is currently under expedited review by the NRC. Meanwhile, Hyundai E&C is working on design tasks and preparations for the main construction phase, with finalization anticipated for an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract by spring 2026.

On October 28, Westinghouse Electric Co. joined Cameco Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management in a new strategic partnership with the U.S. government to accelerate the deployment of nuclear power. The government has committed to construction of at least $80 billion of new reactors using Westinghouse’s nuclear reactor technology to reinvigorate the U.S. nuclear power industrial base.

The government says this partnership will facilitate the growth and future of the U.S. nuclear power industry and the supporting supply chain. The entire project, which will deploy two-unit Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, is expected to create more than 100,000 construction jobs and support or sustain 45,000 manufacturing and engineering jobs across 43 states.

The AP300 SMR is a single-loop, 300-MWe pressurized water reactor that utilizes identical systems to the larger AP1000 reactor.

These are only a sampling of the active and planned contracts for nuclear power plant construction that have sprung out of the unplowed ground with the change in philosophy at the NRC and the White House. All systems are brightly lit green – but obstacles remain in the road.

Even with greatly shortened licensing timeframes, it will take time to complete site designs, obtain permits and licenses, and begin delivering much needed electricity to tech giants and other customers. Yet the biggest problem may be finding enough nuclear fuel at affordable prices to meet the mushrooming demand.

One option, says Curio CEO Ed McGinnis, is recognizing that spent nuclear fuel (including that from nuclear weapons) can safely be turned into fresh usable nuclear fuel and valuable rare metals and materials (like rhodium, palladium, krypton-85, and americium-241).

The Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) recent research and development in the advanced reactor technology space. Source: DOE

U.S. production of uranium oxide in 2024 jumped exponentially to 677,000 pounds from just 50,000 pounds in 2023, and exploration and development activities in 2023 were the highest in a decade. On a down note, anti-nuclear activists have been waging a campaign to shut down the White Mesa Mill in Utah that processes uranium ore – and in the U.S. today only about 5% of nuclear fuel has been processed domestically.

The nuclear fuel conundrum is but one of the obstacles in the path of the massive U.S. nuclear power industry growth that is also a vital component of the growth of AI data centers and other emerging electricity-hungry technologies that are shaping our future. But all systems are go – and that is the giant step that had to be taken first.

Texans, Don’t Mess With Emissions Reductions

Posted on October 25 by Ron Clutz

Gregory Wrightstone writes at Lone Star Standard; Texans should stop spending on fake climate crisis. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Boasting that Texas “has built more wind power than any state and is a top contender for the most solar power,” a Texas Tribune article bemoans a decline in federal subsidies for such energy sources and a potential loss of “billions in investments and thousands of jobs.”

Interestingly, the writers focus on business interests of the climate industrial complex and ignore the stated reason for subsidies – to avoid supposed catastrophic global warming. Planetary health – purported to be threatened by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – was not even an afterthought in the handwringing over wind and solar financial fortunes.

Regardless, Texans face no such peril and the billions already spent on “green” obsessions in the Lone Star State are for naught. “There is no evidence of a climate crisis in Texas and none can be reasonably expected,” says a report, “Texas and Climate Change,” recently published by the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia.

Both the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) and a Texas A&M University report predict harm to Texans from human-induced warming. Climate change is “putting us at risk from climate hazards that degrade our lands and waters, quality of life, health and well-being, and cultural interconnectedness,” according to NCA5.

In contradicting those findings, the CO2 Coalition analyzed data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, reports published in peer-reviewed journals and others.

“The temperature in Texas has shown no unprecedented or unusual warming, despite increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,” says the CO2 Coalition report. “Recent temperatures in Texas are similar to those found more than 100 years ago.”

In fact, the annual number of 100-degree days in Texas has an overall decreasing trend.

While some have claimed a connection between climate change and July’s tragic flooding in central Texas, no scientific basis for such a link exists. Though extreme, the flooding was not a first.

According to Harris County meteorologist Jeff Lindner, the July 4th flood of the Guadalupe River at Kerrville peaked at 34.29 feet, making it the third-highest flood on record for the city. The 2025 flood crest trails the 39.0-foot flood crest from 1932 and the 37.72-foot flood crest from in 1987.

“Over the last 28 years, flash floods, while varying greatly from year to year, have actually been in slight decline,” the CO2 Coalition report found.

Precipitation data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network indicate that Texas has experienced a very slight increase (1 to 2 inches annually) in precipitation since 1895, which is contrary to the predictions of significant increases in rainfall from climate alarmists. If anything, the modest increase in Texas precipitation should have beneficial effects on the state’s agricultural yields.

As for drought – the primary scourge of crops throughout the world – government data show no discernable trend in the severity of arid spells in Texas, which is a direct contradiction to claims of increasing drought by both the Texas A&M report and NCA5.

Similarly rebutting the fearmongering of alarmists, the CO2 Coalition report found no increasing trends for wildfires, hurricanes and tornadoes.

With respect to tornadoes, the U.S., including Texas, has seen a decades-long decline in the most violent of twisters. The likely reason is a warming Earth – a natural phenomenon following the end of the Little Ice Age – reduces the temperature differentials between regions inside and outside equatorial regions that drive storms.

Like the rest of the world, Texas has experienced record-breaking growth in crop production over the last several decades. This is no coincidence, as research shows every increase of 1 part per million (ppm) in CO2 concentration boosts yields of corn and wheat by 0.4% and 1%, respectively. Based on these metrics, the 140-ppm increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has led to increases of 56%, 84% and 140% in corn, soybeans and wheat, respectively.

CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, and reducing emissions of the gas would be harmful to vegetation, including forests, grasslands and agricultural crops.

Even if Texas could stop emitting CO2, the amount of atmospheric warming averted would be only 0.0093 degrees and 0.0237 degrees by 2050 and 2100, respectively. These changes are negligible and cannot be felt or measured.

If the reason for spending on Texas climate policy were to enrich wind and solar developers, then, yes, lamentations over the demise of subsidies are understandable. However, there is no basis for spending a cent on a fake crisis – and certainly not on technologies that offer no benefit.

Anti-Tornado Tech Better Than Mitigation?

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va.; author of “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know” and “A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity.”

CO2 Coalition Texas Report is here. My snyopsis is :

No Climate Crisis in Texas

Climate Medical Quackery Exposed

Posted on September 24 by Ron Clutz

The following 65 page report was Submitted September 19, 2025 by physicians Dr. D. Weston Allen, Dr. Jan Breslow, and Dr. Daniel Nebert CO2 Coalition Comment on Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Table of Contents
Climate Change and Health …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Warmth, Wealth and Health……………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Temperature, Morbidity and Mortality ………………………………………………………………….. 6
Future Warming ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Temperature Extremes…………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Temperature and Disease Vectors………………………………………………………………………. 15
Extreme Weather Events………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
Food, Famine, Climate and CO2 ………………………………………………………………………….. 33
Mental Health……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 37
Energy Sources and Health……………………………………………………………………………….. 39
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 45

Some examples of Climate Medical Mischief

Introduction

Human health, morbidity, mortality and longevity are significantly impacted by climate. This review examines the evidence for past, present and possible future human health impacts of climate change and its ramifications. It will also examine the health impacts of different energy sources and climate actions. It will not examine every link in the literature to a range of conditions where attribution is implausible or tenuous, or where association assumes causation.

