From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

Possibly one of the dumbest and most scientifically illiterate climate scare stories ever written has been published by the fast-fading UK Sky News. Climate reporter Victoria Seabrook notes that the sea ice on the Arctic “continent” is melting at 12% every decade but she backs it up by publishing a graph clearly showing it has been stable since 2007. She goes on to claim that the Arctic melt will push up sea levels around Britain and fuel worse coastal flooding, seemingly unaware that melting ice in liquid does not raise its level (suggested educational tip, check out ice in a gin and tonic glass). Just for good measure, her silly story throws in the wobbling jet stream and a “shocking” prediction that global temperature could rise by nearly 1°C in just five years.

This story is a classic of its kind – late climate psychosis folderol to back up the collapsing Net Zero fantasy. After decades of relentless mainstream gaslighting, mass audiences are still vaguely concerned that the climate is in some kind of ‘emergency’. Net Zero is retreating around the world, partly because it is increasingly understood that human civilisation cannot abolish the use of hydrocarbons without returning to the dark ages, and partly because nobody is prepared to pay for it when given a choice. But the great climate science con that is the foundation of the collectivist Net Zero lunacy continues, and, if Seabrook’s latest work is an example, it is getting more desperate by the day.

So she publishes the graph below with the misleading 12% decline every decade heading.

There is no attribution but the graph is broadly similar to others showing the September minimum sea ice extent plotted back to 1979 and the start of continuous satellite data. It clearly shows that a short-term decline from the middle of the 1990s was stopped in its tracks from around 2007. Seabrook is not alone in running a linear line down from 1979 and ignoring the individual trends over nearly 40 years of the five decade time period. Countless scare stories feature the declining sea ice and countless accounts fail to note that 1979 was also a cyclical ice high point. There is plenty of evidence to show the combined extent across the seas of the Arctic region was much lower back to the 1950s.

These cherry-picking stories are ubiquitous despite recent work from Dr Mark England of the University of Exeter which noted that the ice had been stable over every month in the year since 2007. In addition, the illustration below from Arctic scientist Allan Astrup Jensen displays the progression of the September sea ice since 1979.

The actual data clearly show a different story to that relayed to the general public by a mainstream media struggling to retain credibility in an information world they no longer control. As Jensen observes, the summer ice plateaued from 1979-97 and then fell for 10 years. Either side of the drop there have been minimal losses, while the last near decade has seen some possible gains.

As well as all this melting sea ice pushing up imaginary sea levels, Seabrook also states it will “shift the jet stream” and disrupt the UK weather system “in ways not fully understood”. Alas, no ‘scientists say’ evidence is provided for this claim, which may not even be relevant given the ice has been on pause for nearly 20 years. A working knowledge of the jet stream high in the northern hemisphere atmosphere is not yet available due to limited observations over relevant time periods. Not yet “fully understood” sums it all up, even though Seabrook claims the UK weather will be disrupted. Of course it will.

Temperature data are always good for a laugh in climate alarmist circles, particularly when they arise from the UK Met Office. When it is not making up temperatures from 103 non-existent sites, the Met Office is promoting figures taken from its largely unnatural heat-ravaged nationwide weather network. Other state-funded meteorological operations, packed full of climate activists, produce similarly corrupted figures and when they are combined to give a global temperature, extreme scepticism is the order of the day. Further homogenisation and convenient retrospective adjustments mean that these datasets have more fiddles in them than the music cupboard at the Royal Philharmonic.

Seabrook picks up on a recent report from the World Meteorological Organisation that is said to forecast a rise in warming from around 1.2°C to 2°C within the next five years. Or, as Seabrook noted in a later X post, “finds” a rise in the warming.

