The latest theory on X is that Bill Clinton caused the Texas flooding. (1) Concerned Citizen on X: “Nothing to see here, just the young CEO of Rainmaker Augustus Doricko hanging out with Bill Clinton https://t.co/1FKL3AO87H” / X
via Real Climate Science
July 11, 2025 at 12:43PM
The tragedy on the Guadalupe River in Texas is as shocking and sad as it gets. A flash flood took the lives of at least 100 people, including many children, at a popular Christian summer camp held in the floodplain. Climate alarmists and ghoulish politicians were quick to blame both climate change and budget and staffing cuts by President Trump for the loss of life.
The truth is, the federal agency responsible for issuing flash flood warnings did its job and confirmed it had sufficient staffing. Flash floods are a regular occurrence in the Texas Hill Country, with that very same floodplain experiencing a similar tragedy in the 1980s. The attempts to politicize this tragedy and use it to advance the climate agenda are disgusting and wrong.
On episode #164 of The Climate Realism Show, we bring you the facts.
The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week with special guests Myron Ebell and Steve Milloy.
What changes are afoot in climate and energy policy thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill signed into law by President Trump on July 4? Why are climate alarmists so obsessed (and wrong) about bees? And Bill Nye is up to his tired old tricks again, blaming the Texas floods on our use of fossil fuels.
Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X, and drop your questions in the chat for our panel to answer.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
via Watts Up With That?
July 11, 2025 at 11:31AM
By Paul Homewood
In its latest Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirms the consequences of nearly two decades of failed energy policy. Not deliberately, of course. The document is written in the passive, data-heavy language of technocratic forecasters. But read carefully, and one thing becomes abundantly clear: Britain has built an energy system that cannot support its economy – and now the entire fiscal architecture is buckling under the strain.
For years, the political class convinced itself that energy was a secondary concern. What mattered was hitting targets, making announcements, and aligning with the global climate consensus. Meanwhile, fundamental issues such as intermittency were treated as mere afterthoughts. Affordability became someone else’s problem. And firm, dispatchable energy – the stuff that actually keeps the economy running – was quietly sidelined. Even as the cost of living has emerged in recent years as the defining political issue – surpassing climate change, migration, and even the NHS – Westminster persists.
Now the bill has arrived.
The OBR doesn’t shout about it, but the facts are there. Britain’s economic growth is anaemic. Inflation has proven more stubborn than expected. Interest payments on government debt are higher and more volatile than in peer economies. And the government has spent tens of billions responding to crises, with less and less room to manoeuvre each time. You don’t have to squint to see what connects these trends: myopic energy policy has made each one worse.
When the global energy crisis hit in 2022, the UK was uniquely vulnerable. The government was forced to spend £40 billion just to prevent household and business collapse. Not because markets failed, but because Britain had spent the previous decade dismantling its own resilience. It blew up coal-fired power stations. It shuttered gas storage. It blocked domestic production, including banning onshore gas. It let nuclear capacity wither. All while deepening its dependence on low-density, weather-dependent technologies with no serious plan for backup.
The £40 billion spent shielding households and businesses from the energy crisis was the fiscal consequence of a system built on fragility, which left us dangerously exposed to geopolitical shocks such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting spike in gas prices.
But instead of learning the lesson – including the need to invest in firm baseload, large-scale storage, and domestic hydrocarbon supply – the government is entrenching the problem. Miliband’s “clean power by 2030” mission will make the grid more dependent on intermittent generation while deterring investment from vital firm generation capacity. As the respected energy academic Professor Dieter Helm has warned, this rushed strategy is likely to drive up system and network costs, forcing consumers to pay more for an energy system that delivers less reliability and security.
The OBR puts the central government cost of Net Zero mitigation at £803 billion over 25 years – roughly 0.8% of GDP annually. That may sound a lot, but it’s a cautious figure built on highly uncertain assumptions. It excludes household and private sector costs, which could be ten times as much. It assumes smooth delivery and no overruns. And it’s based in part on data from the Climate Change Committee, which has already revised its own estimates down by 65% – not because the transition got cheaper, but because the modelling changed.
In short, it’s not that the number is too high but that it’s probably too low. A best-case forecast in a worst-case world.
Britain has pursued an energy model that is physically fragile and economically inefficient – but politically untouchable. Rightly, that model is now being exposed.
Unfortunately, it is about to get a lot worse. Every structural weakness the OBR identifies – low growth, stubborn inflation, rising debt, persistent deficits – will be made harder to fix by an energy system that demands ever more subsidy, ever more intervention, and delivers ever less reliability.
The political class has spent years ignoring this reality. The OBR, to its credit, cannot. Its spreadsheets may be bloodless, but the message is unmistakable: Britain is in trouble and energy policy is a primary reason why.
The question now isn’t whether the model has failed. It has. The question is whether anyone in power is prepared to admit it and build something better before the next crisis makes that impossible.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
July 11, 2025 at 10:43AM
52.07999 -2.80241 Met Office CIMO assessed Class 4 Installed 1/9/1999
One glance at the above site image indicates this is not Hereford itself. Originally RAF Credenhill it is now known as “Stirling Lines” and home to the SAS. It is obviously not generally open to public inspection. It is also not a good site but it is currently being touted for a July hotspot figure.
The Met Office assesses this site as lowly Class 4 contrary to Tim Channon’s original Class 2 report. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/wmo03522-hereford-credenhill/
I feel Tim called that wrong in not considering the immediate topography and only concentrating on the hedge and boundary lines.
That embankment is the first warning sign of things not being as they really should be and highlighted by hache marks on the Ordnance survey sheet.
The entire site is artificially levelled with the weather station at the end of the rugby pitch immediately in front of the embankment works. This is remarkably reminiscent of the Pitsford site which is similarly prone to over-recording from thermals around embankments. Today and this coming weekend 11th July has the Met Office over ventilating and hyping up the a warm weather period as the “Third heatwave of the “season”. Weatherobs currently shows a high in the Hereford vicinity. at 14:00 11/7/2025.
The stand out issue here though follows on from my RNAS Culdrose report. The SAS are the Special Air Service after all and this is a major training facility. The headline image shows the helicopter use of the area and it is very obvious that helicopter rotor wash has major effects on temperature readings readily. A record can easily inadvertently occur from being picked up by a fast reacting PRT reading – the temptation to “engineer” such an event must be very great! Looking at this site in 2D indicates the likely take off and landing paths of the helicopters.
All put together this is yet again an unsuitable site for contributing readings to the national historic temperature record……but could prove very useful for other more dramatic purposes.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
July 11, 2025 at 08:33AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 