In this newsletter:
1) BBC climate editor made false claims on global warming, BBC confirms
Daily Mail, 10 May 2022
Daily Mail, 10 May 2022
4) Anti-woke investment startup to take on BlackRock
The Wall Street Journal, 10 May 2022
Daily Mail, 10 May 2022
2) Paul Homewood: Two BBC complaints upheld against climate editor
Not A Lot of People Know That, 28 April 2022
3) Queen's Speech: Crackdown on green zealots' chaosNot A Lot of People Know That, 28 April 2022
Daily Mail, 10 May 2022
4) Anti-woke investment startup to take on BlackRock
The Wall Street Journal, 10 May 2022
5) Boris Johnson's grand nuclear plans already lie in tatters
The Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2022
The Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2022
6) William Briggs: Making climate skepticism illegal: The regime’s crackdown on disinformation
William M Briggs, 9 May 2022
7) China's coal imports soar
Reuters, 9 May 2022
William M Briggs, 9 May 2022
7) China's coal imports soar
Reuters, 9 May 2022
8) David Holt: The Biden Administration’s aimless energy policy is gambling with America’s economy
Real Clear Energy, 8 May 2022
9) Saudi energy minister blames lack of investment for surge in fuel prices
Reuters, 9 May 2022
The programme Wild Weather, presented by climate editor Justin Rowlatt, said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change – whereas the opposite is true.
It also claimed Madagascar was on the verge of the first famine caused by climate change – despite other factors being involved.
The programme, broadcast last November to coincide with the COP26 climate conference, sparked two complaints investigated by the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU).
Last year Rowlatt's sister Cordelia was among a number of Insulate Britain activists arrested for staging a protest at junction 3 of the M25.
Miss Rowlatt, who once appeared on TV advising her brother on how to be more environmentally friendly, pleaded guilty by post at Crawley Magistrates' Court. She was fined £300 with £85 court costs and a £34 surcharge for committing a public nuisance on a highway.
The introduction of Wild Weather said 'the death toll is rising around the world and the forecast is that worse is to come'. The ECU said this risked giving the impression the rate of deaths from extreme weather-related events was increasing.
In fact, as noted by a recent report from the World Meteorological Organisation, while the number of weather-related disasters – such as floods, storms and drought – has risen in the past 50 years, the number of deaths caused by them has fallen because of improved early warnings and disaster management.
BBC News said 'it accepted the wording in the programme was not as clear as it should have been and a public acknowledgement was put on the BBC's Corrections and Clarifications website before the complaint reached the ECU'.
The ECU said this was appropriate but 'an oversight meant the programme was still available on BBC iPlayer without a link or reference to the published correction, and for that reason the complaint was upheld'.
The ECU also considered the language used in the programme about drought. It agreed the evidence showed southern Madagascar had suffered lower-than-average seasonal rainfall in recent years, and that climate change was one factor contributing to famine in the country.
It also noted the reporter's language mirrored that used by the UN's World Food Programme.
But the ECU added: 'The statement that Madagascar was on the brink of the world's first climate-induced famine was presented without qualification, whereas other evidence available prior to broadcast suggested there were additional factors which made a significant contribution to the shortage of food.
The complaint was therefore upheld.'
See also -- Christopher Booker: The BBC and climate Change: A Triple Betrayal (pdf)
Daily Mail, 10 May 2022
Eco-warriors will be BANNED from chaining themselves to buildings and blocking roads under tough new police powers to quash protests
Real Clear Energy, 8 May 2022
9) Saudi energy minister blames lack of investment for surge in fuel prices
Reuters, 9 May 2022
10) And finally: The global warming scare is most certainly overheated
Editorial, Issues & Insights, 10 May 2022
Editorial, Issues & Insights, 10 May 2022
Full details:
1) BBC climate editor made false claims on global warming, BBC confirms
Daily Mail, 10 May 2022
A BBC Panorama documentary about global warming made a number of false claims, an internal investigation by the broadcaster has found.
Daily Mail, 10 May 2022
A BBC Panorama documentary about global warming made a number of false claims, an internal investigation by the broadcaster has found.
It also claimed Madagascar was on the verge of the first famine caused by climate change – despite other factors being involved.
The programme, broadcast last November to coincide with the COP26 climate conference, sparked two complaints investigated by the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU).
Last year Rowlatt's sister Cordelia was among a number of Insulate Britain activists arrested for staging a protest at junction 3 of the M25.
Miss Rowlatt, who once appeared on TV advising her brother on how to be more environmentally friendly, pleaded guilty by post at Crawley Magistrates' Court. She was fined £300 with £85 court costs and a £34 surcharge for committing a public nuisance on a highway.
The introduction of Wild Weather said 'the death toll is rising around the world and the forecast is that worse is to come'. The ECU said this risked giving the impression the rate of deaths from extreme weather-related events was increasing.
In fact, as noted by a recent report from the World Meteorological Organisation, while the number of weather-related disasters – such as floods, storms and drought – has risen in the past 50 years, the number of deaths caused by them has fallen because of improved early warnings and disaster management.
BBC News said 'it accepted the wording in the programme was not as clear as it should have been and a public acknowledgement was put on the BBC's Corrections and Clarifications website before the complaint reached the ECU'.
The ECU said this was appropriate but 'an oversight meant the programme was still available on BBC iPlayer without a link or reference to the published correction, and for that reason the complaint was upheld'.
The ECU also considered the language used in the programme about drought. It agreed the evidence showed southern Madagascar had suffered lower-than-average seasonal rainfall in recent years, and that climate change was one factor contributing to famine in the country.
It also noted the reporter's language mirrored that used by the UN's World Food Programme.
But the ECU added: 'The statement that Madagascar was on the brink of the world's first climate-induced famine was presented without qualification, whereas other evidence available prior to broadcast suggested there were additional factors which made a significant contribution to the shortage of food.
The complaint was therefore upheld.'
See also -- Christopher Booker: The BBC and climate Change: A Triple Betrayal (pdf)
2) Paul Homewood: Two BBC complaints upheld against climate editor
Not A Lot of People Know That, 28 April 2022
Not A Lot of People Know That, 28 April 2022
You will no doubt recall that Panorama edition from last November! Justin Rowlatt used the hour long programme to claim that climate change was making the world’s weather much worse. He made two specific claims that were blatant lies:
1) He opened the programme by stating:
“The world is getting warmer and our weather is getting ever more unpredictable and dangerous. The death toll is rising around the world”
2) There was also a large segment devoted to the recent drought in Madagascar, which Rowlatt described as “the world’s first climate change-induced famine.”
Neither claim was remotely true. Deaths from weather disasters have declined sharply in recent years, a fact that is easily established. Meanwhile a scientific study shortly after the edition established that droughts like last year are common events in Madagascar.
I complained to the BBC about the Madagascar claim, while another complained about the first one. Both complaints were escalated to the Executive Complaints Unit, after we were fobbed off at the first stage. I am pleased to say that both complaints have been upheld.