The chance of this rise is said to be “exceptionally unlikely” says Professor Adam Scaife of the Met Office Hadley Centre who worked on the report. But that’s the way you do it – invent a ridiculous clickbait figure to attract attention but then go on to note the “forecast” would have been “effectively impossible” just a few years ago. This is then said in Seabrook’s report to be a sign of how quickly the climate is changing. In the bizarre world of ‘settled’ climate science, an opinion, however improbable, is promoted as a sign of physical change. Professor Scaife is reported to add: “It is shocking in that sense that two degrees is possible. However, it’s not shocking [because] … we thought it might be plausible at this stage, and indeed it is”.

Confected word salad, indicative perhaps of how most climate science has long departed from the traditional scientific process.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor

Forbes posted an article, titled “What You Need To Know About Climate Change In 2025,” which claimed that global warming is causing an increase in severe weather conditions around the world, citing NASA as the source. This is false. Data do not show that severe weather is becoming worse or more common, computer models are just predicting that they may.

After a pretty mild introduction explaining that there is a need for a “new American narrative for talking about climate change,” Forbes makes this set of claims:

“Global warming has consequences for weather. According to NASA, global warming “is impacting extreme weather across the planet. Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe floods, years-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and widespread flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense.” If global warming continues, these effects will be even more severe, such as rising sea levels which could put many U.S. cities underwater by 2050. The year 2050 is often cited by those who study climate change, trying to anticipate its effects and how to mitigate and adapt to global warming. The general scientific consensus is that in order to avoid the most serious consequences of global warming, the temperature rise should be kept to around 2°C or 3.6°F by 2050.”

Climate change by definition has effects on the weather; climate is a statistical construct based on weather patterns over a certain period of time, usually 30 years, but the NASA declaration that Fobes cites is not supported by data that even NASA themselves collect and make public.

This paragraph mentions six extreme weather-related threats, and sea level rise.

While 2023 and 2024 were hot, largely due to the effect of a natural El Niño in the Pacific, there is quite a bit of uncertainty as to whether or not the number and severity of heatwaves are actually increasing.

From a birds’ eye view, looking at the number of 95+ degree days in the United States, most of the country is actually seeing a decline in those very hot days, not an increase. This dataset from the National Climate Assessment indicates that much of the change in average temperatures are driven by a decline in “very cold” days, and warmer nighttime temperatures. (See figure below)

The warming nighttime temperatures are particularly interesting, because this suggests that the urban heat island effect is a factor influencing the temperature readings recorded at surface stations, as described in this Climate Realism guest post.

Regarding rains and flooding, this is again too vague and broad a claim to really drill down on, as increases in flooding could mean something different from one place to another, like an increase in urbanization and problems with local water handling. It is true that the northern hemisphere, especially the mid-latitudes, appear to be seeing higher average precipitation. However, as discussed in this Climate Realism post, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not link rising precipitation to flooding, saying that no connection has emerged from the data. Also, the IPCC doesn’t forecast any flooding signal will emerge in either 2050 or 2100 under even the most extreme climate modelling scenario.

Paradoxically, Forbes also cites NASA to assert that years-long droughts are becoming more frequent and intense, but data specifically refutes this claim. There have been several different regions over the last few years that the media claims have suffered unprecedented droughts, but each time, historical data proves these claims false, showing that more severe and longer lasting droughts have occurred well before modern warming. For example, here are a few different locations Climate Realism discussed: here for the Amazon, here for the American west, and here for the horn of Africa.

Finally we get to wildfires, which is a particularly perplexing claim coming from NASA, considering their own datasets on global wildfires show a decline in global burned area since the early 2000s, as discussed in Climate Realism here. The decline in global wildfires has been recorded and reported by the European Space Agency, as well. (See the graph, below)

Concerning hurricane induced flooding, since data clearly show no increase in the number or severity of hurricanes or tropical storms amid the modest warming of the past century, it is simply a misleading to claim changes in hurricanes are resulting in more flooding. Attempts to determine whether or not recent storms have persisted longer over land than in the past are fraught with uncertainty and unanswered questions, as noted by a variety of expert scientists in the field.

