Category: Daily News

US to revise its past national climate reports


How dare they, wail the alarmist factions of the media! The days of claiming ‘the science is settled’ are over, in the US at least. Human causation of warming reverts to a theory.
– – –
US President Donald Trump’s administration is revising past editions of the nation’s premier climate report—its latest move to undermine the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, claims Phys.org.

The decision, announced by Energy Secretary Chris Wright during a CNN appearance Tuesday night, follows the government’s revocation of the Endangerment Finding, a scientific determination that underpins a host of regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins why previous editions of the National Climate Assessment were no longer available online, former fracking company CEO Wright responded: “Because we’re reviewing them, and we will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those.”
. . .
Previous editions warned in stark terms of mounting risks to America’s economy, infrastructure, and public health if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed. But in April, the administration moved to dismiss the hundreds of scientists working on the sixth edition.

Under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, the government is legally obligated to deliver the climate assessment to Congress and the president.

Full article here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/OhKMX3k

August 8, 2025 at 03:42AM

Mother Jones (2009): Institute for Energy Research/American Energy Alliance

“IER/AEA have thousands of individual donors, reflecting the intellectual case for a free market and the goodness of civil society. This is a proud fact.”

A Mother Jones article from 15 years read: “Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.” And number 12 of the “dirty dozen” was the educational nonprofit Institute of Energy Research and its advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance.

IER/AEA would surely make the list today–or ranked higher. This is a badge of honor. The message of classical liberalism applied to energy remains strong and consistent. Consumers matter. Taxpayers matter. Energy resource efficiency matters. Respect for the energy decisions of voluntarily consenting adults matter.

Here is the piece by Josh Harkinson from December 5, 2009, verbatim, with my critical comments.

Robert Bradley, the CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, is a former director of policy analysis at Enron, where he once wrote speeches for Ken Lay. While most experts blame Enron’s failure on a lack of government oversight, Bradley cites too much government meddling. In his new book, Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy, he writes that Enron’s collapse “is yet another case of unintended consequences from government intervention.”

Comment: Yes. And see here and here for summaries of my thesis.

Bradley is now committed to keeping the government from regulating carbon. His 2003 book, Climate Alarmism Reconsidered, argues that carbon dioxide “is not a pollutant but a building block of a living and vibrant biosphere.” He’s even willing to diss his former employer to make his point, suggesting that CO2 foes are as self-centered as Enron was when it pushed for a climate treaty and subsidies for its wind and solar divisions. “The ‘green’ energy crusade that Enron in some ways fathered is much more about corporate welfare than true energy sustainability,” he writes.

Comment: Correct again, and more so today.

Since April, IER’s advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance, has been airing television ads in the districts of key members of Congress, stressing the potential costs of Waxman-Markey. One ad claimed that an MIT study found that the bill “could cost our families more than $3,100 per year in new taxes.” But the author of the study, professor John Reilly, has said that the number was a misrepresentation of his work and “just wrong.” Confronted with that response, Bradley replied that Reilly had since confirmed to the Weekly Standard “that households will in fact pay this amount.” But Reilly told me that his estimate of Waxman-Markey’s true cost is just $223 per household by 2020 and maintained that the use of the larger number “was incorrect.” Other AEA ads have been called out for similar distortions.

The IER’s American Energy Freedom Center is chaired by former Virginia Sen. George “Macaca” Allen. Thomas Pyle, the president of the American Energy Alliance, was a policy analyst for former Rep. Tom DeLay before becoming director of federal affairs for Koch Industries.

Correct: And Mr. Pyle is a classical liberal, not a lobbyist for any particular energy and technology. Consumers in a free market decide the business configuration with taxpayers neutral.

In 2007, the most recent year for which tax filings are available, IER had a budget of nearly $1 million. In May, the Guardian reported that IER has received donations from Exxon, KBR, and trusts set up by Koch. Asked who funds the Institute for Energy Research, Bradley would say only that its money comes from “individuals, foundations, and corporations—including energy companies.”

Comment: IER/AEA have thousands of individual donors, reflecting the intellectual case for a free market and the goodness of civil society. This is a proud fact.

Appendix: The Twelve

  1. ExxonMobil
  2. Lord Christopher Monckton
  3. American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
  4. Plants Need CO2
  5. American Petroleum Institute/Energy Citizens
  6. Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
  7. The Heartland Institute
  8. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change)
  9. FreedomWorks
  10. Tennessee Center for Policy Research
  11. Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security 
  12. Institute for Energy Research/American Energy Alliance

The post Mother Jones (2009): Institute for Energy Research/American Energy Alliance appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/PzTb6yV

August 8, 2025 at 01:09AM

New Study: A City’s Industry Center, Airport Up To 12°C Warmer Than Nearby Forests, Vegetation

From the NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 7. August 2025

The urban heat island effect adds far more non-climatic heat to temperature station records than can be reliably controlled for.

An analysis of 10 cities from across the globe (Kara and Yavuz, 2025) reveals airports and industry centers are, on average, 2.5°C to 2.8°C warmer than neighboring green spaces.