Below is the BBC reply:
Panorama: Wild Weather, BBC One, 3 November 2021
Complaint
The ECU considered two complaints about information contained in this programme. In the first, a viewer complained that in the introduction, the presenter incorrectly suggested the death toll from extreme weather-related events was rising and expected to rise further. The second complainant raised concerns that the programme inaccurately asserted that Madagascar was on the brink of the first famine caused by climate change. The ECU considered both complaints in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards relating to accuracy.
Outcome
In the ECU’s view the wording of the introduction, which stated “the death toll is rising around the world and the forecast is that worse is to come”, risked giving the impression the rate of deaths from extreme weather-related events was increasing. In fact, as noted a recent report from the World Meteorological Organization, despite the number of weather-related disasters (such as floods, storms and drought) growing significantly in the past 50 years, the number of deaths caused by such disasters has fallen because of improved early warnings and disaster management.
BBC News accepted the wording in the programme was not as clear as it should have been and a public acknowledgement was put on the BBC’s Corrections and Clarifications website before the complaint reached the ECU. This was an appropriate means of response and ensured the potentially misleading impression was corrected as a matter of public record. However, an oversight meant the programme was still available on the BBC iPlayer without a link or reference to the published correction, and for that reason the complaint was upheld.
Separately the ECU considered the language used in the programme about the drought in Madagascar. It agreed the evidence showed southern Madagascar had suffered lower than average seasonal rainfall in recent years, and that climate change was one of the factors which had contributed to famine in the country. It also noted the reporter’s language mirrored that used by the UN’s World Food Programme. However the statement that Madagascar was on the brink of the world’s first climate-induced famine was presented without qualification, whereas other evidence available prior to broadcast suggested there were additional factors which made a significant contribution to the shortage of food. The complaint was therefore upheld.
Upheld
Further action
The finding has been reported to the Board of BBC News and discussed with the programme-makers concerned. Appropriate clarifications will be added to the iPlayer version of the programme.
Both responses are a bit mealy mouthed, and the ECU still seems to be in denial that both claims were fundamentally untrue.
Nevertheless, Justin Rowlatt has now had three complaints against him upheld, all in the space of a few months (The first was when he ludicrously claimed that the offshore wind industry was now “virtually subsidy free” in the UK.)
It is difficult to see how he can maintain his position as Climate Editor, when his work is so untrustworthy.
3) Queen's Speech: Crackdown on green zealots' chaos1) He opened the programme by stating:
“The world is getting warmer and our weather is getting ever more unpredictable and dangerous. The death toll is rising around the world”
2) There was also a large segment devoted to the recent drought in Madagascar, which Rowlatt described as “the world’s first climate change-induced famine.”
Neither claim was remotely true. Deaths from weather disasters have declined sharply in recent years, a fact that is easily established. Meanwhile a scientific study shortly after the edition established that droughts like last year are common events in Madagascar.
I complained to the BBC about the Madagascar claim, while another complained about the first one. Both complaints were escalated to the Executive Complaints Unit, after we were fobbed off at the first stage. I am pleased to say that both complaints have been upheld.
Below is the BBC reply:
Panorama: Wild Weather, BBC One, 3 November 2021
Complaint
The ECU considered two complaints about information contained in this programme. In the first, a viewer complained that in the introduction, the presenter incorrectly suggested the death toll from extreme weather-related events was rising and expected to rise further. The second complainant raised concerns that the programme inaccurately asserted that Madagascar was on the brink of the first famine caused by climate change. The ECU considered both complaints in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards relating to accuracy.
Outcome
In the ECU’s view the wording of the introduction, which stated “the death toll is rising around the world and the forecast is that worse is to come”, risked giving the impression the rate of deaths from extreme weather-related events was increasing. In fact, as noted a recent report from the World Meteorological Organization, despite the number of weather-related disasters (such as floods, storms and drought) growing significantly in the past 50 years, the number of deaths caused by such disasters has fallen because of improved early warnings and disaster management.
BBC News accepted the wording in the programme was not as clear as it should have been and a public acknowledgement was put on the BBC’s Corrections and Clarifications website before the complaint reached the ECU. This was an appropriate means of response and ensured the potentially misleading impression was corrected as a matter of public record. However, an oversight meant the programme was still available on the BBC iPlayer without a link or reference to the published correction, and for that reason the complaint was upheld.
Separately the ECU considered the language used in the programme about the drought in Madagascar. It agreed the evidence showed southern Madagascar had suffered lower than average seasonal rainfall in recent years, and that climate change was one of the factors which had contributed to famine in the country. It also noted the reporter’s language mirrored that used by the UN’s World Food Programme. However the statement that Madagascar was on the brink of the world’s first climate-induced famine was presented without qualification, whereas other evidence available prior to broadcast suggested there were additional factors which made a significant contribution to the shortage of food. The complaint was therefore upheld.
Upheld
Further action
The finding has been reported to the Board of BBC News and discussed with the programme-makers concerned. Appropriate clarifications will be added to the iPlayer version of the programme.
Both responses are a bit mealy mouthed, and the ECU still seems to be in denial that both claims were fundamentally untrue.
Nevertheless, Justin Rowlatt has now had three complaints against him upheld, all in the space of a few months (The first was when he ludicrously claimed that the offshore wind industry was now “virtually subsidy free” in the UK.)
It is difficult to see how he can maintain his position as Climate Editor, when his work is so untrustworthy.
Daily Mail, 10 May 2022
Eco-warriors will be BANNED from chaining themselves to buildings and blocking roads under tough new police powers to quash protests
Police will be given powers to stop eco-protesters blocking roads and inflicting fuel shortages on motorists.
A law to tackle disruptive action by groups such as Extinction Rebellion will be announced in the Queen’s Speech today.
Ministers have made the Public Order Bill a priority and it will start its journey through the Commons tomorrow.
The Government had attempted to bring in the measures in January, but they were blocked by Labour and others in the House of Lords.
A criminal offence of ‘locking on’ will be created to prevent activists chaining themselves to buildings, vehicles and other protesters.
It will carry a maximum penalty of six months and an unlimited fine.
Stop and search powers will allow police to detain campaigners carrying bike locks and other equipment designed to make themselves difficult to remove.
A new offence will also be introduced to specifically ban the obstruction of key national infrastructure such as airports, railways and newspaper printing presses, which will be punishable by up to 12 months in prison and an unlimited fine.
It will also be illegal to obstruct major transport works, including disrupting the construction or maintenance of projects such as HS2.
And new Serious Disruption Prevention Orders will allow police to ban suspected troublemakers from attending specified events.
Groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil have used guerrilla tactics to wreak havoc in recent years – stopping people getting to work and costing taxpayers millions because of the mammoth police operations.
The raft of measures come after Priti Patel visited the Metropolitan Police specialist training centre in Gravesend, Kent yesterday.
During the tour, public order instructor Sergeant Adam Nash showed the Home Secretary some of the tactics and equipment demonstrators use to maximise disarray.