Floods are exacerbated by human habitation and landscape alterations, yes, primarily as a result of infrastructure and land use changes. Poor water management, displaced wetlands, increased subsurface water withdrawal, and increasing amounts of impervious surfaces result in flooding from rainfall amounts that in the past would not have resulted in flooding. Attribution to climate change is unwarranted, with such claims often relying entirely upon climate modelling based on many questionable built-in assumptions, rather than real world data and trends. On the question of flooding, once again the IPCC finds no changes in pluvial (surface water) flooding related to precipitation.

Climate Realism has covered the complex issues concerning rising sea levels on multiple occasions, here, here, and here, as a few samples. Seas are rising, but not at historically unusual rates. Any increase in coastal flooding is, once again, due to land compaction and subsidence, ground water withdrawal, and increased development being put in harms way.

Late in the Forbes article, its author admits that the climate issue is “an extremely complex one and it has become highly politicized in the U.S.,” and that there is “substantial variance in opinion about how serious of a problem it is now and will be in the future, what and how much should be done about it, who is responsible for dealing with it, and what costs should be incurred and by whom to address it.” Gone is the certainty portrayed earlier in the article, and rightly so. That there is an active debate concerning the causes and consequences of climate change is true and the author is right that each person will have to decide for themselves how seriously to take the threat and what the appropriate response might be.

All in all, the Forbes piece is pretty vague and innocuous outside of the false confidence projected of increasing severe weather based on some claims made by NASA that the author cites as authoritative. The conditions that they say are getting more frequent and severe are not in fact doing so, at least if one believes the available historical and modern data. While Forbes’ writers and editors may feel unqualified to disagree with claims the cite from NASA, they should at least have the journalistic integrity to ask the right questions and check the available data for themselves.

Complicating the IPCC with Miskolczi’s Radiative Equilibrium Theory

Ferenc Miskolczi’s 2023 paper challenges the IPCC’s framework by proposing that the Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant flux optical thickness (τ ≈ 1.867), keeping OLR stable at 240 W/m2 despite rising CO2 levels. Using NOAA-R1 radiosonde data (1948–2008), Miskolczi shows that water vapour (H2O) decreases as CO2 increases (Figures 10 and 11), suggesting a negative feedback: H2O reductions make the atmosphere more transparent to LWIR, offsetting CO2’s radiative forcing. His HARTCODE simulations (Figure 9) yield an effective feedback of -2.54 W/m2/K, lower than the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K due to atmospheric absorption (A = 1 – e^-τ ≈ 0.85). However, the decreasing H2O trend implies that τ may decline over time, potentially increasing the feedback closer to -3.3 W/m2/K. Miskolczi’s theory complicates the IPCC’s narrative by prioritising the hydrological cycle over CO2, suggesting that negative feedbacks dominate, potentially reducing ECS far below the IPCC’s estimate.

Comparing with Satellite Measurements: A Reality Check

Satellite measurements from AIRS and IASI (2003–2021) provide a critical test of Miskolczi’s claims. These instruments show a decreasing OLR trend of -0.05 to -0.3% per year in CO2 and CH4 spectral bands, equating to a reduction of -2.16 to -12.96 W/m2 over 18 years. By 2021, global mean OLR may have dropped to 235–238 W/m2, reflecting increased greenhouse gas trapping, which contradicts Miskolczi’s assertion of OLR stability at 240 W/m2. Additionally, AIRS estimates a clear-sky feedback of -2.2 W/m2/K, closer to Miskolczi’s -2.54 W/m2/K than the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K, suggesting real-world feedbacks may be weaker due to atmospheric dynamics like clouds. However, satellites also show increasing H2O with warming, challenging Miskolczi’s negative feedback from decreasing H2O. This discrepancy highlights a tension: while Miskolczi’s framework captures some radiative balance aspects, recent observations suggest greenhouse gases are reducing OLR, aligning more with the IPCC’s view of positive feedbacks.