Warmth, Wealth and Health

Davis et al (2003)23 found a 74.4% decline in heat-related mortality in 28 of the largest U.S. cities from 1964 to 1998 and estimated that another 1⁰C increase would further reduce the net mortality rate.24 Analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries, Gasparrini et al (2015)25 found that cold weather was over 17 times more lethal than hot weather: 7.3% of all deaths due to cold and 0.42% from heat. Masselot et al (2023) found cold weather to be ten times more lethal than hot weather across Europe and forty times more so in northern Europe.26 Their visual display of this difference (Fig. 1) was camouflaged by making the X-axis for heat-related deaths 5.6 times greater than the X-axis for cold-related deaths!

Figure 1: Temperature-related mortality in European cities from Masselot et al. 2023 (A) As depicted in the Lancet (B) Identical X-axis for heat and cold, corrected by the CO2 Coalition

Temperature and Diseases

Cholera, which afflicts 3-5 million people and kills about 100,000 annually,76 is now confined to developing countries in the tropics and subtropics (Fig. 5). When an epidemic broke out in London in 1848, Dr. John Snow performed the world’s first epidemiological studies in linking itto contaminated water. Nearly a century and a half later, a paper in the prestigious journal Science77 linked a 1991 outbreak in South America to climate change. The real cause, however, was a failure of the Peruvian authorities to properly chlorinate water supplies.78 Climate change can be a convenient scapegoat for government failure!

Temperature Extremes

Deadly heatwaves such as the European one in 2003 are often attributed to climate change.93
Temperatures elsewhere across the globe at the time, however, were normal or below normal (Fig.
7).94

Figure 7: Global tropospheric temperature anomalies, June-August 2003. Source: Chase et al. (2006)

The 1936 North American heatwave during the Dust Bowl decade set record temperatures across 14 states, reaching 49⁰C in Steele, North Dakota, and killed at least 5,000 people.99 The 1954 summer-long heatwave across the Midwest, reaching 117⁰F (47.2⁰C) in East St Louis, ranks as the hottest in 11 states (Fig. 8) based on an analysis of Midwest temperature records from 1845 to 2009.100 Nancy Westcott (2011) also found a reducing trend of heatwaves over the 20th century.

Figure 8: Rank of the June–September 1954 heat wave based on National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) climate division temperature data for the years 1895–2009. Source: Westcott (2011)

Temperature and Disease Vectors

West Nile Virus (WNV) was first identified in a West Nile district of Uganda in 1937. It is asymptomatic in 80% of infected people but can cause severe encephalitis or meningitis in about 1 in 150 infected persons, especially the elderly or immunocompromised. It is transmitted by a Culex species of mosquito that has bitten an infected bird (not human). Appearing in New York in 1999 and spreading across the states taking hundreds of lives, it was soon linked to climate change. 173 174 But its rapid spread from northeast to the south and west (Fig. 12) and its decline despite warming (Figs. 13 and 14) indicates that the vector was already there and climate change had nothing to do with that.

Figure 12: Progress of WNV in the U.S. 1999-2003. White 0, Blue <1%, Green1-5%, Yellow 5-10%, Red >10%

Food, Famine, Climate and CO2

In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich predicted widespread famine with hundreds of millions starving to death in the 1970s, but the death toll declined as the population grew
(Fig. 27).

The U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research matched satellite-based observations of outdoor CO2 levels across the U.S. with county-level agricultural output data and other economic variables and concluded that CO2 emissions had boosted U.S. crop production since 1940 by 50 to 80%, much larger than previous estimations using FACE experiments, and found that every ppm of increase in CO2 boosts corn yields by 0.5%, soybeans by 0.6%, and wheat by 0.8 % (Fig. 29).305

Figure 29: U.S. average CO2 levels and yields of corn, soy and wheat all normalized so 1940=100. Source: Taylor and Schlenker (2023)

Mental Health

Dire predictions are often based on flawed models, exaggerations, wild imaginations and a failure to factor in human ingenuity.335 Predictions made in the 1970s of an impending ice age, falling crop yields, increasing global famine, advancing deserts, a pesticide-induced cancer epidemic, of oil, gas and other resources rapidly running out, were not only wrong but the very opposite has happened.

More recent predictions of malaria spreading across the globe, Arctic ice disappearing by 2013, increasing droughts and tropical cyclones have all failed to materialize. Indeed, the world has never been safer than now (Fig. 30).

The academic left first quarreled with science339 before capturing, corrupting and politicizing it. They then ignored quantitative uncertainties343 to contrive a catastrophic climate change consensus, calling sceptics deniers and inventing a climate crisis and global boiling to foster fear, funding and a rush to renewables. Anthropocentric purists prohibit alternative diagnoses, prognoses, priorities or remedies and suspect fossil fuel funding behind anyone challenging “The Science”. Climate change does impact the poorest the most but, as we shall see in the next section, a lucrative climate industry makes them even poorer and more vulnerable.

Conclusion

Warmth is good for human health and prosperity. Fossil fuels have played a vital role in providing the wealth essential for health and environmental protection. They have also boosted atmospheric CO2 and added a little warmth, both being hitherto beneficial overall for plants and people. The ingenuity of Homo sapiens at adapting to climate has permitted people to populate almost the entire globe from the freezing Arctic to the steamy tropics. If we stick to doing what we do best – adaptation – we will continue to thrive.

We must be prepared not only for global warming, but also for global cooling,
which will surely occur as our present warm Holocene draws to its inevitable end.

Human health and that of the planet depends on balancing productivity and development with conservation and environmental protection. Only developed countries with people lifted out of poverty can afford to produce clean energy, protect the environment, put power lines underground, construct buildings with 5-star energy ratings and use efficient lighting/appliances to minimize energy and water use, provide adequate safe water supplies and effective public health measures to control communicable diseases. It is vital that governments focus on real pollutants, not imagined ones, and that they avoid using climate change as a scapegoat for failure to implement sound public health policies and proven preventive measures. Misguided climate action can be worse than unmitigated climate change.

The 2014 IPCC Summary for Policymakers nicely summed it up:

“The most effective vulnerability reduction measures for health in the near term are programs that implement and improve basic public health measures such as provision of clean water and sanitation, secure essential health care including vaccination and child health services, increase capacity for disaster preparedness and response, and alleviate poverty (very high confidence).”

Climate Alarmism: Not Science, But Superstition

Posted on September 16 by Ron Clutz

Brian C. Joondeph writes at American Thinker, CO2 Alarmism: Science or Superstition? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

When Americans hear about carbon dioxide (CO2), it’s often shown as a harmful pollutant that threatens the planet. Politicians, activists, and media outlets warn that if we don’t reduce emissions right away, disaster will happen.

Preeminent “climate scientist” Al Gore told Congress in 2007, “The science is settled. Carbon dioxide emissions – from cars, power plants, buildings, and other sources – are heating the Earth’s atmosphere.” He continued warning, “The planet has a fever.”

What if the fever is instead a cold plunge? As CNN reminded us earlier this year, “Record-breaking cold: Temperatures to plunge to as much as 50 degrees below normal.”

The Weather Channel posted on Facebook last week, “Record-breaking cold temperatures for the month of August provide many their first taste of fall.” What happened to global warming?

Let’s not focus on the last year or the last fifty years. Instead, let’s look at the past 600 million years. From this perspective, the story looks very different.