Last night Miss Patel said: ‘The law-abiding, responsible majority have had enough of antisocial, disruptive protests carried out by a self-indulgent minority who seem to revel in causing mayhem and misery for the rest of us.
‘The Public Order Bill will give the police the powers they need to clamp down on this outrageous behaviour and ensure the British public can go about their lives without disruption.’
Full story
4) Anti-woke investment startup to take on BlackRock
The Wall Street Journal, 10 May 2022
A law to tackle disruptive action by groups such as Extinction Rebellion will be announced in the Queen’s Speech today.
Ministers have made the Public Order Bill a priority and it will start its journey through the Commons tomorrow.
The Government had attempted to bring in the measures in January, but they were blocked by Labour and others in the House of Lords.
A criminal offence of ‘locking on’ will be created to prevent activists chaining themselves to buildings, vehicles and other protesters.
It will carry a maximum penalty of six months and an unlimited fine.
Stop and search powers will allow police to detain campaigners carrying bike locks and other equipment designed to make themselves difficult to remove.
A new offence will also be introduced to specifically ban the obstruction of key national infrastructure such as airports, railways and newspaper printing presses, which will be punishable by up to 12 months in prison and an unlimited fine.
It will also be illegal to obstruct major transport works, including disrupting the construction or maintenance of projects such as HS2.
And new Serious Disruption Prevention Orders will allow police to ban suspected troublemakers from attending specified events.
Groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil have used guerrilla tactics to wreak havoc in recent years – stopping people getting to work and costing taxpayers millions because of the mammoth police operations.
The raft of measures come after Priti Patel visited the Metropolitan Police specialist training centre in Gravesend, Kent yesterday.
During the tour, public order instructor Sergeant Adam Nash showed the Home Secretary some of the tactics and equipment demonstrators use to maximise disarray.
Last night Miss Patel said: ‘The law-abiding, responsible majority have had enough of antisocial, disruptive protests carried out by a self-indulgent minority who seem to revel in causing mayhem and misery for the rest of us.
‘The Public Order Bill will give the police the powers they need to clamp down on this outrageous behaviour and ensure the British public can go about their lives without disruption.’
Full story
4) Anti-woke investment startup to take on BlackRock
The Wall Street Journal, 10 May 2022
Backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman, Vivek Ramaswamy’s Strive will tell CEOs to stay out of politics
Vivek Ramaswamy appeared in February at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla.PHOTO: BRIAN CAHN/ZUMA PRESS
An upstart financial firm backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman has a message for American corporations: Focus on making money, not taking stands.
Vivek Ramaswamy, who made his fortune in pharmaceutical startups before writing a book last year called “Woke, Inc.,” says he has raised $20 million to start a fund manager that would urge companies not to wade into hot-button social or environmental issues. Mr. Thiel invested both personally and through his Founders Fund, joined by Palantir Technologies Inc. co-founder Joe Lonsdale and other venture investors.
Mr. Ramaswamy’s ambitions speak to the culture wars nipping at U.S. corporate executives. Under growing pressure from employees, investors and customers, many have taken public positions on political issues only to face criticism from the other side. Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Chapek recently flip-flopped on whether to weigh in on a controversial Florida law, angering both camps. Coca-Cola Co. and Delta Air Lines Inc. received blowback last year for criticizing changes to election rules in Georgia.
The firm, called Strive, will be based far from Wall Street in Mr. Ramaswamy’s home state of Ohio. In an interview Monday, the 36-year-old dubbed his approach “excellence capitalism,” focused on letting companies do what they do best—and nothing else—and inveighed against what he sees as a creeping liberal bias inside BlackRock Inc and its peers, Vanguard Group and State Street Corp. , which he called an “ideological cartel.”
Those three firms in recent years have become almost unimaginably large, managing $20 trillion of assets. They have pushed companies to improve diversity, cut their climate emissions, and embrace other changes—largely under the banner of “stakeholder capitalism,” which considers other outcomes, not just profits, when assessing corporate behavior.
In one high-profile example, all three sided against Exxon Mobil Corp. in its fight against a small hedge fund that had criticized its climate-change strategy and was seeking board seats.
Mr. Ramaswamy says he wouldn’t have. “We will tell oil companies to be excellent oil companies and coal companies to be excellent coal companies and solar companies to be excellent solar companies,” he said. Mr. Ramaswamy has written for The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages.
Representatives for BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
BlackRock Chief Executive Larry Fink has publicly pushed back on the idea that his personal politics have clouded the judgment his firm exercises when it votes its funds’ shares on behalf of investors.
“Stakeholder capitalism is not politics,” he wrote in January. “It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ ”
Mr. Ramaswamy’s project began under cover months ago, code-named “Whitestone” to capture its aim of being the anti-Blackrock, people familiar with the matter said. It isn’t known what products it will offer, and it has a long way to go to rival the combined market power of the financial giants it seeks to challenge.
“A majority of Americans want companies to stay out of politics,” he said. “They want to have a separate space for where they shop, where they work, and where they invest from the places where they cast their ballots or engage in their political debates.”
Vivek Ramaswamy appeared in February at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla.PHOTO: BRIAN CAHN/ZUMA PRESS
An upstart financial firm backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman has a message for American corporations: Focus on making money, not taking stands.
Vivek Ramaswamy, who made his fortune in pharmaceutical startups before writing a book last year called “Woke, Inc.,” says he has raised $20 million to start a fund manager that would urge companies not to wade into hot-button social or environmental issues. Mr. Thiel invested both personally and through his Founders Fund, joined by Palantir Technologies Inc. co-founder Joe Lonsdale and other venture investors.
Mr. Ramaswamy’s ambitions speak to the culture wars nipping at U.S. corporate executives. Under growing pressure from employees, investors and customers, many have taken public positions on political issues only to face criticism from the other side. Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Chapek recently flip-flopped on whether to weigh in on a controversial Florida law, angering both camps. Coca-Cola Co. and Delta Air Lines Inc. received blowback last year for criticizing changes to election rules in Georgia.
The firm, called Strive, will be based far from Wall Street in Mr. Ramaswamy’s home state of Ohio. In an interview Monday, the 36-year-old dubbed his approach “excellence capitalism,” focused on letting companies do what they do best—and nothing else—and inveighed against what he sees as a creeping liberal bias inside BlackRock Inc and its peers, Vanguard Group and State Street Corp. , which he called an “ideological cartel.”
Those three firms in recent years have become almost unimaginably large, managing $20 trillion of assets. They have pushed companies to improve diversity, cut their climate emissions, and embrace other changes—largely under the banner of “stakeholder capitalism,” which considers other outcomes, not just profits, when assessing corporate behavior.
In one high-profile example, all three sided against Exxon Mobil Corp. in its fight against a small hedge fund that had criticized its climate-change strategy and was seeking board seats.
Mr. Ramaswamy says he wouldn’t have. “We will tell oil companies to be excellent oil companies and coal companies to be excellent coal companies and solar companies to be excellent solar companies,” he said. Mr. Ramaswamy has written for The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages.