“Airports exhibited a mean daytime land surface temperature (LST) that was 2.5 °C higher than surrounding areas, while industrial zones demonstrated an even greater temperature disparity, with an average increase of 2.81 °C.”

The urban heat island effect can leave airports and industrial centers as much as 12°C warmer than nearby vegetated, forested areas.

“Mexico City’s green spaces are up to 12.13 °C cooler than its urban core.”

Warming trends in recent decades are generally confined to urban areas, whereas non-urban areas have been cooling. For example, from 2001-2021 urban areas warmed +0.04°C/yr, but vegetated, bareland, and water body areas cooled -0.07°C, -0.03°C, -0.04°C/yr, respectively, in the city of Chongqing.

“In contrast, cold spots characterized by dense vegetation showed a notable cooling effect, with LST differences reaching −3.7 °C. Similarly, proximity to water bodies contributed to temperature mitigation, as areas near significant water sources recorded lower daytime LST differences, averaging −4.09 °C.”

Image Source: Kara and Yavuz, 2025


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/RpGmT6F

August 8, 2025 at 12:01AM

South American Cold Underscores Role of Oil and Gas

By Vijay Jayaraj

In July, a bone-chilling cold wave swept across South America, plunging nations like Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay into an energy crisis that laid bare the fragility of their power systems. Record-low temperatures, driven by an Antarctic air mass, pushed electricity grids to the brink, forced governments to ration gas, and left thousands without power for over a day.

This brutal winter exposed a stark truth: South America’s energy infrastructure, strained by poverty and uneven development, cannot afford to gamble on unreliable sources like wind and solar. For nations striving to lift millions out of poverty by boosting economic growth, abundant oil and gas offer the only practical path to surviving harsh winters and securing a prosperous future.

Grip of Antarctic Cold

Snow blanketed Mar del Plata, Argentina, for the first time in 34 years, while the Atacama Desert, the world’s driest region, saw rare snowfall. Buenos Aires shivered at minus 1.9 degrees Celsius – the city’s coldest since 1991. Suburbs like El Palomar dropped to minus 7.4 degrees Celsius for the first time in decades. On June 30, Chile and Argentina ranked among the planet’s coldest spots outside polar regions.

The sudden, massive demand for electricity and heating fuel was entirely predictable for such weather. Yet, the system could not cope. Widespread power cuts rolled across the region, leaving thousands of households without electricity for more than 24 hours. Imagine the discomfort – even terror – of a family huddled together in freezing temperatures as the lights go out, unsure of when warmth and safety would return.

South America’s energy grids, particularly in Argentina, suffer from high transmission losses – up to 15-20% in some regions. Adding intermittent sources like wind and solar, which regularly falter under extreme weather, only compounds the problem. During the July crisis, solar panels were useless under snow and wind turbines struggled in erratic conditions.

In these moments, there is no wind turbine, no solar installation, no climate directive that could save the continent. It was fossil fuels – gas- and coal-fired generation and diesel heating units – that kept the lights on and the cold at bay. That’s the reality.

Studies show “most of the temperature-related mortality in Central and South American countries is caused by cold … generating annual economic losses of $2.1 billion.”

In Argentina, for instance, frigid temperatures claim a staggering number of lives – more than 60,000 annually, which is seven times the number attributed to heat. Chile tells a similar story, with 47,800 lost to cold compared to a mere 4,500 to heat. These figures provide an undeniable testament to a globally observed reality: Cold, not warmth, is humanity’s greatest climate-related killer.

Resist Opposition to Oil and Gas Development

The priority should be to generate massive amounts of cheap and reliable power. Fortunately, South America is sitting on a treasure chest of oil and gas resources.

Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale formation holds more than 300 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil and condensate resources. That’s more than enough to power for decades South America’s Southern Cone, a region below the Tropic of Capricorn that includes Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Adding to this energy bounty are Brazil’s and Guyana’s offshore fields.

Global energy analysts project that South America will be responsible for an astounding 80% of the growth in global oil production outside OPEC and the United States over the next five years. Even Brazil’s President, Lula da Silva, often portrayed as a champion of the climate movement, recently gave the green light to a controversial, but economically essential, drilling campaign in the Foz do Amazonas basin.

This kind of development holds the promise of energy independence, economic prosperity, and a permanent shield against the sort of crisis witnessed this July.

The antithesis of this is the Net Zero movement, which operates from the boardrooms of European banks and Ivy League campuses with no connection to the streets of Montevideo or the rural plains of La Pampa. The working families of South America need jobs, heating, food, and public transport more than abstract carbon metrics.

Any attempt to derail South America’s progress in the energy sector must be met with fierce opposition from policymakers and the public alike.

The Antarctic cold wave was a reminder of both nature’s unpredictability and the continent’s potential. With courage and clarity, the region can harness its oil and gas wealth to build a future where no one is left in the cold – literally or economically.

This commentary was first published by BizPacReview on August 7, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/UiCMg1G

August 7, 2025 at 08:07PM