HomeWeather NewsWeekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #531 – Watts Up With That?

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #531 – Watts Up With That?

The Week That Was: 2022-12-03 (December 3, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”― Albert Einstein

Number of the Week: Less than 1%


By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Scope: From the time of Aristotle into the 19th century, the study of nature (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) was called natural philosophy. Isaac Newton’s great book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), translated to Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. There was one firm principle: nature was the ultimate judge. Humans could try to glean concepts, principles, and laws of nature through experiment and observation, but nature is the ultimate judge whether these human efforts are correct.

Thus, it is ironic to read in the popular press that those insisting that nature is the ultimate judge of concepts found in general circulation models (now called global climate models) are accused of being anti-science, or at least not being climate scientists. It is as if climate science is not the study of nature, but a totally different form of study – unrelated to the natural world. It is the study of an imaginary world.

The reports of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) gave thousands of examples where climate models are inconsistent with nature and observations from nature. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts gave over two thousand examples where nature greatly benefits from increasing carbon dioxide. Yet, the reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are so contrary to nature that many people fear that increasing human carbon dioxide emissions will lead to extinction of humanity and nature. Western government policies on energy are being set by politicians who are exploiting this irrational fear often promoted by “scientists” who have forgotten that nature is the ultimate judge.

David Whitehouse brings up problems in modeling The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP), the area where the western Pacific and Indian Oceans meet. This region includes the warmest oceans in the world and are a part of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), a belt of low pressure that traverses the equator, where the trade winds from the northern and southern hemispheres converge. This area gives rise to the traditional El Niños and La Niñas – The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It is false to call any models that fail to replicate this area “global.” (Hot spots in the Pacific from submerged volcanoes are separate.)

Writing in Climate Etc., mathematician David Young brings up some of the numerous difficulties in overcoming the overconfidence in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) as depicted in the general circulation models (global climate models). He asserts “that much of the literature is affected by selection and positive results bias.” This is common in climate studies where results from nature are ignored.

Francis Menton reports on a concept the teenage thinkers determining energy policy have not realized – the amount of energy storage needed for net zero. The billions of dollars used to subsidize wind and solar will be squandered without massive, affordable, reliable storage.

Cliff Mass gives a simple graph showing that sea levels are falling in certain places. The Biden administration is subsidizing the moving of tribes from those places because it claims sea levels are rising.

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC


The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP): Ecologist Jim Steele and others have brought out that the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) is the source of the chain of events set off by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) with its alternating El Niños and La Niñas. Tidal records show that the prevailing trade winds can shift over decades to centuries. If general circulation models (global climate models) have any hope of separating human influence from natural influences on climate (or weather) they need to do it here. They don’t.

David Whitehouse writes:

“The warmest water on Earth can be found on the edge of the Pacific and is getting warmer due, according to some reports, [to] anthropogenic climate change. But it’s not that straightforward. In fact, this vital region is showing us just how wrong climate models can be. The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) is one of the most climatically important regions on our planet with a global influence yet, as observations and recent studies show, climate models fail to explain its behavior with implications for all forecasts of climate change.

“Waters from the western Pacific Ocean move into the eastern Indian Ocean via many passages that thread the Indonesian Archipelago. Many of those seas are shallow and straddle the equator resulting in very warm water all year. The IPWP is huge, covering a surface area equivalent to that of the entire USA, and is crucial to the regulation of climate globally.

The region is affected by monsoons and their seasonally alternating wind directions. It is the in the region of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) – a belt of low pressure that traverses the equator. Here trade winds from the northern and southern hemispheres converge. The ITCZ is formed as a result of the vertical motion of convective clouds, most of which [are] the rising component of the Hadley Cell, and of great importance to global atmospheric circulation.