Representatives for BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
BlackRock Chief Executive Larry Fink has publicly pushed back on the idea that his personal politics have clouded the judgment his firm exercises when it votes its funds’ shares on behalf of investors.
“Stakeholder capitalism is not politics,” he wrote in January. “It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ ”
Mr. Ramaswamy’s project began under cover months ago, code-named “Whitestone” to capture its aim of being the anti-Blackrock, people familiar with the matter said. It isn’t known what products it will offer, and it has a long way to go to rival the combined market power of the financial giants it seeks to challenge.
“A majority of Americans want companies to stay out of politics,” he said. “They want to have a separate space for where they shop, where they work, and where they invest from the places where they cast their ballots or engage in their political debates.”
5) Boris Johnson's grand nuclear plans already lie in tatters
The Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2022
Ties with China risk scuppering existing proposals for plants, let alone future ones
Ben Marlow, Chief City commentator
The Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2022
Ties with China risk scuppering existing proposals for plants, let alone future ones
Ben Marlow, Chief City commentator
Well, that didn’t take long. Even by the Prime Minister’s woefully poor standards, a “strategy” that survived all of about four weeks really is a new low.
But after little more than a month, the Government’s plan to place nuclear power at the heart of the UK’s new energy strategy has already fallen apart.
Boris Johnson is great at grand announcements. It’s what he does best: bold, ambitious plans unveiled with vim and vigour but almost completely devoid of detail.
However, the speed with which his nuclear dreams have unravelled is a stark reminder that this Cabinet is big on bombastic rhetoric but painfully lacking in substance.
At the start of April, the Prime Minister promised Britain would reverse “decades of underinvestment” and “lead the world once again” in nuclear power.
The Government even went to the trouble of conjuring up a new body with an equally rousing name that would oversee the move.
Great British Nuclear would be launched to oversee a dramatic expansion of the UK's nuclear capacity: 24 gigawatts by 2050, equivalent to another six Hinkley Point Cs, each costing £20bn and collectively providing 25pc of the country’s electricity. This would come from eight new reactors, built on existing sites, with one approved each year until 2030, it declared.
And yet back in the real world, existing attempts to replace Britain’s ageing nuclear infrastructure are going from bad to worse to downright risible - a consequence of our over-reliance on foreign partners on both the construction front and when it comes to the technology.
George Osborne’s attempt to forge a new “golden era” in Sino-British relations by allowing China’s state-owned nuclear energy company to help build Britain’s new power stations always seemed destined to end badly.
The former Chancellor naively believed that it would be the catalyst for a deepening of trading ties with the world’s biggest emerging economic superpower. “Engagement” is better than “containment”, he once said.
Yet, as ties with China head in the opposite direction, with staggering predictability, China General Nuclear faces being booted out of Britain’s nuclear programme. This will leave holes in it everywhere, such is the extent of the Chinese state’s involvement.
Bradwell in Essex will be the first to bite the dust. Under a nuclear collaboration deal struck between president Xi Jinping and David Cameron’s Government in 2015, China agreed to help develop a new generation of plants, starting with Hinkley Point C in Somerset and Sizewell C in Suffolk, both as a minority partner to France’s EDF.
But the quid pro quo was that CGN would be allowed to build and operate a third plant in Bradwell using its own untested technology.
That always seemed like a high-stakes gamble.
But which minister would give their backing to such an agreement now, as tensions intensify between the West and Beijing over national security, China’s crackdown in Hong Kong, and more recently its position over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
The Government could probably get away with allowing CGN to continue building Hinkley Point C alongside EDF given how long the pair have been toiling away on the project, even if their collaboration has been fairly disastrous.
Britain’s first new nuclear plant in three decades will soon be nine years overdue and £7bn over budget. Proposed for completion in 2017, it won’t be ready until 2026 at the earliest, while build costs have rocketed from £16bn to £23bn.
But ministers could at least claim that a change to the construction pairing this late in the day risks further setbacks.
Ministers may even have been able to argue that CGN should continue as a junior partner to EDF on Sizewell C, even though the £20bn plant is still at the development stage.
But providing a fifth of the funds for one site definitely isn’t the same as allowing a company backed by China’s communist party to build a nuclear plant 50 miles from London using an unproven Chinese reactor.
In the end, political opposition could kill China’s involvement entirely. CGN’s participation in Bradwell is utterly fanciful in the current climate.
But without Chinese financing, EDF is warning that the project could collapse. Ministers are determined to eject the Chinese from Sizewell too, which EDF fears could prompt CGN to walk out on Hinkley Point C, puncturing a multi-billion hole in the funding that the French state would be reluctant to fill.
Elsewhere, Toshiba has scrapped plans for a new plant in Cumbria, while Hitachi has mothballed two new plants at Wylfa, Anglesey, and Oldbury, Gloucestershire, leaving Britain’s existing plans in total disarray, nevermind any future ones.
For a country that was a pioneer of atomic power, the current state of Britain’s capabilities is this: no funding or know-how; little appetite from foreign investors or the City; widespread public opposition; and questionable technology.
The Prime Minister has always been perfectly willing to over-egg the pudding, but his nuclear ambitions are the stuff of pure fantasy.
But after little more than a month, the Government’s plan to place nuclear power at the heart of the UK’s new energy strategy has already fallen apart.
Boris Johnson is great at grand announcements. It’s what he does best: bold, ambitious plans unveiled with vim and vigour but almost completely devoid of detail.
However, the speed with which his nuclear dreams have unravelled is a stark reminder that this Cabinet is big on bombastic rhetoric but painfully lacking in substance.
At the start of April, the Prime Minister promised Britain would reverse “decades of underinvestment” and “lead the world once again” in nuclear power.
The Government even went to the trouble of conjuring up a new body with an equally rousing name that would oversee the move.
Great British Nuclear would be launched to oversee a dramatic expansion of the UK's nuclear capacity: 24 gigawatts by 2050, equivalent to another six Hinkley Point Cs, each costing £20bn and collectively providing 25pc of the country’s electricity. This would come from eight new reactors, built on existing sites, with one approved each year until 2030, it declared.
And yet back in the real world, existing attempts to replace Britain’s ageing nuclear infrastructure are going from bad to worse to downright risible - a consequence of our over-reliance on foreign partners on both the construction front and when it comes to the technology.
George Osborne’s attempt to forge a new “golden era” in Sino-British relations by allowing China’s state-owned nuclear energy company to help build Britain’s new power stations always seemed destined to end badly.
The former Chancellor naively believed that it would be the catalyst for a deepening of trading ties with the world’s biggest emerging economic superpower. “Engagement” is better than “containment”, he once said.
Yet, as ties with China head in the opposite direction, with staggering predictability, China General Nuclear faces being booted out of Britain’s nuclear programme. This will leave holes in it everywhere, such is the extent of the Chinese state’s involvement.