Dr. Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, authored a policy paper in 2016 titled, “The positive impact of CO2 emissions on the survival of life on earth.” Note the organization he cofounded. This is not some far-right, anti-science, fascist, Nazi, white supremacist organization, as the left would characterize anyone questioning “settled” climate science. Since its founding in 1971, Greenpeace has promoted environmental activism.

Dr. Moore, in his paper, presented this graph. The graph caption indicates that temperature and atmospheric CO2 are only loosely correlated, if at all. It’s a graph of global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past 600 million years. Note both temperature and CO2 are lower today than they have been during most of the era of modern life on Earth since the Cambrian Period. Also, note that this does not indicate a lockstep cause-effect relationship between the two parameters.

The main point from the graph is that current CO2 levels are not dangerously high. In fact, they are quite the opposite, being some of the lowest in history. For most of Earth’s history, CO2 concentrations were many times higher than today’s 420 ppm. Even during the Cretaceous period, when dinosaurs roamed, levels were about four times higher than today.

From a geological view, our current CO2 levels are among the lowest in history. Yet climate advocates focus on a tiny rise in CO2 in recent years, ignoring the previous half billion years.

Alarmists scream that 420 ppm is unprecedented and endangers the planet’s survival. However, the reality is nearly the opposite: we could be experiencing a CO2 drought.

To my knowledge, dinosaurs didn’t drive gas-guzzling SUVs, run the air conditioner, or cook on gas stoves. Yet, miraculously, the Earth neither burned up nor became uninhabitable, as Al Gore and other climate alarmists currently predict. Instead, life thrived, diversified, and expanded to the point that I can write this article on my laptop, in the comfort of my air-conditioned home, before I fire up the grill for dinner.

What stands out is not correlation but complexity. Temperature and CO2 did not move in lockstep. Sometimes, CO2 was high during cooling periods, and other times, CO2 decreased while temperatures rose. The “lockstep causation” story falls apart when viewed over millions of years. Earth’s climate is influenced by many factors, such as solar cycles, orbital changes, volcanic activity, and ocean currents, not just a single trace gas.

CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere, less than one part per thousand. The complexity is summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

If CO2 has in the past reached ten times current levels without causing a runaway greenhouse effect, how can today’s modest increase be seen as an existential threat? The Earth system is more resilient than many activists admit. That resilience, demonstrated over hundreds of millions of years of survival, should humble today’s doom prophets.

Fortunately, policymakers are beginning to see that climate alarmism is based on shaky ground. As ZeroHedge reported, Trump’s EPA plans to remove greenhouse gases from the list of regulated pollutants, recognizing that treating CO₂ like sulfur dioxide or mercury isn’t scientifically justified. They summarized the rationale well.

Trump’s reversal of EPA standards and deregulation will help the U.S. economy. More importantly, it starts the much-needed process of removing climate change brainwashing from the federal government’s vernacular. It’s time for Western civilization to abandon the climate hoax and move on.

Published February, 2025

More recently, the New York Times reported a more significant development: The EPA is now revoking its Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gases. That 2009 decision served as the legal, though not scientific, foundation for the federal government’s climate policy.

By rescinding it, the agency admits what skeptics have claimed all along. CO2 is not a poison but a natural part of the biosphere, essential for plant life, agriculture, and human survival. Simply put, CO2 is plant food and vital for life on Earth.

When even the EPA admits that the case against CO2 isn’t as strong as claimed, why should the rest of us accept the narrative of “settled science,” whether it’s about CO2 or COVID-era masks, vaccines, distancing, and lockdowns?

Perhaps the most troubling result of climate panic isn’t faulty science but poor policymaking. Fear opens the door to authoritarian control. We saw this during COVID lockdowns when extreme restrictions were justified in the name of “public health.” Climate alarmists now use the same tactics, claiming that global warming is “an existential threat.”

As HotAir recently reported, three Canadian provinces have implemented sweeping bans on entering woodland areas, citing wildfire risks and climate change. Violators face heavy fines or jail time. Critics quickly pointed out the striking similarity to so-called “climate lockdowns,” once dismissed as conspiracy theories. Yet here they are, with citizens barred from a common outdoor activity in the name of climate policy.

This isn’t environmental stewardship; it’s authoritarian social control. A government willing to close forests today will be willing to restrict cars, air travel, or even personal diets tomorrow, all justified as part of a “climate emergency.”

Once rights are limited in the name of carbon, what boundaries remain? After all, humans exhale CO2, making all human activity a threat to the species, activities that should be restricted or stopped at any cost. In other words, population control by any means necessary.

None of this is to deny that climate science involves uncertainty. Proxy data are imperfect, and today’s industrial society introduces variables that weren’t present millions of years ago. Climate sensitivity to CO2, although debated, may not be zero, but is probably negligible and not worth imposing overwhelming socioeconomic regulations and burdens on working families and developing nations.

But uncertainty cuts both ways. If the science is uncertain, then the justification for strict, top-down rules collapses. Policy should demonstrate humility, not arrogance. Instead of harsh restrictions, we should focus on balanced adaptation, resilient infrastructure, responsible energy choices, and innovation, all while maintaining freedom and prosperity.

The real irony is that the more you zoom out, the less CO2 seems to be the “control knob” of climate. Over 600 million years, CO2 levels were much higher than today’s, yet Earth stayed habitable and life flourished. If anything, our current levels could be too low, raising worries about agricultural productivity and plant growth in a CO2-deficient atmosphere, which might cause starvation and desolation.

We are told to fear things that could actually be helpful. Higher CO2 levels increase crop yields, support reforestation, and restore dry lands. Calling it “pollution” goes against biology itself. CO2 is plant food, and without it, humans might face extinction like the dinosaurs.

It’s time to replace fear with perspective. Instead of shutting down people, destroying industries, or labeling farmers as villains, we should understand that CO2 is not our enemy. Climate alarmism is. Believing otherwise isn’t science; it’s superstition.

Alarmists Fail to Refute Realistic Climate Report

Posted on September 15 by Ron Clutz

They shoot, they miss, we score. David Wojick reports on the laughable failure of alarmists in his CFACT article Attack on DOE Climate Report is a comedy of criticism. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The DOE science report saying the impact of CO2 on climate is exaggerated was quickly followed by a massive alarmist report. The alarmist report claimed to refute the DOE report, and the press dutifully reported it doing that.

On close inspection, I find this claim to be not even close to true. In fact, it looks laughable. Mind you, this is a preliminary finding, as the two reports together run about 600 pages. I just took what is arguably the key DOE chapter and compared the two reports on that.

This is the chapter on CO2 sensitivity, which is how much warming will occur (in theory) if the atmospheric concentration doubled. It is a convenient metric that is widely used to assess the potential adverse impact, if any, of increasing CO2.

I first looked at the DOE report, then at the alarmist report, anxious to see how they claimed to falsify the DOE version. What I found instead was that they did not disagree with a single thing the DOE report said. No falsification, no refutation, not even a simple disagreement. Nothing! I could not stop laughing.

On reflection, this is not surprising, because what the DOE report says is simple and well known. They point out that:

♦ the range of sensitivity estimates is getting bigger, not smaller;
♦ some of the models have gotten so hot that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) no longer accepts their results; that
♦ observation-based estimates are a lot lower than the model estimates; and that
♦ sensitivity could be lower than the IPCC suggests.