“It is a region of change. Observations over recent decades show a significant warming of the IPWP and slight cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific, consistent with strengthening of the so-called Walker circulation, and also cooling in the Southern Ocean. The relative warmth of the warm pool in the western Indo-Pacific compared to the cold tongue in the eastern equatorial Pacific drives the Walker circulation in the tropical atmosphere which through its interaction on the upper troposphere drives large-scale atmospheric Rossby waves that propagate into higher latitudes and impact climate around the globe.

“The problem is that state-of-the-art climate models generally predict that the Walker circulation will weaken, bringing enhanced warming in the eastern equatorial Pacific, and warming in the Southern Ocean, contrary to what is observed. Sea-level pressure (SLP) observations show a weakening of the Walker circulation over the twentieth century, though some maintain that the Walker circulation has strengthened since 1979 contradicting climate model hindcasts over this period.”

The article Whitehouse links is titled “Systematic climate model biases in the large-scale pattern of recent sea-surface temperature and sea-level pressure change” and has been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters published by the American Geophysical Union with Harihar Rajaram editor-in-chief. Whether it will be printed remains to be seen. Far too many such articles are rejected because they do not conform to the fictions generated from the IPCC and its models that fail when tested against observations of nature. The abstract states:

“Observed surface temperature trends over recent decades are characterized by (i) intensified warming in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool and slight cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific, consistent with strengthening of the Walker circulation, and (ii) cooling in the Southern Ocean. In contrast, state-of-the-art coupled climate models generally project Walker circulation weakening, enhanced warming in the eastern equatorial Pacific, and warming in the Southern Ocean. Here we investigate the ability of 16 climate model large ensembles to reproduce observed sea-surface temperature and sea-level pressure trends over 1979-2020 through a combination of externally forced climate change and internal variability. We find large-scale differences between observed and modeled trends that are very unlikely (<5% probability) to occur due to internal variability as represented in models. Disparate trends are found even in regions with weak multi-decadal variability, suggesting that model biases in the transient response to anthropogenic forcing constitute part of the discrepancy.”

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and May 7 to June 11 TWTWs.


Battle the Bear: One of the great difficulties in physical science is fluid dynamics and the lack of predictability. After receiving his PhD in mathematics in 1979, David Young started a long career at Boeing. His bio sketch states Young:

“has worked on a wide variety of projects involving computational physics, computer programming, and numerical analysis. His work has been focused on the application areas of aerodynamics, aeroelastics, computational fluid dynamics, airframe design, flutter, acoustics, and electromagnetics. To address these applications, he has done original theoretical work in high performance computing, linear potential flow and boundary integral equations, nonlinear potential flow, discretizations for the Navier-Stokes equations, partial differential equations and the finite element method, preconditioning methods for large linear systems, Krylov subspace methods for very large nonlinear systems, design and optimization methods, and iterative methods for highly nonlinear systems.”

Young’s post “’Colorful fluid dynamics and overconfidence in global climate models” is too technical for TWTW but a few key points will be made here. The post begins:

This post lays out in fairly complete detail some basic facts about Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling. This technology is the core of all general circulation models of the atmosphere and oceans, and hence global climate models (GCMs).  I discuss some common misconceptions about these models, which lead to overconfidence in these simulations. This situation is related to the replication crisis in science generally, whereby much of the literature is affected by selection and positive results bias.

It cites where the full post can be found with lengthy references then it gives the Background:

Numerical simulation over the last 60 years has come to play a larger and larger role in engineering design and scientific investigations. The level of detail and physical modeling varies greatly, as do the accuracy requirements. For aerodynamic simulations, accurate drag increments between configurations have high value. In climate simulations, a widely used target variable is temperature anomaly. Both drag increments and temperature anomalies are particularly difficult to compute accurately. The reason is simple: both output quantities are several orders of magnitude smaller than the overall absolute levels of momentum for drag or energy for temperature anomalies. This means that without tremendous effort, the output quantity is smaller than the numerical truncation error. Great care can sometimes provide accurate results, but careful numerical control over all aspects of complex simulations is required.