Proposing a New Hypothesis: Dynamic Hydrological Feedback with Regional Variability

Reconciling these perspectives, I propose a new hypothesis: the Earth’s climate system is governed by a dynamic hydrological feedback with regional variability, where the IPCC’s Planck feedback (-3.3 W/m2/K) acts as the initial stabiliser, but water vapour’s role varies spatially and temporally.

In regions where H2O decreases (as Miskolczi’s data suggests), negative feedback enhances the Planck response, potentially increasing the effective feedback to -3.3 W/m2/K or higher by reducing τ.

In contrast, regions with increasing H2O (per satellite data) exhibit positive feedback, reducing OLR and aligning with the IPCC’s narrative.

Globally, these competing effects may average to a feedback closer to AIRS’s -2.2 W/m2/K, suggesting an ECS of ~1.7 K (3.7 / 2.2), lower than the IPCC’s 3 K but higher than Miskolczi’s near-zero warming. This hypothesis accounts for satellite-observed OLR decreases while integrating Miskolczi’s insights on hydrological regulation, proposing that regional H2O trends—rather than a uniform global response—drive climate sensitivity.

Conclusion

Miskolczi’s work, particularly Figure 9, illustrates radiative transfer functions that modulate OLR, while satellite data reveals the complexity of real-world trends. My hypothesis builds on the IPCC’s -3.3 W/m2/K feedback, incorporates Miskolczi’s hydrological insights, and addresses satellite observations by emphasizing regional variability in H2O feedbacks. This perspective challenges the IPCC’s uniform positive feedback assumption and Miskolczi’s strict OLR stability, offering a nuanced view of climate regulation that warrants further research into regional hydrological dynamics.

This new hypothesis is Plank#4 of my new Theory of Climate Resilience.

This was due to be shared on Friday of this week at Substack, but taking Willis Eschenbach’s advice about being open to constructive criticism more generally, I’m putting it out a bit early and at my blog, to see what constructive criticism are thrown up in advance.

References

IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://ift.tt/OeVZDdz.

Miskolczi, F. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Theories and Observed Radiative Properties of the Earth’s Atmosphere. Science of Climate Change, 3(3). DOI: https://ift.tt/pl1mzSH.

From MasterResource

By Kassie Andrews

Editor’s Note: Trump Administration beware! This two-part backgrounder warns DOE Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin that their June 3, 2025, participation at Governor Mike Dunleavy’s fourth annual Sustainable Energy Conference is a set-up for Alaska’s Green New Deal. A course reversal for this state’s energy policy is in order.

Part II walks through my own testimony (Part I) against Alaska’s proposed Renewable Portfolio Standard; the hoops I had to jump through just to get my written remarks added to the public record; and the telling exchange I had with one of the main activists pushing this nonsense.  Spoiler: there’s been no official response or acknowledgement to the damning context they asked for—just the usual dodge-and-disappear routine.

After checking the Alaska Legislature website under the bill documents, I discovered my testimony was not posted.  This is not the first time I had witnessed this on testimony opposing legislation this session.  I followed up to house.energy@akleg.gov, cc’ing Rep. Ky Holland

May 7th, 2025: Subject: FW Opposition to HB 153

I am writing to respectfully note that my opposition letter does not appear to have been included in the public documents for HB 153. I submitted it on April 12th and would appreciate confirmation that it was received and properly entered into the record.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kassie Andrews

5/7/2025 – Representative Ky Holland responded very quickly, appearing irritated that his legislation was stalling due to economic realities and a lack of immediate support from the co-ops:

I’ve asked the committee aides (Shaina and Ariel) to check to see if this is in the record. As I assume you know we suspended consideration of amendments for HB153 to see if we could get the utilities to go on record with their input on the bills. They are not ready, though a couple have since had some meetings to advance their consideration and feedback. As a result we are going to hold some hearings this summer when the utilities are ready; and I hope when the uncertainty around tariffs on equipment for energy projects, and federal pauses on funding programs and energy credits are sorted out.

I had no idea when we introduced the bill the world would get turned so upside down or that the gasline would get the support of tariff based bargaining and federal mandates for support. Sort of strikes me as another version of federal mandates to incentivize desired outcome, but in this case it’s being used for an alternative outcome. It think it’s just ironic to see folks opposed to government actions to incentive renewables; and then to see the response to be new government actions to force non-renewables…

Are you following the Senate version of the bill? Its the same as our original bill at this point and had its first hearing today. They will also be holding future hearings and advancing their bill to something closer to our current house version that has the changes we’ve developed with the utility advice. Here is a link to today Senate hearing – Alaska State Legislature

5/8/2025 – The Energy Committee Aide, Shaina Kilcoyne—seemingly the brains behind this bill (she presented it to the committee and fielded questions)—responds about the missing testimony:

May 8th, 2025: Subject: RE Opposition to HB 153

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I actually was looking through them just yesterday and saw that it was missing but didn’t see it in our energy folder either. I will make sure this gets fixed today. I apologize for this.

Shaina Kilcoyne Energy Committee Aide [Office of Rep. Holland, House District 9, Office 418]

5/8/2025 – Shaina responds again to let me know that my testimony has been uploaded onto the state website and will be printed for the committee members.  I didn’t know they did that!  Learn something new every day. 

May 8th, 2025: Subject: RE Opposition to HB 153

Your letter is now uploaded in Basis and I will have printed copies for the committee members today.

5/8/2025 – Shaina responds for the third time in about two hours—this time asking for sources on Winter Storm Uri that I referenced in my testimony. Then she offers her two cents on what she thinks happened, likely because it looks terrible to have clear links between renewable mandates, overreliance on intermittent renewables, centralized planning failures, and the very bill they’re scrambling to convince the public to accept—acknowledging that reality would completely undermine the policy they’re pushing.

Could you please share your source on the Texas outage that you reference? There has been substantial review of what caused the outage and I understand it was largely due to a lack of weatherization of gas plants – they were not able to deliver fuel to power the plants and some wells were unable to produce as much natural gas due to the freezing conditions. Here’s an article from the Texas Tribune about the storm.

There’s actually a podcast called the Disconnect: Power, Politics and the Texas Blackout – it offered a deep dive with some heart wrenching stories of people living through the storm.

Thanks for sharing any new resources.

5/8/2025 – My response addresses the ongoing issues with public testimony this session and responds to Shaina’s request for sources on Winter Storm Uri.  Here, I lay out the “why behind the why” – because this isn’t a cut and dry situation, and pretending it is only serves to obscure the bigger picture.  In the end, I requested that my response, along with Shaina’s original question on Uri be attached to the permanent record for sake of transparency.  Will they post it?  That remains to be seen.

Before I begin, I’d like to point out that this is not the first time that testimony in opposition to legislation has failed to appear in the public record this session. My husband’s testimony, and that of several friends, was also not entered into the system on another bill they opposed. It raises a fair question: how does this keep happening? And while no one is making accusations, it is beginning not to feel like a coincidence, especially when many Alaskans assume their input is recorded and don’t have the time to constantly verify it. That kind of inconsistency erodes trust in what is supposed to be an open and accountable process.

Thank you for your question on Winter Storm Uri. It’s a common misconception that natural gas “failed” during Winter Storm Uri simply because of a lack of weatherization. The deeper and more complex issue was how gas was treated in Texas’s market structure.

Natural gas wasn’t prioritized as firm baseload power – it was treated as a backup to heavily subsidized wind and solar. When those intermittent sources collapsed, there wasn’t enough reliable generation online to fill the gap. Gas plants couldn’t ramp up because they weren’t running- they weren’t warm, pressurized or ready. As the supplied FERC/NERC report notes: “Most of the natural gas production and processing facilities surveyed were not identified as critical loads or otherwise protected from manual load shedding.”

Yes, frozen equipment was a factor, but why was the system so compromised? It’s because of how distorted the ERCOT market has become. Wind and solar, through federal production tax credits, can bid negative prices into the market and still profit. This undercuts gas, coal and nuclear, draining margins and making it unprofitable to build or maintain firm capacity. And worse: Revenues are siphoned off by unreliable generation schemes rather than invested in resilient, baseload infrastructure. The co-ops are expected to make up the difference—we will be paying more, while being told that these unreliable sources are somehow “cheap.” That is the “why behind the why.” In Texas, resource adequacy was hollowed out long before the storm hit.

Add to that the flawed assumption from climate models that Texas winters would trend warmer—not colder. Relying on these forecasts, ERCOT did not mandate proper winterization or spinning reserve planning. When reality hit, the system collapsed.

This wasn’t a natural gas failure—it was policy failure, compounded by the failure of centralized planning. A politically micromanaged grid, riddled with subsides, mandates, and misaligned incentives cannot respond to real world stress. At the core of that failure was the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which artificially accelerated the build out of wind and solar without requiring firm backup, reliability standards, or adequate storage. It distorted the market, hollowed out dispatchable capacity, and left the system vulnerable, as if it was intended sabotage. That’s exactly why we must not replicate this in Alaska. Resilient energy policy starts with prioritizing reliability, not ideological agendas or top-down energy experiments.

For transparency, I would appreciate it if the committee was provided with and reviewed both Shaina’s original question and this full response in context and that it becomes part of the permanent public record for this bill. The back-and-and forth helps illuminate why these issues matter so deeply to Alaskans concerned about grid stability and affordability.

Sources:

https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/Cold%20Weather%20Report_%202021_120821.pdf

https://www.masterresource.org/windpower-problems/texas-windpower-negative-

pricing-neeley/

Prescient warnings back in 2012:

https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/06/renewable-incentives-spark-debate

I hope this sheds some light on a complex issue and encourages thinking beyond partisan lines.

5/9/2025 – The latest (and so far, final) response thanks me for bringing the missing testimony to their attention and for providing information on the Texas outage.  However, there was no acknowledgement of my request to include my response and Shaina’s question in the permanent record.  Hopefully, the process still works as intended and partisanship takes a back seat; after all, Representative Holland is registered as an “independent.”  

May 9th, 2025 at 10:10 AM: Opposition to HB 153

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It alerted us to a miscommunication gap in our process, which we are working to fix. Thank you for the information on the Texas outage. I look forward to reviewing this.

Conclusion

Part I and Part II have laid out the political machinery powering Alaska’s “Sustainable Energy” Conference, a carefully curated showcase for the Green New Deal rebranded. Key figures from the Trump Administration (DOE Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin) are scheduled to take center stage during a June 3rd lunch presentation at Governor Mike Dunleavy’s fourth annual Sustainable Energy Conference. They have some correcting to do to align state energy policy to national policy.

The fix is in regarding this conference, the plan being to showcase the Trump officials and then get down to Green New Deal business. Immediately following their remarks, a “micro networking break” on carbon management and nature based solutions: greenwashed language to push carbon credit schemes, land use restrictions, and bureaucratic control under the guise of sustainable development. 

As for the rest of the conference?  A green parade of panels on financing wind and solar, advancing carbon capture, integrating renewables, and sustainable aviation fuels.  Meanwhile, just 75 minutes out of a three-day conference are dedicated to the only truly sustainable energy sector in Alaska, oil and gas- with coal not even mentioned once.

It’s worth remembering:  in 2022, Republican Governor Dunleavy introduced a Renewable Portfolio Standard mandating that Alaska generate 80 percent of its energy by 2040—a statist policy that he set in motion, and one that ENGOs and dark-money-funded leftist activists are all now too eager to run with.

This is far from a balanced energy conference.  It’s a soft rollout of a climate agenda most Alaskan’s never voted for.  One can only hope that Trump’s team does their homework because what is on the agenda doesn’t match what most of us thought we signed up for.