Figure 8: Warming in the tropical troposphere according to the CMIP6 models. Trends 1979–2014 (except the rightmost model, which is to 2007), for 20°N–20°S, 300–200 hPa.

There is lots of criticism in the alarmist report to be sure, but it is all editorial, not scientific. Basically, the alarmists wish the DOE report said something else — which is no surprise. They say the report “misrepresents” the science (because it is not alarmist), even though everything it says is true.

They list six specific criticisms. These six are scientifically irrelevant, but some are actually wrong. For example, they say the DOE report ignores that there are multiple lines of evidence, when in fact the chapter begins with a discussion of that very fact.

More deeply, they say the report ignores Transient Sensitivity (decades) in favor of Equilibrium Sensitivity (centuries). This is astoundingly wrong, because the chapter finishes with a section making the point that Transient Sensitivity is both better and much lower than Equilibrium Sensitivity. It is a primary point of the chapter.

In both cases, “ignores” is their word, not mine, and clearly wrong. Conversely, they also attribute claims to the DOE report that are not made. Assuming things not stated is a common tendency among those who disagree.

The alarmist report is grandly titled “Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report” and is available here

The DOE report – “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” – to be found here.

The alarmist site proudly lists some of the ridiculous press coverage it received. For example:

“85 climate scientists refute Trump administration report downplaying climate change” (The Hill)

“‘Not scientifically credible’: Scientists repudiate Trump administration climate report” (LA Times)

“Climate scientists file a public, point-by-point rebuttal of Trump admin report casting doubt on climate change” (CNN)

This is alarmist nonsense personified, a perfect example of why
the EPA Endangerment Finding should be revoked. It’s all hype.

Swamp Lawfare Update: Reported Demise of DOE Climate Report Premature

Posted on September 13 by Ron Clutz

As expected, climatists were aghast at content in the DOE Climate Review, and the usual suspects complained to the court (Massachusetts, no surprise) on a technicality. The legal maneuvers are twisted, also usual when deployed by wealthy obstructionist pros like EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) and UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists). After some digging, I found the documentary trail with excerpts highlighted below and links in red to official docs for those interested. Source: Court Listener Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright (1:25-cv-12249)

The Complaint

The Climate Working Group worked in secret for months to produce a report for DOE and EPA that would provide justification for their predetermined goal of rescinding the Endangerment Finding. In May, unbeknownst to the public, the group transmitted its report to EPA, and EPA then relied extensively on the report in preparing its proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding.

It was not until the same day that EPA released that proposal, July 29, that the existence and work of the group was made public. Secrecy was so important to Defendants that when the New York Times asked one of the group’s members in early July about his role at DOE, the member obscured his work for the group and simply said that he is an “unpaid person who’s available to them if they need it.”

But federal law does not permit agencies to create or rely on such secret, unaccountable groups when engaged in policymaking. In the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Congress mandated transparency in the establishment and operation of any federal advisory committee, including by requiring that the group’s formation be promptly disclosed and that its meetings, emails, and other records be open to the public. Here, Defendants did not disclose the Climate Working Group’s existence until months after it began working, and not a single meeting or record has been made public other than the group’s report. Defendants also violated FACA’s prohibition on stacking an advisory committee with adherents of only one point of view; the Climate Working Group’s members were all chosen for their skepticism of climate science, and the group does not have a single member that agrees with the consensus of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community on the effects of climate change.

The Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists bring this action to enjoin Defendants’ flagrant violations of FACA, to bring transparency to the Climate Working Group’s work to date as the law requires, and to compel Defendants to follow the law if they wish to rely on outside scientific advisors to justify their actions going forward. If DOE and EPA wish to establish an advisory committee for the enormously consequential purposes for which they have put the Climate Working Group to use, they must comply with the rules that Congress has prescribed.

Defendants’ Response

Plaintiffs invoke the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), and contend that the Department of Energy (“DOE”) and Secretary Christopher Wright violated its requirements in establishing the now-dissolved DOE Climate Working Group (“CWG”). But the true goal of their lawsuit is not promoting openness and transparency in public decision-making. While Plaintiffs complain that they only recently learned of the CWG’s existence, DOE released its Report publicly weeks ago, and the Government provided opportunities for public comment on the CWG’s work. Instead, as the introduction to their Complaint makes clear, Plaintiffs’ objective is to delay and prematurely undermine a contemplated future policy decision by a different agency: namely, EPA’s proposed reconsideration of its 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Their sole hook for that relief is that EPA cited the CWG report—among numerous other sources—in a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”). That gambit fails at every level. Plaintiffs’ requested relief is foreclosed by Article III, the scope of FACA, and equitable principles.

More broadly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, in the Alternative, For Summary Judgment or Consolidation Under Rule 65(a)(2), ECF Nos. 15-16, fails for at least three different reasons. First, Plaintiffs fail to establish that they are likely to succeed on the merits, because the CWG is not an entity covered by FACA; the statutory requirements are inapplicable to groups assembled to exchange facts or information with federal officials. In all events, most of Plaintiffs’ claims are now moot due to the CWG’s dissolution.

Second, Plaintiffs have identified no imminent irreparable harm requiring judicial intervention at this early juncture. They face no harm (irreparable or otherwise) from the prospect of ongoing work performed by the CWG because the group has already been dissolved. And EPA’s upcoming September 22, 2025, deadline for public comment on its NPRM poses no harm, because Plaintiffs are free to raise their concerns about the CWG report via public comment. Nor would any alleged harm stemming from an inability to comment be irreparable. Plaintiffs request that this Court ultimately issue declaratory relief finding the CWG unlawful and an injunction preventing Defendants from relying on its work. Either remedy would fully repair any injury suffered by Plaintiffs from the FACA violations they allege if they ultimately prevail on the merits, rendering a preliminary injunction unnecessary.

Third, Plaintiffs have not shown that the balance of the equities or the public interest weighs in their favor. These factors favor allowing the Government to use the information provided by the scientists of the CWG, promoting dialogue based on honest scrutiny and scientific transparency in the public sphere, and not prematurely pretermitting an ongoing rulemaking process. Even if the Court were inclined to grant some relief, the remedies sought by Plaintiffs are overbroad. Even when a FACA violation is proven on the merits, injunctions preventing the use of committee work are a highly disfavored remedy, as declaratory relief can fully remedy all injuries alleged. Plaintiffs have certainly shown no entitlement to such an extraordinary remedy at the preliminary injunction stage. And because the CWG has been dissolved, no practical purpose is served by an order compelling it to comply with FACA’s procedural requirements going forward. Nor is extension of the comment period on EPA’s NPRM warranted or proper. Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the Clean Air Act or APA finality requirements by alleging a FACA violation in order to indefinitely delay a pending rulemaking with which they disagree.

Plaintiffs’ Reply

For months, Defendants brazenly violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act. They constituted the Climate Working Group (CWG) in secret, had it meet in secret to produce a report with advice and recommendations for policymakers, and then provided the report to EPA in secret for use in a proposal to rescind EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Defendants present no serious argument that they did not violate FACA in taking all of these actions. Instead, when these actions were challenged in court, Defendants purported to dissolve the CWG the day before their opposition was due, and in their filing the next day, they argued that the dissolution mooted the case and left the Court powerless to provide relief for their many legal violations.

But the rule of law is not a game of catch me if you can. DOE, EPA, and the CWG violated FACA with every action they took producing and utilizing the CWG Report, and those unlawful actions continue to harm Plaintiffs in myriad ways. Indeed, Defendants do not dispute that the CWG lacked fairly balanced views—including views representative of those held by Plaintiffs—and was subject to inappropriate influence from Secretary Wright. The continued existence and use of the CWG Report produced with these legal infirmities significantly harms Plaintiffs, and there are multiple forms of declaratory, injunctive and Administrative Procedure Act relief that this Court may enter to redress these injuries.

Amicus Brief American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce

Amicus writes to explain why censoring the CWG Report in EPA’s ongoing rulemaking is inappropriate and beyond the power of this Court. The extraordinary request for censorship here should fail for multiple reasons, but AmFree covers five.

First, Plaintiffs lack standing to seek relief against EPA because censoring the study would not redress any cognizable Article III harm. See Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Peña, 147 F.3d 1012, 1020–23 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (so holding). Second, the Clean Air Act strips district courts of power to enjoin EPA’s actions in ongoing Clean Air Act rulemaking proceedings or to control the agency’s rulemaking docket, making courts of appeals (in this case, the D.C. Circuit) the “sole forum” for these disputes. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b), (d)(8). Third, censorship remedies are not available under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) or through a writ of mandamus, because such an order does not compel a discrete action required by FACA. Fourth, censoring the government’s use of the CWG Report is punishment that exceeds this Court’s remedial equity jurisdiction. Fifth, Plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm because they have adequate avenues for judicial relief namely, challenging EPA’s rulemaking record in the D.C. Circuit, after a final rule.

Plaintiffs “are champing at the bit to challenge EPA’s anticipated rule [repealing] carbon dioxide emission[]” standards for new motor vehicles. In re Murray Energy Corp., 788 F.3d 330, 333 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Kavanaugh, J.). “But courts have never reviewed proposed rules, notwithstanding the costs that parties may routinely incur in preparing for anticipated final rules.” Id. at 335. This Court should not do so here.

What’s Next for CWG

Steven Koonin writes this excerpt in Climate Change Dispatch article

Our report is the first from Washington in years that deviates from the narrative of a climate headed for catastrophe. That these findings surprised many speaks to a governmental failure to communicate climate science accurately to the public.

Reports like ours may draw a lot of anger, but our work accurately portrays important aspects of climate science.

Our work has attracted strong criticism, despite its grounding in established science. Almost 60,000 comments were submitted to the Federal Register during the month after its publication, and the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit to prevent the Energy Department or Environmental Protection Agency from using the report in decision-making.

Most of these challenges have no scientific backing.

Though scientists supporting the so-called consensus on climate change have organized several serious critiques, these at most add detail and nuance to our findings, without negating the report’s central points.

They still merit a response, which will form the next round in an overdue public debate on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate policies must balance the risks of climate change against a response’s costs, efficacy, and collateral effects.

Reports like ours may draw a lot of anger, but our work accurately portrays important aspects of climate science. Acknowledging the facts is essential for informed policy decisions.

Mr. Koonin is a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and the author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”

Expectations Belém COP30 Nov. 2025

Posted on September 12 by Ron Clutz

From November 10-21, 2025, Brazil will host COP30 in the Amazonian city of Belém, with tens of thousands of delegates, journalists, civil society, and industry representatives expected to attend the summit. The COP meeting serves as the main decision-making platform for the parties to the UNFCCC and convenes annually, unless determined otherwise. These conferences are designed to assess how well countries are meeting their climate goals and to track each party’s progress toward the overarching objectives of the Convention. Source: COP30: What to Expect from Fiker Institute, based in Dubai.

What’s On the Agenda

COP30 must do the difficult job of restoring confidence in the process following the disappointment of COP29. In preparation for COP30, the summit’s President, Brazilian Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, released a fourth open letter addressed to all delegates, laying out the Action Agenda for Brazil’s hosting of the conference. Rather than introducing new frameworks or making fresh promises, the Brazilian presidency has signaled a desire to focus on delivering on existing commitments, which amount to approximately 400 pledges made over the last few COPs. The letter identifies six thematic priorities:

♦ accelerating the transition in energy and transport systems;
♦ safeguarding biodiversity;
♦ overhauling agri-food systems;
♦ building climate-resilient cities;
♦ advancing human development; and
♦ unlocking finance and technology.

What Does perplexity.ai Expect from COP30?

Q: About the IPCC COP30, what failures are likely to occur?

A: The most likely failures at IPCC COP30 will include insufficient financial commitments, lack of ambitious national climate targets, deadlocks in negotiations, and ineffective enforcement of agreed actions.

Persistent Finance Shortfalls

- Developed countries have repeatedly failed to meet climate finance pledges, particularly the $100 billion per year commitment for developing nations.
- Weak enforcement means finance promises often remain symbolic, undermining support for vulnerable nations.

Lack of Ambitious Climate Targets

- Many countries are expected to delay or avoid submitting stronger climate plans (NDCs), threatening global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.
- Negotiation deadlocks, such as disagreements on monitoring national progress, may stop meaningful advances.

Fragmented and Inadequate Adaptation

- Adaptation efforts are often incremental, poorly funded, and not well-integrated into broader policy plans, leaving communities at risk.
- Planning is prioritized over actual implementation, causing delays in urgent climate action.

Continued Fossil Fuel Dependence

- Global fossil fuel use remains high, with little meaningful reduction, despite decades of negotiations.
- Major emitting countries may continue to obstruct ambitious global decarbonization agreements.

Weak Enforcement and Accountability

- With insufficient accountability or sanctions for non-compliance, many countries may not deliver on their climate promises, resulting in fragmented progress.

Inadequate Response to Deforestation and Food Systems

- COPs have failed to effectively address tropical deforestation and emissions from food systems, both critical for climate adaptation and mitigation.
- Lack of binding, global treaties against deforestation and food-system emissions is a major gap.

In summary, the most likely failures at COP30 will center on inadequate funding, weak and delayed national commitments, governance gaps, continued reliance on fossil fuels, and the lack of implementation for both mitigation and adaptation pledges.

Q: How could finance pledges fail again at COP30?

A: Finance pledges at COP30 could fail again due to several recurring issues: vague commitments, lack of accountability, limited transparency, under-developed reporting mechanisms, geopolitical tensions, and insufficient mobilization of private capital.

Vague and Non-Binding Commitments

- Previous COP promises (like the $100 billion annual goal) were not legally enforceable, allowing donor nations to fall short without consequence.
- Language in COP30 agreements may again lack concrete deadlines, binding obligations, or penalty mechanisms.

Ineffective Accountability and Transparency

- Tracking finance flows—especially from private sources or indirect support—is technically complex and prone to inconsistent or optimistic reporting.
- Transparency protocols, such as biennial reports, will not come into effect until 2028, meaning interim pledges may remain unverifiable or inflated.

Geopolitical and Economic Constraints

- High debt burdens and tough capital markets in both donor and developing countries could limit new investments or redirect funds away from climate action.
- International tensions, recession fears, or shifts in political priorities may reduce the willingness of major economies to contribute robustly.

Inadequate Mobilization of Private Sector Capital

- COP30’s ambitious $1.3 trillion annual finance goal relies on mobilizing private investment, but there is chronic uncertainty in how private money will be counted, standardized, and guaranteed for climate impact.
- Public sector funding alone is insufficient, and incentives for private sector participation remain weak or poorly designed.

Delayed Implementation of New Strategies

- Key reports and strategies for unlocking climate finance (such as the “Baku to Belém Roadmap”) may not translate into immediate action, leading to a gap between pledges and real monetary flows.
- Developing countries face challenges in preparing robust project pipelines, which delays the actual disbursement of pledged funds.

In summary, finance pledges at COP30 are at high risk of failing due to weak enforcement, slow implementation of transparency tools, geopolitical uncertainty, untested reliance on private investment, and past tendencies to over-promise and under-deliver.

Background COP Briefing Post

Nine years ago French Mathematicians spoke out prior to COP21 in Paris, and their words provide a rational briefing for COP30 beginning Belém this November. In a nutshell:

Fighting Global Warming is Absurd, Costly and Pointless.

Absurd because of no reliable evidence that anything unusual is happening in our climate.
Costly because trillions of dollars are wasted on immature, inefficient technologies that serve only to make cheap, reliable energy expensive and intermittent.
Pointless because we do not control the weather anyway.

The prestigious Société de Calcul Mathématique (Society for Mathematical Calculation) issued a detailed 195-page White Paper that presents a blistering point-by-point critique of the key dogmas of global warming. The synopsis is blunt and extremely well documented. Here are extracts from the opening statements of the first three chapters of the SCM White Paper with my bolds and images.

Sisyphus at work.

Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ‘disturbed.’ It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable. Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events — they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes….

Chapter 2: The crusade is costly
Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‘virtuous’ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‘energy saving,’ which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed — it is the price we have to pay for our virtue….

Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless
Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let’s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.

cg565e788a82606

Full text in pdf format is available in English at link below:

The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade
White Paper drawn up by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA
(Mathematical Modelling Company, Corp.)

A Second report was published in 2016 entitled: Global Warming and Employment, which analyzes in depth the economic destruction from ill-advised climate change policies.

The two principal themes are that jobs are disappearing and that the destructive forces are embedded in our societies.

Jobs are Disappearing discusses issues such as:

The State is incapable of devising and implementing an industrial policy.

The fundamental absurdity of the concept of sustainable development

Biofuels an especially absurd policy leading to ridiculous taxes and job losses.

EU policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% drives jobs elsewhere while being pointless: the planet has never asked for it, is completely unaware of it, and will never notice it!

The War against the Car and Road Maintenance undercuts economic mobility while destroying transportation sector jobs.

Solar and wind energy are weak, diffuse, and inconsistent, inadequate to power modern civilization.

Food production activities are attacked as being “bad for the planet.”

So-called Green jobs are entirely financed by subsidies.

The Brutalizing Whip discusses the damages to public finances and to social wealth and well-being, including these topics:

Taxes have never been so high

The Government is borrowing more and more

Dilapidated infrastructure

Instead of job creation, Relocations and Losses

The wastefulness associated with the new forms of energy

Return to the economy of an underdeveloped country

What is our predicament?
Four Horsemen are bringing down our societies:

The Ministry of Ecology (climate and environment);
Journalists;
Scientists;
Corporation Environmentalist Departments.

Steps required to recover from this demise:

Go back to the basic rules of research.
Go back to the basic rules of law
Do not trust international organizations
Leave the planet alone
Beware of any premature optimism

Conclusion

Climate lemmings

The real question is this: how have policymakers managed to make such absurd decisions, to blinker themselves to such a degree, when so many means of scientific investigation are available? The answer is simple: as soon as something is seen as being green, as being good for the planet, all discussion comes to an end and any scientific analysis becomes pointless or counterproductive. The policymakers will not listen to anyone or anything; they take all sorts of hasty, contradictory, damaging and absurd decisions. When will they finally be held to account?

Footnote:

The above cartoon image of climate talks includes water rising over politicians’ feet. But actual observations made in Fiji (presiding over 2017 talks in Bonn) show sea levels are stable (link below).

Fear Not For Fiji

In 2016 SCM issued a report Global Temperatures Available data and critical analysis

It is a valuable description of the temperature metrics and issues regarding climate analysis. They conclude:

None of the information on global temperatures is of any scientific value, and it should not
be used as a basis for any policy decisions. It is perfectly clear that:

there are far too few temperature sensors to give us a picture of the planet’s temperature;
we do not know what such a temperature might mean because nobody has given it
any specific physical significance;
the data have been subject to much dissimulation and manipulation. There is a
clear will not to mention anything that might be reassuring, and to highlight things
that are presented as worrying;
despite all this, direct use of the available figures does not indicate any genuine
trend towards global warming!

No Climate Crisis in Texas

Posted on August 21 by Ron Clutz

CO2 Coalition analyzed the data and concluded that Texas has no climate crisis to fear. The report is Texas and Climate Change: No Climate Crisis in the Lone Star State. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report will examine the scientific basis for claims of harmful effects from climate change in Texas. Assertions have been made that many areas around the world are experiencing negative impacts from unusual and unprecedented warming driven by increasing human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Texas is no different. Promotion of the need to achieve “net zero” emissions is predicated on fear of existing and future devastating calamities resulting from CO₂-enhanced warming.

The Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) report (USGCRP, 2023) says that climate change is “putting us at risk from climate hazards that degrade our lands and waters, quality of life, health and well-being, and cultural interconnectedness.” The NCA5 report lists “warmer temperatures, more erratic precipitation, and sea level rise,” as well as “drier conditions” and “extreme heat and high humidity,” as the “climate hazards” affecting the Southern Great Plains, which encompasses the State of Texas (Figure 1).

In addition, Texas A&M University has published a Texas-specific report, Future Trends of Extreme Weather in Texas (Nielsen-Gammon et al., 2024), which warns of future harm to the citizens of Texas from man-made climate change. Predicted effects include increasing temperature, precipitation, drought, floods, storms, sea-level rise and wildfires.

Within this report, we analyze scientific data from various sources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and reports published in peer-reviewed journals.

Based on these data, we arrived at the following key findings:

The temperature in Texas has shown no unprecedented or unusual warming, despite
increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂). Recent temperatures in Texas are similar
to those found more than 100 years ago.
The annual number of 100 °F days in Texas has an overall decreasing trend.
Texas has had a modest increase of 0.0245 inches per year of precipitation during 1850–
2023, which means that Texas is in no immediate danger of becoming drier.
Droughts in Texas are not becoming more severe or numerous.
Tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods are not becoming more frequent in Texas.
Sea-level rise and coastal subsidence are not threatening or inundating the Texan coast.
Wildfires are not becoming more frequent or severe in the United States.
Air quality in the United States is generally good and getting better.
Agriculture in Texas is thriving.
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is essential and beneficial for life on Earth, as CO₂ greens the Earth
and more CO₂ allows plants to grow bigger, produce more food and better resist
drought.

The evidence presented here is clear: there is no climate crisis in Texas. Not only is CO₂ beneficial, but it is essential for life on Earth. Therefore, any measures for combating a purported climate crisis and for reducing CO₂ emissions are not only unnecessary and costly but would also cause considerable harm to agriculture with no benefit.

The complete publication is Texas and Climate Change which includes exhibits like these:

Chris Wright on Climate Change Chess

Posted on August 7 by Ron Clutz

Last week Ben Shapiro interviewed Chris Wright concerning the latest moves by realists against the climatists and what’s at stake in this power struggle over humankind’s energy platform, not only for U.S but for the world. For those who prefer reading, I provide a transcript lightly edited from the closed captions, text in italics with my bolds and added images.

Ben: One of the biggest moves that has been made in modern history in the regulatory state has happened this week. The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday, according to the Wall Street Journal, declared liberation day from Climate Imperialism by moving to repeal the 2009 so-called endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions. So basically, the Clean Air Act, which was put into place in the 1970s, authorized the EPA to regulate pollutants like ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and others that might reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

Well, the EPA suggested under Barack Obama that you could use the Clean Air Act in order to regulate carbon emissions, which is insane. That’s totally crazy. The kinds of stuff the Clean Air Act was meant to stop was again particulate matter. It was meant to stop ozone that was breaking down the ozone layer. It was not meant to deal with carbon and particularly carbon dioxide which is a thing that you know is a natural byproduct, for example breathing. Carbon dioxide in the environment is not a danger to human beings.

You may not like what it does in terms of global climate change, but the idea that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act is wrong. If Congress wants to give the EPA that authority, then it certainly could, but it never did. The Supreme Court found in 2007 that greenhouse gases could qualify as pollutants under an extraordinarily broad misreading of the law.

But now the EPA is walking that back. And the EPA is suggesting that this is not correct. The Supreme Court and the EPA under their 2009 ruling said, “There is some evidence that elevated carbon dioxide concentrations and climate changes can lead to changes in aeroallergens that could increase the potential for allergenic illnesses.” Well, the Energy Department has now walked that back. They published a comprehensive analysis of climate science and its uncertainties by five outside scientists. One of those is Steven Koonin, who served in the Obama administration.

The crucial point is that CO2 is different from the pollutants Congress expressly authorized the EPA to regulate. Those pollutants are “subject to regulatory control because they cause local problems depending on concentrations including nuisances, damages to plants, and at high enough exposure levels, toxic effects on humans. In contrast, CO2 is odorless, does not affect visibility, and it has no toxicological effects at ambient levels. So, you’re not going to get sick from CO2 in the air.

And so, the EPA administrator Lee Zeldin and Energy Secretary Chris Wright are taking this on. They have said in our interpretation the Clean Air Act no longer applies to greenhouse gases. Well, what does that mean? It means something extraordinary for the American economy, among other things, which is under a massive deregulatory environment.

The alleged cost of regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act amounts to something like 54 billion per year. So if you multiply that out over the course of the last decade and a half, you’re talking about a cost of in excess of $800 billion based again on a regulatory agency radically exceeding its boundaries.

Well, joining us online to discuss this massive move by the Trump administration is the energy secretary Chris Wright. Secretary, thanks so much for taking the time. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me, Ben.

Ben: So, first of all, why don’t we discuss what the EPA just did, what that actually means, how’s the energy department involved, and and what does it mean for sort of the future of things like energy developments in the United States?

The Poisonous Tree: Massachusetts v. EPA and the 2009 endangerment finding

Chris: Well, the endangerment finding, 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts and a bunch of environmental groups sued the EPA and said, “You must regulate greenhouse gas emissions.” Climate activists, basically. Unfortunately the Supreme Court decided five to four in 2007 that greenhouse gases could become endangerments, and if they were the EPA had the option but not the compulsion to regulate greenhouse gases. In 2009, as soon as the Obama administration came in, they did a tortured kind of process to say greenhouse gases endanger the lives of Americans. And that gave the regulatory state, the EPA, the ability to regulate greenhouse gases that the Obama administration and others had failed to pass through Congress. If you pass a law through the House and the Senate and the president signs it, then you can do that. But they just made it up. They just did it through a regulatory backdoor.

And now those those regulations just infuse everything we do, maybe most famously automobiles, the EV mandates, the continual increasing of fuel economy standards that brought us the SUV and everyone buying trucks because they don’t want to buy small cars. But it’s regulating your appliances and power plants and your and home hair dryers and outdoor heaters. So, it’s just been a huge entanglement into American life.

Big brother climate regulations from the government. They don’t do anything meaningful for global greenhouse gas emissions. They don’t change any health outcomes for Americans, but they massively grow the government. They increase costs and they grow the reach of the government. So, Administrator Lee Zeldin is reviewing that and saying, ” We don’t believe that greenhouse gases are a significant endangerment to the American public and they shouldn’t be regulated by the EPA. The EPA does not have authority to regulate them because Congress never passed such a law.

At the Department of Energy, sorry for the long answer, what we did was to reach out to five prestigious climate scientists that are real scientists in my mind; meaning they follow the data wherever it leads, not only if it aligns with their politics or their views otherwise. And we published a long critical overview of climate science and its impact on Americans. And that was released yesterday on the DOE website. I highly recommend everyone to give it a read in synopsis since it’s a big report obviously.

DOE Climate Team: Twelve Keys in Assessing Climate Change

Ben: What are the biggest findings from that report that you commissioned at the Department of Energy with regard to this stuff?

Chris: Maybe the single biggest one that everyone should be aware of is: The ceaseless repeating that climate change is making storms more frequent and more severe and more dangerous is just nonsense. That’s never been in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. It’s just not true. But media and politicians and activists just keep repeating it. And in fact, I saw The Hill had a piece right away when when our press release went out yesterday morning:

Despite decades of data and scientific consensus that climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of storms, the EPA has reversed the endangerment finding.

Even the headlines are just wrong. One of my goals for 20 years, Ben, is for people to be just a little more knowledgeable of what is actually true with climate change, and what actually are the tradeoffs between trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by top- down government actions and what does that mean for the energy system?

We’ve driven up the price of energy, reduced choice to American consumers,
without meaningfully moving global greenhouse gas emissions at all.

And when I talk to activists or politicians about it, they’re not even that concerned about it. They don’t act as if their real goal is to incrementally reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Their real goal is for the government and them, you know, a small number of people to decide what’s appropriate behavior for all Americans.

Just creepy, top-down control sold in the name of protecting the future of the planet. If it was really about that, they’d know a little bit more about climate change, but they almost never do.

Ben: Well, this is the part that’s always astonishing to me. I get in a room with with climate scientists from places like MIT or Caltech, and we’ll discuss what exactly is going on. These are people who believe that there is anthropogenic climate change, that human activity is causing some sort of market impact on the climate. But when you discuss with them, okay, so what are the solutions? The solutions that that are proposed are never in line with the the kind of risk that they seek to prevent. I mean, the Nobel Prize winning economist William Nordhaus has made the point that there are certain things you could do economically that would totally destroy your economy and might save you an incremental amount of climate change on the other end. And then there are the things that we actually could do that are practical–things like building seawalls, things like hardening an infrastructure, moving toward nuclear energy would be a big one.

And to me, the litmus test of whether somebody is serious or not about climate change is what their feelings are about nuclear energy. If they’re anti-uclear energy, but somehow want to curb climate change, then you know, one of those things is false. It cannot be that you wish to oppose nuclear energy development, also your chief goal is to lower carbon emissions. That’s just a lie.

Chris: Exactly. I mean the biggest driver of reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the US by far has been natural gas displacing coal in the power sector. It’s about 60% of all the US reduction in emissions. But they hate natural gas, you know, because again they’re against hydrocarbons in order to move toward a society that somehow they think is better.

It is helping that more on the left become pro-nuclear. So, I’ll view that as one of the positive side effects of the climate movement and probably is going to help nuclear energy start going again. Of course, there are plenty that are anti-nuclear and climate crazies. So, there’s plenty of them still left. But, as you just mentioned, Nordhaus said in his lecture we should do the things where the benefits are greater than the cost. Sort of common sense. And in his proposed optimal scenario, you know, we reduce the warming through this century by about 20%. Not net zero, because that means you spend hundred trillion dollars and maybe you get $10 trillion of benefits. You know, that’s not good, and then people tell me, well, it’s an admirable goal. It’s aspirational. I’m saying, turning dollars into dimes is not aspirational. It’s human impoverishing.

And we can look over to the United Kingdom. They very proudly announced that they have the largest percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 40%. They don’t tell you they’ve had an almost 30% reduction in energy consumption in the United Kingdom. So their dominant mechanism to drive down their greenhouse gas emissions is simply to consume less energy in England. That comes from two factors. The biggest one is their energy intensive industry is shut down in the country and all those jobs have gone overseas.

That stuff is now made in China, loaded on a diesel-powered ship,
shipped back to the United Kingdom, and they call that green.

And the other mechanism is they made energy so expensive that people don’t heat their houses as warm in the winter. They don’t travel as much. They don’t cool their houses as much in the hot summer days. They’ve impoverished their people so they can’t afford needed energy. This isn’t victory and this isn’t changing the global future of the world. We just need back some common sense around energy and climate change.

That’s where the Trump administration is headed across the administration, not just administer Zeldin and myself, but everyone in the administration. We just want Americans to have a government that follows basic common sense.

Ben: Now, Secretary Wright, we were discussing a little bit earlier on in the show this this excellent second quarter GDP number, some of which is being driven certainly by mass investment in technologies like AI. If you talk to folks who are in the capital intensive arenas, pretty much all the money right now is going into AI. That’s a race the United States must win. And one of the huge components there is the energy that is going to be necessary in order to pursue the sorts of processing that AI is going to require. The gigantic data centers that are now being built are going to require inordinate amounts of energy. Everybody knows and acknowledges this. China is producing energy at a rate that far outstrips the United States at this point. So if we wish to actually win the AI race, we have to unleash an all of the above strategy with regard to energy production. That’s obviously something you’re very focused on. And if we don’t win the AI race, in all likelihood China becomes the dominant economic power on planet Earth. So how important is AI to this? And what does it mean for the energy sector?

Chris: It’s massively important. As you just said, it’s what I called it Manhattan Project 2.0. Because in the Manhattan project when we developed an atomic bomb in World War II, we could not have come in second. If Nazi Germany had developed an atomic weapon before us, we would live in a different world now. It’s a similar risk here if China gets a meaningful lead on the US in artificial intelligence.

Because it’s not just economics and science, it’s national defense, it’s the military. Now we are under serious threat from China and we go into a very different world. We must lead in this area. We have the leading scientists. We have businesses. We have the ability to invest these huge amounts of capital again from private markets and private businesses, which a free market capitalist like myself loves.

The biggest limiter as you set up is electricity. The highest form and most expensive type of energy there is turning primary energy into electricity. And as you just said, China’s been growing their electricity production massively. Ours has barely grown in the last 20 years. In fact, it grew like two or 3% in the Obama years, but then during the Biden years, they got prices up over 25%. You could say they helped elect President Trump by just doing everything wrong on energy. And they certainly weren’t into all of the above. They were all about wind, solar, and batteries. And congratulations, they got them to about 3% of total US energy at the end of the Biden years.

The graph shows that global Primary Energy (PE) consumption from all sources has grown continuously over nearly 6 decades. Since 1965 oil, gas and coal (FF, sometimes termed “Thermal”) averaged 88% of PE consumed, ranging from 93% in 1965 to 81% in 2024. Source: Energy Institute

Hydrocarbons went from 82% in 2019, when Biden promised and guaranteed he would end fossil fuels, to 82% his last year in office. Zero change in market share. So they just believe and cling to too many silly things about energy. So today in the United States, the biggest source of electricity by far is natural gas. That will be the dominant growth that will enable us to build all these tens of gigawatts of data centers. It’s abundant, it’s affordable, and it works all the time. I’ve never been an all of the above guy because subsidizing wind and solar is problematic. You know, globally, a few trillions of dollars have gone into it, and if you get high penetration, the main result is expensive electricity and a less stable grid.

That’s not good. The crazy amount of money the United States government spent on wind and solar hasn’t grown our electricity production because they’re not there at peak demand time. Texas has the biggest penetration of wind and second biggest penetration of solar, 35% of the capacity on the Texas grid. But at peak demand with these cold or warm high-pressure systems the wind is gone. Peak demand time is after the sun goes down and you get almost nothing from wind and solar.

Parasites is what they really are. Just in the middle of the day when demand is low, and all the power
plants that are needed to supply at peak demand just all have to turn down. And then the sun goes behind a cloud and they got to turn up again. And then when peak demand comes, when it’s very cold at in the evening, all the existing thermal capacity and nuclear capacity has to run and drive the grid.

So if you don’t add to reliable production at peak demand time,
you’re not adding to the capacity of the grid. You’re
just adding to the complexity and cost of the grid.

I mean, if Harris had won the election, we would not only have no chance to win the AI race against China. We would have increasing blackouts and brownouts today, let alone with the the extra demand, some extra demand that would have come from AI, even if they had won the race. But because President Trump won, common sense came back in spades, and we’re allowing American businesses to invest and lead in AI, we’re in a very different trajectory.

Ben: A very different trajectory. Well, that’s US Energy Secretary Chris Wright doing a fantastic job over there. One of the big reasons that the Trump economy continues to churn along. Secretary Wright, really appreciate the time and the insight. Thanks so much for having me, Ben. Appreciate all you do.

	David A on UAH Cooling Everywhere Decembe…
	UAH Cooling Everywhe… on July 2025 Ocean SSTs: NH Warms…
	UAH Cooling Everywhe… on Worst Threat: Greenhouse Gas o…
	Michael Lewis on Yearend 2025, Cooling Temperat…
	Ron Clutz on Yearend 2025, Cooling Temperat…

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Value of Decarbonizing Pledges? Net Zero.

Executive Summary

7. Realities versus Wishful Thinking

US Nuclear Power Revival

Texans, Don’t Mess With Emissions Reductions

Climate Medical Quackery Exposed

Some examples of Climate Medical Mischief

Warmth, Wealth and Health

Temperature and Diseases

Temperature Extremes

Temperature and Disease Vectors

Food, Famine, Climate and CO2

Mental Health

Climate Alarmism: Not Science, But Superstition

Alarmists Fail to Refute Realistic Climate Report

See Also:

Swamp Lawfare Update: Reported Demise of DOE Climate Report Premature

The Complaint

Defendants’ Response

Plaintiffs’ Reply

Amicus Brief American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce

What’s Next for CWG

Expectations Belém COP30 Nov. 2025

What Does perplexity.ai Expect from COP30?

Q: About the IPCC COP30, what failures are likely to occur?

Q: How could finance pledges fail again at COP30?

Background COP Briefing Post

Fighting Global Warming is Absurd, Costly and Pointless.

Conclusion

Footnote:

No Climate Crisis in Texas

Chris Wright on Climate Change Chess