Contrast this with some fields of science where only general understanding is sought. In this case qualitatively interesting results can be easier to provide. This is known in the parlance of the field as “Colorful Fluid Dynamics.” While this is somewhat pejorative, these simulations do have their place. It cannot be stressed too strongly however that even the broad “patterns” can be quite wrong. Only after extensive validation can such simulations be trusted qualitatively, and even then, only for the class of problems used in the validation. Such a validation process for one aeronautical CFD code consumed perhaps 50–100-man years of effort in a setting where high quality data was generally available. What is all too common among non-specialists is to conflate the two usage regimes (colorful versus validated) or to make the assumption that realistic looking results imply quantitatively meaningful results.

The first point is that some fields of numerical simulation are very well founded on rigorous mathematical theory. Two that come to mind are electromagnetic scattering and linear structural dynamics. Electromagnetic scattering is governed by Maxwell’s equations which are linear. The theory is well understood, and very good numerical simulations are available. Generally, it is possible to develop accurate methods that provide high quality quantitative results.  Structural modeling in the linear elasticity range is also governed by well posed elliptic partial differential equations.

One can assert that the IPCC’s general circulation models (GMC) are “colorful” but not valid. Further, they are contradicted by what is occurring in the atmosphere. Later in the post, Young discusses Rossby waves. He states:

“The best technical argument I have heard in defense of GCM’s is that Rossby waves are vastly easier to model than aeronautical flows where the pressure gradients and forcing can be a lot higher. There is some truth in this argument. The large-scale vortex evolution in the atmosphere on shorter time scales is relatively unaffected by turbulence and viscous effects, even though at finer scales the problem is ill-posed. However, there are many other at least equally important components of the earth system. An important one is tropical convection, a classical ill-posed problem because of the-large scale turbulent interfaces and shear layers. While usually neglected in aeronautical calculations, free air turbulence is in many cases very large in the atmosphere. However, it is typically neglected outside the boundary layer in GCMs. And of course there are clouds, convection and precipitation, which have a very significant effect on overall energy balance. One must also bear in mind that aeronautical vehicles are designed to be stable and to minimize the effects of ill-posedness, in that pathological nonlinear behaviors are avoided. In this sense aeronautical models may be actually easier to model than the atmosphere. In any case aeronautical simulations are greatly simplified by a number of assumptions, for example that the onset flow is steady and essentially free of atmospheric turbulence. Aeronautical flows can often be assumed to be essentially isentropic outside the boundary layer.”

This is interesting because many “climate scientists” claim extreme weather events are caused by human CO2 emissions.  However, some are actually caused by stagnant Rossby waves (such as the cold Texas Northers) and extreme heat events (such as the one in the Northwest US and Canada in June 2021). After going through topics such as “The Role of Turbulence and Chaos in Fluid Mechanics” and “Overconfidence and Bias”, Young closes his informative post with:

In my opinion those who retard progress in CFD [Computational Fluid Dynamics] are often involved in ‘science communication’ and ‘Colorful Fluid Dynamics.’ They sometimes view their job as justifying political outcomes by whitewashing high levels of uncertainty and bias or making the story good click bait by exaggerating. Worse still, many act as apologists for ‘science’ or senior researchers and tend to minimize any problems. Nothing could be more effective in producing the exact opposite of the desired outcome, viz., a cynical and disillusioned public already tired of the seemingly endless scary stories about dire consequences often based on nothing more than the pseudo-science of ‘science communication’ of politically motivated narratives. This effect has already played out in medicine where the public and many physicians are already quite skeptical of health advice based on retrospective studies, biased reporting, or slick advertising claiming vague but huge benefits for products or procedures. Unfortunately, bad medical science continues to affect the health of millions and wastes untold billions of dollars. The mechanisms for quantifying the state of the science on any topic, and particularly estimating the often high uncertainties, are very weak. As always in human affairs, complete honesty and directness is the best long-term strategy. Particularly for science, which tends to hold itself up as having high authority, the danger is in my view worth addressing urgently. This response is demanded not just by concerns about public perceptions, but also by ethical considerations and simple honesty as well as a regard for the lives and well-being of the consumers of our work who deserve the best information available. [Boldface added]