Bradwell in Essex will be the first to bite the dust. Under a nuclear collaboration deal struck between president Xi Jinping and David Cameron’s Government in 2015, China agreed to help develop a new generation of plants, starting with Hinkley Point C in Somerset and Sizewell C in Suffolk, both as a minority partner to France’s EDF.
But the quid pro quo was that CGN would be allowed to build and operate a third plant in Bradwell using its own untested technology.
That always seemed like a high-stakes gamble.
But which minister would give their backing to such an agreement now, as tensions intensify between the West and Beijing over national security, China’s crackdown in Hong Kong, and more recently its position over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
The Government could probably get away with allowing CGN to continue building Hinkley Point C alongside EDF given how long the pair have been toiling away on the project, even if their collaboration has been fairly disastrous.
Britain’s first new nuclear plant in three decades will soon be nine years overdue and £7bn over budget. Proposed for completion in 2017, it won’t be ready until 2026 at the earliest, while build costs have rocketed from £16bn to £23bn.
But ministers could at least claim that a change to the construction pairing this late in the day risks further setbacks.
Ministers may even have been able to argue that CGN should continue as a junior partner to EDF on Sizewell C, even though the £20bn plant is still at the development stage.
But providing a fifth of the funds for one site definitely isn’t the same as allowing a company backed by China’s communist party to build a nuclear plant 50 miles from London using an unproven Chinese reactor.
In the end, political opposition could kill China’s involvement entirely. CGN’s participation in Bradwell is utterly fanciful in the current climate.
But without Chinese financing, EDF is warning that the project could collapse. Ministers are determined to eject the Chinese from Sizewell too, which EDF fears could prompt CGN to walk out on Hinkley Point C, puncturing a multi-billion hole in the funding that the French state would be reluctant to fill.
Elsewhere, Toshiba has scrapped plans for a new plant in Cumbria, while Hitachi has mothballed two new plants at Wylfa, Anglesey, and Oldbury, Gloucestershire, leaving Britain’s existing plans in total disarray, nevermind any future ones.
For a country that was a pioneer of atomic power, the current state of Britain’s capabilities is this: no funding or know-how; little appetite from foreign investors or the City; widespread public opposition; and questionable technology.
The Prime Minister has always been perfectly willing to over-egg the pudding, but his nuclear ambitions are the stuff of pure fantasy.
6) William Briggs: Making climate skepticism illegal: The regime’s crackdown on disinformation
William M Briggs, 9 May 2022
These new US government agencies are two aspects of the same thing: official control of information.
William M Briggs, 9 May 2022
These new US government agencies are two aspects of the same thing: official control of information.
Before we get into this, it is interesting to note that if I had kept my original headline, “Attempting to make global warming skepticism illegal”, it would have caused heads to scratch inside of turn. Propaganda works.
All right: Two new, and two successful, power grabs by the Regime were completed last week.
The first was the start of the Disinformation Governance Board, under the Department of Homeland Security. This creates a mechanism to define official thoughtcrimes. I repeat: if official disinformation exists there necessarily must exist Official Truths (which are only coincidental with Truths), and therefore there must exist an entity in charge of creating and regulating them.
The second grab was creation of the Office of Environmental Justice, under the Department of Justice. There is no such thing as environmental justice. But such a fiction can be defined with respect to The Science (as in “Listen to The Science!”). The Science is research provided by Experts. And Experts, you recall, are educated credentialed important individuals who align with and are supported by the Regime, directly or indirectly.
The first thing you will have noticed is that all things must now be named for what they are not. That is the well known nature of advertising.
The second obvious observation is that these new agencies are two aspects of the same thing: official control of information.
The DGB will be the clearing house for Official Truths (OTs) as we discussed, and the OEJ will be (among other things) one of its police forces for certain kinds of non-political thoughtcrimes.
The right kind of police force, too. Armed men—the government trusts and loves guns when they are in the hands of official agents—equipped with armored SWAT vehicles are not necessary for thoughtlaw arrests. Lawsuits are far superior. Which is to say, the power to legally steal money of those whose thoughts are officially classed as disinformation.
Like the DGB, the OEJ has been in the works for some time.
Here’s a headline from January: “Can You Be Sued For Climate Disinformation? New White Paper On Legal Liability For Climate Denial.”
The Climate Social Science Network recently published a report on greenwashing litigation, a landscape analysis of how climate disinformation is being challenged in courts, based on a database of climate laws, and another of climate litigation.
First, they lay out what’s meant by greenwashing and its more specific climate-washing variant, referring to how companies use rhetoric to conceal their pollution in climate-friendly terms. Greenwashing, per the report and the many studies it cites, consists of “unsubstantiated or misleading claims regarding an actor’s environmental performance,” including “selective disclosure” of good news but not bad, while climate-washing “may encompass issues that go beyond the natural environment.”
There is in the legal white paper not even a hint of a shadow of a notion of a dream of the mere wisp of an idea that climate doom could be false or over-certain. Climate doom will happen unless bad thoughts (like “greenwashing”) are vanquished.
They sternly warn company lawyers to “avoid disinformation regarding climate change and action.” And they tell would-be suers “Existing soft and hard law can be the basis of litigation.” Such as will be provided by the OEJ.
OT lists are being made. The White House gathered Experts to ritually condemn “climate delayism”, and to provide the government the ability to say “Experts created the OT list, not us.”
Other Experts took to Nature, in the peer-reviewed paper “Computer-assisted classification of contrarian claims about climate change“, to show that computers—computers!—can spot wrongthink.
“A growing body of scholarship investigates the role of misinformation in shaping the debate on climate change,” the Abstract opens. Growing body. Experts can always be counted on to provide the regime what it needs.
They warn that “contrarian” thought “increasingly, has challenged climate policy and renewable energy.” And that “Organized climate change contrarianism has played a significant role in the spread of misinformation and the delay of meaningful action to mitigate climate change.”
This paper is proof of our contention that in order for there to be official disinformation, there must be lists of OTs. That is the only way a “computer” can identify misinformation. Because all models only say what they are told to say, their “computer” model must have be told what constitutes wrongthink.
OTs exist, certified by Experts, and will be used to control and police thought. The focus will be more than on global warming, of course, but given the waning of coroandoom, the regime needs a juicy crisis to focus on.
“We must,” said Janet Inflation-is-Transitory Yellen, “Decarbonize our economy.” It is because of the vast, vast sums involved in this “decarbonization”, which is to say, of transferring the wealth from those on the outside to those on the inside, that the DGB and OEJ will flourish.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
7) China's coal imports soar
Reuters, 9 May 2022
China's coal imports surged 43% in April from March, driven by panic buying over concerns of supply disruptions stemming from Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
All right: Two new, and two successful, power grabs by the Regime were completed last week.
The first was the start of the Disinformation Governance Board, under the Department of Homeland Security. This creates a mechanism to define official thoughtcrimes. I repeat: if official disinformation exists there necessarily must exist Official Truths (which are only coincidental with Truths), and therefore there must exist an entity in charge of creating and regulating them.
The second grab was creation of the Office of Environmental Justice, under the Department of Justice. There is no such thing as environmental justice. But such a fiction can be defined with respect to The Science (as in “Listen to The Science!”). The Science is research provided by Experts. And Experts, you recall, are educated credentialed important individuals who align with and are supported by the Regime, directly or indirectly.
The first thing you will have noticed is that all things must now be named for what they are not. That is the well known nature of advertising.
The second obvious observation is that these new agencies are two aspects of the same thing: official control of information.
The DGB will be the clearing house for Official Truths (OTs) as we discussed, and the OEJ will be (among other things) one of its police forces for certain kinds of non-political thoughtcrimes.
The right kind of police force, too. Armed men—the government trusts and loves guns when they are in the hands of official agents—equipped with armored SWAT vehicles are not necessary for thoughtlaw arrests. Lawsuits are far superior. Which is to say, the power to legally steal money of those whose thoughts are officially classed as disinformation.
Like the DGB, the OEJ has been in the works for some time.
Here’s a headline from January: “Can You Be Sued For Climate Disinformation? New White Paper On Legal Liability For Climate Denial.”
The Climate Social Science Network recently published a report on greenwashing litigation, a landscape analysis of how climate disinformation is being challenged in courts, based on a database of climate laws, and another of climate litigation.
First, they lay out what’s meant by greenwashing and its more specific climate-washing variant, referring to how companies use rhetoric to conceal their pollution in climate-friendly terms. Greenwashing, per the report and the many studies it cites, consists of “unsubstantiated or misleading claims regarding an actor’s environmental performance,” including “selective disclosure” of good news but not bad, while climate-washing “may encompass issues that go beyond the natural environment.”
There is in the legal white paper not even a hint of a shadow of a notion of a dream of the mere wisp of an idea that climate doom could be false or over-certain. Climate doom will happen unless bad thoughts (like “greenwashing”) are vanquished.
They sternly warn company lawyers to “avoid disinformation regarding climate change and action.” And they tell would-be suers “Existing soft and hard law can be the basis of litigation.” Such as will be provided by the OEJ.
OT lists are being made. The White House gathered Experts to ritually condemn “climate delayism”, and to provide the government the ability to say “Experts created the OT list, not us.”
Other Experts took to Nature, in the peer-reviewed paper “Computer-assisted classification of contrarian claims about climate change“, to show that computers—computers!—can spot wrongthink.
“A growing body of scholarship investigates the role of misinformation in shaping the debate on climate change,” the Abstract opens. Growing body. Experts can always be counted on to provide the regime what it needs.
They warn that “contrarian” thought “increasingly, has challenged climate policy and renewable energy.” And that “Organized climate change contrarianism has played a significant role in the spread of misinformation and the delay of meaningful action to mitigate climate change.”
This paper is proof of our contention that in order for there to be official disinformation, there must be lists of OTs. That is the only way a “computer” can identify misinformation. Because all models only say what they are told to say, their “computer” model must have be told what constitutes wrongthink.
OTs exist, certified by Experts, and will be used to control and police thought. The focus will be more than on global warming, of course, but given the waning of coroandoom, the regime needs a juicy crisis to focus on.
“We must,” said Janet Inflation-is-Transitory Yellen, “Decarbonize our economy.” It is because of the vast, vast sums involved in this “decarbonization”, which is to say, of transferring the wealth from those on the outside to those on the inside, that the DGB and OEJ will flourish.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
7) China's coal imports soar
Reuters, 9 May 2022
China's coal imports surged 43% in April from March, driven by panic buying over concerns of supply disruptions stemming from Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
China shipped in 23.55 million tonnes of coal last month, data from the General Administration of Customs showed on Monday. That compares with 16.42 million tonnes in March and 21.73 million tonnes in April 2021.
For the period of January-April, China brought in a total of 75.41 million tonnes of coal, down 16% from shipments in the same period a year earlier.
Benchmark Newcastle thermal coal hit a record high of $440 a tonne in early March, fuelled by fears of tight supply as Western countries vowed to impose sanctions on Russia's financial system and energy products after it invaded Ukraine. Moscow calls its actions in Ukraine a "special operation".
As global coal prices stayed high while the Chinese central government ordered miners to boost domestic output and capped local prices, Chinese traders then shunned expensive seaborne cargos in favour of domestic sources.
China aims to churn out a record 12.6 million tonnes of coal each day and maintain coal prices under term contracts at 570-770 yuan ($84.99-114.81) a tonne.
Meanwhile, the country's state planner in April urged 14 regions, including Guangdong, Guangxi and Zhejiang, which largely rely on imported coal, to sign more term contracts with the top mining hubs of Shanxi, Shaanxi and Inner Mongolia for domestic supply.
Full story
For the period of January-April, China brought in a total of 75.41 million tonnes of coal, down 16% from shipments in the same period a year earlier.
Benchmark Newcastle thermal coal hit a record high of $440 a tonne in early March, fuelled by fears of tight supply as Western countries vowed to impose sanctions on Russia's financial system and energy products after it invaded Ukraine. Moscow calls its actions in Ukraine a "special operation".
As global coal prices stayed high while the Chinese central government ordered miners to boost domestic output and capped local prices, Chinese traders then shunned expensive seaborne cargos in favour of domestic sources.
China aims to churn out a record 12.6 million tonnes of coal each day and maintain coal prices under term contracts at 570-770 yuan ($84.99-114.81) a tonne.
Meanwhile, the country's state planner in April urged 14 regions, including Guangdong, Guangxi and Zhejiang, which largely rely on imported coal, to sign more term contracts with the top mining hubs of Shanxi, Shaanxi and Inner Mongolia for domestic supply.
Full story
8) David Holt: The Biden Administration’s aimless energy policy is gambling with America’s economy
Real Clear Energy, 8 May 2022
The Biden Administration just tripled down on a losing bet to lower gasoline prices for Americans by announcing a record release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as if it were a brag-worthy achievement.
At the same time, the Administration continues to gaslight Americans by talking about a “Putin price hike” as if we’d all forget that the first SPR release came in November, well before Ukraine was on anyone’s radar.
By then, prices were up by more than a dollar from the day President Biden took office and declared in no uncertain terms his hostility toward the American oil and gas industry. Make no mistake, those actions and the introduction of other regulatory hurdles and attempts to restrict capital investment into oil and gas drove negative sentiments, which in turn slowed the response to increasing demand – intentionally.
Does the White House really think Americans will forget that? While the release of a million barrels a day is substantial, history has shown that global crude prices trade lower on the release, providing short-term relief, before both continue to trend higher.
This is the reality President Biden will eventually have to contend with, and which Americans are feeling every day in the form of inflation and high gas prices.
The bigger reality is that the Administration is missing the forest for the trees when it comes to a sound energy policy. Inexplicably, the White House refuses to lift any of the restrictions it has laid down on oil and gas production on federal lands and in federal waters, despite that being an essential for providing reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible energy to our families and small businesses.
America’s energy discussion unfortunately is whirling around in the vortex of partisan arguments, when it should really be a practical discussion where national needs come above all. Our nation needs all the energy it can get. That means everything. More solar, more wind, more nuclear, more hydro, and yes, more oil and gas since there is no realistic forecast that shows the world quitting oil and gas by 2050. In fact, it is expected to still be the dominant energy source that year, while solar, wind and other sources will grow to nearly the same level.
By innovating and creating cleaner, more efficient ways of using the assets we have while developing less carbon-intensive options with the same reliability, abundance and low cost, we win and continue to lead the world in absolute emissions reductions. On this, we can all agree.
However, it does us no good to keep hampering the fundamental part of our energy system and killing off a productive part of our economic health as a nation, unless the goal is to create higher prices long-term.
Our status as the world’s biggest oil and gas producer keeps our economy moving by fueling the rest of it. It keeps our national security strong by reducing the leverage foreign oil-producing nations have on our economy. And it provides geopolitical strength to help our friends and allies as we are doing now in Europe, with record liquefied natural gas exports steaming to the rescue to replace Russian gas now banned as the result of the Ukraine conflict.
But where is that kind of support for regular Americans? Across all political affiliations and demographics, a recent poll commissioned by CEA found that 60% of Americans support an immediate increase in domestic oil and gas production. That is a clear demand from the hinterlands for the Administration to help and not hinder industry. It’s a demand to get federal oil and gas leasing going again in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. It’s a clarion call, and one that crosses the political spectrum.
The president could act quickly on several fronts that meet his goals of bringing prices down and getting toward a cleaner, less carbon-intensive future. The world has changed. If the Administration thinks we are in enough of an emergency to release 180 million barrels of oil from the SPR, then it is clearly time to consider using the Defense Production Act. That could kickstart expedited permitting, offshore lease sales, fast-tracked pipelines and immediate guidance on carbon capture and storage regulation, so we can ensure that our environmental goals are not ignored while we meet our most basic energy needs.
Compromise, balance and lower prices are the watchwords here. We should all support a balanced, non-political approach to solving our energy and environmental challenges. President Biden could make good on his promise to unite us by acting to support American industry across the board – not just favorites.
David Holt is president of Consumer Energy Alliance, a U.S. consumer energy and environment advocate supporting affordable, reliable energy for working families, seniors and businesses across the country.
9) Saudi energy minister blames lack of investment for surge in fuel prices
Reuters, 9 May 2022
Real Clear Energy, 8 May 2022
The Biden Administration just tripled down on a losing bet to lower gasoline prices for Americans by announcing a record release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as if it were a brag-worthy achievement.
At the same time, the Administration continues to gaslight Americans by talking about a “Putin price hike” as if we’d all forget that the first SPR release came in November, well before Ukraine was on anyone’s radar.
By then, prices were up by more than a dollar from the day President Biden took office and declared in no uncertain terms his hostility toward the American oil and gas industry. Make no mistake, those actions and the introduction of other regulatory hurdles and attempts to restrict capital investment into oil and gas drove negative sentiments, which in turn slowed the response to increasing demand – intentionally.
Does the White House really think Americans will forget that? While the release of a million barrels a day is substantial, history has shown that global crude prices trade lower on the release, providing short-term relief, before both continue to trend higher.
This is the reality President Biden will eventually have to contend with, and which Americans are feeling every day in the form of inflation and high gas prices.
The bigger reality is that the Administration is missing the forest for the trees when it comes to a sound energy policy. Inexplicably, the White House refuses to lift any of the restrictions it has laid down on oil and gas production on federal lands and in federal waters, despite that being an essential for providing reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible energy to our families and small businesses.
America’s energy discussion unfortunately is whirling around in the vortex of partisan arguments, when it should really be a practical discussion where national needs come above all. Our nation needs all the energy it can get. That means everything. More solar, more wind, more nuclear, more hydro, and yes, more oil and gas since there is no realistic forecast that shows the world quitting oil and gas by 2050. In fact, it is expected to still be the dominant energy source that year, while solar, wind and other sources will grow to nearly the same level.
By innovating and creating cleaner, more efficient ways of using the assets we have while developing less carbon-intensive options with the same reliability, abundance and low cost, we win and continue to lead the world in absolute emissions reductions. On this, we can all agree.
However, it does us no good to keep hampering the fundamental part of our energy system and killing off a productive part of our economic health as a nation, unless the goal is to create higher prices long-term.
Our status as the world’s biggest oil and gas producer keeps our economy moving by fueling the rest of it. It keeps our national security strong by reducing the leverage foreign oil-producing nations have on our economy. And it provides geopolitical strength to help our friends and allies as we are doing now in Europe, with record liquefied natural gas exports steaming to the rescue to replace Russian gas now banned as the result of the Ukraine conflict.
But where is that kind of support for regular Americans? Across all political affiliations and demographics, a recent poll commissioned by CEA found that 60% of Americans support an immediate increase in domestic oil and gas production. That is a clear demand from the hinterlands for the Administration to help and not hinder industry. It’s a demand to get federal oil and gas leasing going again in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. It’s a clarion call, and one that crosses the political spectrum.
The president could act quickly on several fronts that meet his goals of bringing prices down and getting toward a cleaner, less carbon-intensive future. The world has changed. If the Administration thinks we are in enough of an emergency to release 180 million barrels of oil from the SPR, then it is clearly time to consider using the Defense Production Act. That could kickstart expedited permitting, offshore lease sales, fast-tracked pipelines and immediate guidance on carbon capture and storage regulation, so we can ensure that our environmental goals are not ignored while we meet our most basic energy needs.
Compromise, balance and lower prices are the watchwords here. We should all support a balanced, non-political approach to solving our energy and environmental challenges. President Biden could make good on his promise to unite us by acting to support American industry across the board – not just favorites.
David Holt is president of Consumer Energy Alliance, a U.S. consumer energy and environment advocate supporting affordable, reliable energy for working families, seniors and businesses across the country.
9) Saudi energy minister blames lack of investment for surge in fuel prices
Reuters, 9 May 2022
RIYADH, May 9 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said on Monday the gap between crude prices and prices for jet fuel, diesel and gasoline was around 60% in some cases due to lack of investment in refining capacity.
The prince, speaking at an aviation summit in Riyadh, said the world needed to look at energy security, sustainability and affordability as a whole.
"All mobility fuels have skyrocketed ... and the gap between crude prices and these products in some cases is actually 60%," he said.
The minister did not give comparative figures. But, as an example, the average refining margin for energy major BP (BP.L) was 18.9% in the first quarter of this year compared with 8.7% in the first quarter of 2021.
Asked whether geopolitical events in Europe would speed up the transition to cleaner energy or hinder it in the medium-term, the minister said: "I think it provided us with a reality check to how aspirations ... can be compromised by the realities of the day."
Even before the Ukraine crisis, he added, the "la la land scenario about net-zero had been smacked with so many realities", including cost.
When discussing sustainability goals, the minister used the phrase "low carbon" rather than "zero carbon", saying that was "the difference between la la land and reality".
Full story
The prince, speaking at an aviation summit in Riyadh, said the world needed to look at energy security, sustainability and affordability as a whole.
"All mobility fuels have skyrocketed ... and the gap between crude prices and these products in some cases is actually 60%," he said.
The minister did not give comparative figures. But, as an example, the average refining margin for energy major BP (BP.L) was 18.9% in the first quarter of this year compared with 8.7% in the first quarter of 2021.
Asked whether geopolitical events in Europe would speed up the transition to cleaner energy or hinder it in the medium-term, the minister said: "I think it provided us with a reality check to how aspirations ... can be compromised by the realities of the day."
Even before the Ukraine crisis, he added, the "la la land scenario about net-zero had been smacked with so many realities", including cost.
When discussing sustainability goals, the minister used the phrase "low carbon" rather than "zero carbon", saying that was "the difference between la la land and reality".
Full story
10) And finally: The global warming scare is most certainly overheated
Editorial, Issues & Insights, 10 May 2022
The hot climate models have contributed to a hot mess of climate predictions, which is more feature than bug for the alarmists, who long ago reached the point that they would say anything to further their agenda.
Editorial, Issues & Insights, 10 May 2022
The hot climate models have contributed to a hot mess of climate predictions, which is more feature than bug for the alarmists, who long ago reached the point that they would say anything to further their agenda.
Does anyone wonder where all the global warming destruction is? After all, the media are unrelenting in telling us how much climate change caused by man is affecting us. Yet no existential threat has emerged. There’s something off with the story.
The climate alarmists have based their predictions of doom on computer models that have been projecting global temperature increases, the likes of which, they tell us, are unsustainable. We must cut our carbon dioxide emissions, even if (actually, especially if) it hurts developed world economies.
This is the narrative we’re bombarded with on a daily basis. And it’s wrong.
Those models that have been used to fuel the fright are, without a doubt, unreliable. According to a recent story published in Nature magazine written by a group of climate modelers, “a subset of the newest generation of models are ‘too hot’ and project climate warming in response to carbon dioxide emissions that might be larger than that supported by other evidence.”
The authors, though, are careful to preserve the narrative, warning that “whereas unduly hot outcomes might be unlikely, this does not mean that global warming is not a serious threat.” They can’t help themselves.
While the modelers in the Nature article point specifically to problems with “a subset of the newest generation of models,” it’s obvious that the older models are no better. Last fall we covered a ScienceDaily report which noted that some researchers had concluded “a possible flaw in climate models” had been exposed, as the models failed to reproduce an observed event.
“When the history of climate modeling comes to be written in some distant future,” economist Robert L. Bradley Jr. wrote some months ago for the American Institute for Economic Research, “the major story may well be how the easy, computable answer turned out to be the wrong one, resulting in overestimated warming and false scares from the enhanced (man-made) greenhouse effect.”
Despite claims of models’ near infallibility, their record is tainted:
* Two years ago, a University of Michigan study found “that some of the latest-generation climate models may be overly sensitive to carbon dioxide increases and therefore project future warming that is unrealistically high.”
* In 2017, economist David Henderson and consultant Charles Hooper wrote under the headline “Flawed Climate Models” that the “elaborate computer models that use physics to calculate how energy flows into, through, and out of our planet’s land, water, and atmosphere” have “serious limitations that drastically limit their value in making predictions and in guiding policy.”
* Eight years ago, Reason’s Ronald Bailey wrote about “Ugly Climate Models,” noting that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was unable to “explain the last 15 years.”
“Most temperature records show that since 1998 the models and observed average global temperatures have parted ways,” Bailey wrote. “The temperatures in the models continue to rise, while the real climate has refused to warm up much during the last 15 years.”
Simply averaging the many climate models “to come up with the forecast for warming in the 21st century,” as has been done over and again, is a poor practice, because “there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal.” The modelers behind the Nature article made the same point three years later, emphasizing that it’s appropriate to give “more weight to those that agreed with historical temperature observations.”
A decade ago, Richard Lindzen, then the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences, said real-world observations and the models were not in sync. “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
The hot models have contributed to a hot mess of climate predictions, which is more feature than bug for the alarmists, who long ago reached the point that they would say anything to further their agenda.
The climate alarmists have based their predictions of doom on computer models that have been projecting global temperature increases, the likes of which, they tell us, are unsustainable. We must cut our carbon dioxide emissions, even if (actually, especially if) it hurts developed world economies.
This is the narrative we’re bombarded with on a daily basis. And it’s wrong.
Those models that have been used to fuel the fright are, without a doubt, unreliable. According to a recent story published in Nature magazine written by a group of climate modelers, “a subset of the newest generation of models are ‘too hot’ and project climate warming in response to carbon dioxide emissions that might be larger than that supported by other evidence.”
The authors, though, are careful to preserve the narrative, warning that “whereas unduly hot outcomes might be unlikely, this does not mean that global warming is not a serious threat.” They can’t help themselves.
While the modelers in the Nature article point specifically to problems with “a subset of the newest generation of models,” it’s obvious that the older models are no better. Last fall we covered a ScienceDaily report which noted that some researchers had concluded “a possible flaw in climate models” had been exposed, as the models failed to reproduce an observed event.
“When the history of climate modeling comes to be written in some distant future,” economist Robert L. Bradley Jr. wrote some months ago for the American Institute for Economic Research, “the major story may well be how the easy, computable answer turned out to be the wrong one, resulting in overestimated warming and false scares from the enhanced (man-made) greenhouse effect.”
Despite claims of models’ near infallibility, their record is tainted:
* Two years ago, a University of Michigan study found “that some of the latest-generation climate models may be overly sensitive to carbon dioxide increases and therefore project future warming that is unrealistically high.”
* In 2017, economist David Henderson and consultant Charles Hooper wrote under the headline “Flawed Climate Models” that the “elaborate computer models that use physics to calculate how energy flows into, through, and out of our planet’s land, water, and atmosphere” have “serious limitations that drastically limit their value in making predictions and in guiding policy.”
* Eight years ago, Reason’s Ronald Bailey wrote about “Ugly Climate Models,” noting that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was unable to “explain the last 15 years.”
“Most temperature records show that since 1998 the models and observed average global temperatures have parted ways,” Bailey wrote. “The temperatures in the models continue to rise, while the real climate has refused to warm up much during the last 15 years.”
Simply averaging the many climate models “to come up with the forecast for warming in the 21st century,” as has been done over and again, is a poor practice, because “there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal.” The modelers behind the Nature article made the same point three years later, emphasizing that it’s appropriate to give “more weight to those that agreed with historical temperature observations.”
A decade ago, Richard Lindzen, then the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences, said real-world observations and the models were not in sync. “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
The hot models have contributed to a hot mess of climate predictions, which is more feature than bug for the alarmists, who long ago reached the point that they would say anything to further their agenda.
The London-based Net Zero Watch is a campaign group set up to highlight and discuss the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies. The Net Zero Watch newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.netzerowatch.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment