By Paul Homewood
From Matt Ridley on X:
Read the full story here.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
July 30, 2025 at 03:30AM
Category: Daily News
By Paul Homewood
Excellent news from the US:
The Trump administration has announced a plan to scrap a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, severely curbing the federal government’s ability to combat climate change.
Known as the "Endangerment Finding", the 2009 order from then-President Barack Obama allowed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create rules to limit pollution by setting emissions standards.
The US is a major contributor to global climate change, and ranks second only to China which emits more planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide – and the US still emits more per person.
Experts have warned that the move could have a devastating impact on the environment.
President Donald Trump has long argued that climate regulations stifle US economic growth, and on his first day back in office in January ordered that the EPA submit recommendations "on the legality and continuing applicability" of the Endangerment Finding.
The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" – meaning that the EPA has the authority and responsibility to regulate them under the US Clean Air Act.
In 2009, the EPA made an official decision, the Endangerment Finding, which found that greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as cars, power plants and factories cause climate change and could pose a public health risk.
The decision forms the core of the federal government’s authority to impose limits on carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases.
In a statement, the EPA said that, if finalised, the move will save Americans $54bn (£40bn) in costs annually through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards, including an electric vehicle mandate passed by the Biden administration.
Speaking in an episode of the conservative "Ruthless" podcast released on Tuesday, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the move was "basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion".
Zeldin said that emissions standards were a "distraction" and that the policy change was "an economic issue". "Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America," he said.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
July 30, 2025 at 03:17AM
By Paul Homewood
If you are with Octopus, don’t fall for their payments scam:
They send me emails like this every few months:
Hello Paul,
We continually review your account balance and monthly payments to help keep your account on track, and it looks like your current payments might not be enough to keep your account healthy, so we’re suggesting an increase to your monthly payments.
We’re increasing your payments to £243.59 a month, starting from 12 August.
The increase is based on a combination of:
- Your current energy usage
- Your current balance
- The future costs of your energy
Our Balance Forecast tool can help you see how your monthly payments affect your account balance over time — if you’re thinking of changing your monthly payments you should take a look first. If you’d like to set your payments to a different amount, you can do that on your account.
If you’re happy with our recommendations, you don’t need to do anything. We’ll adjust your payments automatically, starting from 12 August.
Currently my account is in credit, and by the end of summer will be about £200 in credit. I am also on a 12-month fixed contract which expires in September.
Naturally over the winter months, usage will go up and put my account into the red, but over the year as a whole it averages out – my payment of £220 a month is actually slightly higher than my usage.
What Octopus want is for my account to be permanently in credit, in order to provide them with interest free finance.
It is actually very easy to go into your account and change the payment back again, but most people don’t realise this or will bother.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
July 30, 2025 at 03:00AM
“This report supports a more nuanced and evidence-based approach for informing climate policy that explicitly acknowledges uncertainties…. [I]t will be important to make realistic assumptions about future emissions, re-evaluate climate models to address biases and uncertainties, and clearly acknowledge the limitations of extreme event attribution studies … for informed and effective decision-making.”
The Climate Working Group of the U.S. Department of Energy (John Christy, Ph.D.; Judith Curry, Ph.D.; Steven Koonin, Ph.D.; Ross McKitrick, Ph.D.; Roy Spencer, Ph.D.) published a new study that injects realism and humility into the politicized, climate-model-driven debate. This 141-page summary of CO2 science, climate science, climate economics, and related public policy reverses the John Holdren et al. bias of prior like reports.
The executive summary and conclusion from “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” (July 23, 2025) follow.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and selected metrics of societal well-being. Those emissions are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere through a complex and variable carbon cycle, where some portion of the additional CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries.
Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity [Section 2.1, Chapter 9]. They also make the oceans less alkaline (lower the pH). That is possibly detrimental to coral reefs, although the recent rebound of the Great Barrier Reef suggests otherwise [Section 2.2].
Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas, exerting a warming influence on climate and weather [Section 3.1]. Climate change projections require scenarios of future emissions. There is evidence that scenarios widely-used in the impacts literature have overstated observed and likely future emission trends [Section 3.1].
The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration
ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C [Section 4.2]. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range [Section 4.3]. Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and mid troposphere [Sections 5.2-5.4]. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme
scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.
Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data [Sections 6.1-6.7].
Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity [Section 6.8]. Global sea level has risen approximately 8 inches since 1900, but there are significant regional variations driven primarily by local land subsidence; U.S. tide gauge measurements in aggregate show no obvious acceleration in sea level rise beyond the historical average rate [Chapter 7].
Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies [Chapter 8]. Moreover, solar activity’s contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated [Section 8.3.1].
Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial [Chapters 9, 10, Section 11.1]. Social Cost of Carbon estimates, which attempt to quantify the economic damage of CO2 emissions, are highly sensitive to their underlying assumptions and so provide limited independent information [Section 11.2].
U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays [Chapter 12].
Concluding Thoughts
This report supports a more nuanced and evidence-based approach for informing climate policy that explicitly acknowledges uncertainties. The risks and benefits of a climate changing under both natural and
human influences must be weighed against the costs, efficacy, and collateral impacts of any “climate action”, considering the nation’s need for reliable and affordable energy with minimal local pollution.
Beyond continuing precise, uninterrupted observations of the global climate system, it will be important to make realistic assumptions about future emissions, re-evaluate climate models to address biases and uncertainties, and clearly acknowledge the limitations of extreme event attribution studies.
An approach that acknowledges both the potential risks and benefits of CO2, rather than relying on flawed models and extreme scenarios, is essential for informed and effective decision-making.
The post Climate Science Reset at the U.S. Department of Energy (realism, not alarmism) appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
July 30, 2025 at 01:07AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 