In the view of TWTW, thanks to the work of AMO physicists van Wijngaarden and Happer on greenhouse gases, extended by Howard Hayden to Planetary Heat Balance, we do not need to get into “colorful climate modeling” to establish an upper bound on how greenhouse gases influence earth’s temperatures and how the atmosphere influences planetary heat balance. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and


Is It A Problem? At COP-26 (2021) in Glasgow, the leaders of western governments participated in a dance of sugar plum fairies. Despite the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and subsequent cut-off of Russian gas from Europe, few of the leaders have awakened from their dreams, including the US administration. The late Roger Andrews writing in Energy Matters and Howard Hayden writing in Energy Advocate have noted that converting to wind and solar power requires massive, affordable, reliable electricity storage over long periods of time.

In 2017, Hayden calculated that about 11% of the time, industrial wind turbines produce full power. About 50% of the time, they produce 40% or less. About 25% of the time, they produce nothing. Wind power is unpredictable several days out. A winter high pressure system over Europe can stop wind for several days when electricity is needed the most. Bigger wind turbines don’t create more wind, just more blowhards.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation published a report by Francis Menton that clearly and systematically shows how severe the electricity storage problem is. Yet, politicians and the general press ignore it. On his website, Menton summarizes the paper. He writes:

The main point of the paper is that an electrical grid powered mostly by intermittent generators like wind and sun requires full backup from some source; and if that source is to be stored energy, the amounts of storage required are truly staggering. When you do the simple arithmetic to calculate the storage requirements and the likely costs, it becomes obvious that the entire project is completely impractical and unaffordable. The activists and politicians pushing us toward this new energy system of wind/solar/storage are either being intentionally deceptive or totally incompetent.

If you follow the news on this subject at a general level, you might find this conclusion surprising. After all, there are frequent announcements that this or that jurisdiction has entered a contract to purchase some seemingly large amount of batteries for grid-level storage. The Report cites data from consultancy Wood Mackenzie as to announced plans or contracts for storage acquisition in all major European countries, and cites other reports as to announced plans from California and New York in the U.S. The title of the April 2022 Wood Mackenzie paper on Europe certainly gives the impression that these people have the situation under control and know what they are doing: “Europe’s Grid-scale Energy Storage Capacity Will Expand 20-fold by 2031.” Impressive!

But this is one of those subjects on which you have to look at the actual numbers to evaluate whether the plans make any sense. In this situation, you need to compare the amount of energy storage that would be required for full backup of an almost-entirely wind/solar grid (with fossil fuels excluded), to the actual quantity of grid-scale energy storage being acquired.

Menton discusses the disaster unfolding in Germany, which a fallacious report by Wood Mackenzie states Germany is addressing. From Menton’s report:

“In other words, the amount of energy storage that Germany is planning for 2031 is between 0.016% and 0.036% of what it actually would need. This does not qualify as a serious effort to produce a system that might work.”

Politicians who dream of sugar plums hire consultants with similar dreams. See links under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy – Storage.


Any Excuse to Squander? In a post discussing changing weather conditions in the US Northwest, Meteorologist Cliff Mass had an interesting sidenote with an article in the Seattle Times. The article stated:

“And on Wednesday, the Biden administration announced $75 million in funding to help three tribes, including the Quinault, move to higher ground.”

“In 2021, the tribe completed its new Generations Building, home to programs for seniors and children. That year, Kilmer and the tribe hosted U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland in Taholah to discuss the imminent threats of climate change for tribal communities and the need for future funding.”

The tribes are on the Olympic coast. According to Mass, the tidal gauges show that the sea levels of the Olympic coast are falling (the land is rising as a rebound from glaciation). Apparently, an administration that believes there is a climate emergency has no need to examine hard evidence. See Links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


Number of the Week: Less than 1%: Paul Homewood gives a simple graph that even a UK politician should understand. According to The University of Sheffield solar tracker, the total photovoltaic electricity for November 29 was 5.46 GWh, less than 1% of the average 840 GWh used each day. Virtually all of it came between 10 am and 2 pm. And politicians are subsidizing these and electric vehicles? See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind.

Science: Is the Sun Rising?

Secrets of Sunspots and Solar Magnetic Fields Investigated in NASA Supercomputing Simulations

Press Release, NASA, Via WUWT, Dec 1, 2022

Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013


Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014


Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019

Download with no charge:

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015

Download with no charge:

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008

Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data

By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia, new study finds

Scientists have confirmed that a “stabilizing feedback” on 100,000-year timescales keeps global temperatures in check.

By Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office, Nov 16, 2022

Link to paper: Presence or absence of stabilizing Earth system feedbacks on different time scales

By Arnscheidt and Rothman, Science Advances, Nov 16, 2022

[SEPP Comment: Worth repeating. Does not discuss that naturally occurring greenhouse gases are saturated.]

Pacific problems for climate models

By David Whitehouse, Net Zero Watch, Nov 29, 2022

Link to paper: Systematic climate model biases in the large-scale pattern of recent sea-surface temperature and sea-level pressure change

By Jnglin Wills Robert C, et al, Submitted to Geophysical Research Letters Nov 16, 2022

“Colorful fluid dynamics” and overconfidence in global climate models

By David Young, Climate Etc. Dec 2, 2022

Clouds may be less climate-sensitive than assumed

Press Release by University of Hamburg,, Nov 30, 2022 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]

Link to paper: Strong cloud–circulation coupling explains weak trade cumulus feedback

By Raphaela Vogel, Nature, Nov 30, 2022

From the abstract: “Our observational analyses render models with large positive feedbacks implausible and both support and explain at the process scale a weak trade cumulus feedback. Our findings thus refute an important line of evidence for a high climate sensitivity.”

Economic Analysis of the 2022 Federal Clean Fuels Standard

By Ross McKitrick, et al, LFX Associates, Toronto, Ontario, Sep 6, 2022

A Note on Obfuscation, the 2022 Climate Report, and my Latest Film

By Jennifer Marohasy, Her Blog, Nov 27, 2022

[SEPP Comment: Photos of corals from the air, cannot see them, and photos from 3 meters down.]

A Look At Climate Models: “Obviously Do Not Represent The Physics”…”Not At All Capable”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 30, 2022

What Do The Current Climate Models Really Do?

By Die kalte Sonne, Frank Bosse, (Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

Defending the Orthodoxy

Countries Present Climate Ambition and Action at COP27

By Staff, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Nov 28, 2022

Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet Is a Desperate Idea, Yet We’re Inching Toward It

The scientists who study solar geoengineering don’t want anyone to try it. But climate inaction is making it more likely.

By Bill McKibben, The New Yorker, Nov 22, 2022

Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science

Climate change: Wasted methane gas ‘a scandal’

By Jonah Fisher, BBC, Nov 29, 2022

[SEPP Comment: According to the chart, 48% of the methane comes from farming and 41% from waste disposal. The real scandal is that the authors who do not understand the greenhouse effect  are university professors.]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Don’t Be So Sure That The Climate Extremists Have “Won”

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Nov 29, 2022

“The current cult of the academic, journalistic and governmental elites suffers from the eternal problem of all central planners. They think they are brilliant — and in some ways they might be (high scores on SATs?) — but they have no idea at all how to engineer an energy system that will work. We all eagerly await for their planned utopia to crash and burn.”

NetZero impossibility point? Europe’s renewable wonderland now can’t make solar, wind, batteries or EV’s

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 3, 2022

Everybody knows: doing nothing is not an option

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 30, 2022

“The PBO estimated that instead of Canada’s economy being 6.6 percent smaller in 2100 it will be… 5.8 percent smaller. In other words the benefit of doing “something” comes down to 0.8 percent of GDP 80 years from now. And obtaining that sub-atomic sized benefit by complying with Paris would cost us far more than 0.8 percent of GDP. So doing nothing is not just an option, it’s a better option.”

[SEPP Comment: Report from Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Office.]

Good News in Climate Scenarios

My short talk at the 2022 Scenarios Forum

By Roger Pielke Jr., Nov 29, 2022

[SEPP Comment: A way to evaluate IPCC scenarios.]

After Paris!

“Climate reparations” are immoral

The hottest idea emerging from the UN’s COP27 climate conference is “climate reparations.” This is an immoral idea that Congress should reject.

By Alex Epstein, His Blog, Dec 1, 2022 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]

COP 27 has no back-up plan to replace products from oil!

By Ronald Stein, The Heartland Institute, Nov 29, 2022

[SEPP Comment: Unreliable electricity such as from wind and solar is useless for high tech manufacturing such as required for computer chips.]

Canadian Gothic

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Nov 30, 2022

[SEPP Comment: Prosperous countries must be punished for the “sins of the past” to prevent future warming?]

Change in US Administrations

President Biden’s Energy Motto: Not in the U.S.A. Nor Its Territories

By Staff, Institute for Energy Research, Nov 23, 2022

Barclays Coal Plan Exposes Reach of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act

The UK bank is acting to phase out financing to the world’s dirtiest companies earlier than previously stated.

By Alastair Marsh, Bloomberg, Nov 30, 2022

Another Snow Event Friday Night/Saturday Morning

By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Dec 1, 2022

Link to article: $25M from feds will boost Quinault Indian Nation’s climate relocation; here’s how

By Isabella Breda, The Seattle Times, Dec 1, 2022

[SEPP Comment: Mass exposes the phony sea level rise on the Olympic coast with the Quinault tribe being paid $25 million to move.]

Chevron can resume key role in Venezuela’s oil output, exports

By Daphne Psaledakis and Marianna Parraga, Reuters, Nov 26, 2022

Problems in the Orthodoxy

Opinion: COP27 failed, so why continue with these UN climate summits?

By David Tindall, et al, The Conservation, Dec 1, 2022 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]

[SEPP Comment: Begins with a false premise, “Climate change is an existential threat to human civilization and planetary ecosystems.”]

Switzerland, Facing an Unprecedented Power Shortage, Contemplates a Partial Ban on the Use of Electric Vehicles

It turns out that you can have battery-powered cars, or you can have renewable energy, but you can’t have both.

By Staff, Eugyppius, Dec 1, 2022 [H/t CLINTEL]

Academics Slam Claims Biotech Could Solve the Climate Crisis

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Nov 30, 2022

COP27 Greenwishing: Progressive Discontent

By Robert Bradley, Jr, Institute for Energy Research, Nov 28, 2022

“The Guardian (UK) declares ‘World still ‘on brink of climate catastrophe’ after COP27 deal.’ This refrain, now in its fourth decade, is at odds with the official statistics about temperature and weather extremes—and the bottom line of climate-related deaths. Climate/CO2 optimism is merited to end the open-ended government forays against affordable, reliable energy.”

India shakes up global approach to climate change as G20 chair

By Saul Elbein, The Hill, Dec 1, 2022

“Today, the greatest challenges we face – climate change, terrorism, and pandemics – can be solved not by fighting each other, but only by acting together.” Modi

Seeking a Common Ground

Exploiters versus experts

By Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler), Climate Etc. Nov 28, 2022

Column: The world as we know it ends if it can’t find its bearings

By Terry Etam, BOE Report, Nov 29, 2022 [H/t WUWT]

Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin | Lex Fridman Podcast #339


Climate Brawl Debate: Tony Heller vs Gerald Kutney

By Tony Heller, His Blog, Nov 25, 2022

Science, Policy, and Evidence

Netherlands To Close 3000 Farms To Comply With EU Climate Rules

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 29, 2022

Source link



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments