Of course ‘green’ in climate alarmist terms is a sales pitch adjective giving the illusion of some kind of harmony with nature, when the truth is far from any of that. This chief still sees some advantage in appearing to play along with the climate game though, despite his oil industry position.
– – –
The head of OPEC has argued that the term “green” is too simplistic and fails to capture the complexities of energy production, warning that it obscures the real-world impacts of different energy sources, reports Energy Live News.

In an opinion piece, Haitham Al Ghais, Secretary General of OPEC, questioned whether the word “green” should even be used when discussing energy, arguing that it implies perfection and dismisses the trade-offs involved in different energy choices.

It is a simple word, but one that can allow an energy to be viewed as a panacea to the climate challenge. No more questions needed.”

He stressed that while technologies like wind and solar power are important, their full lifecycle emissions, environmental impacts and recyclability must be considered.

Al Ghais pointed out that so-called “green” energy still relies on emissions-intensive industrial processes.

Wind turbines and solar panels require steel, cement and plastics—materials that generate high levels of CO2 in their production.

He also highlighted the role of mining for critical minerals like lithium, copper and cobalt, which are essential for renewable technologies but cause significant environmental damage.

At the same time, he argued that electrifying everything is not necessarily a route to sustainability, noting that coal-fired electricity generation hit record highs in 2024, pushing global CO2 emissions from coal power to unprecedented levels.

If being “green” means being in harmony with nature, then land clearance for renewable energy infrastructure must be taken into account, Al Ghais said.
. . .

The future is about all energies, it does not matter what colour they are labelled. We need solutions, not slogans.”

Full report here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/9d5nNj7

March 25, 2025 at 02:00PM

Met Office supplied coordinates 53.36138  0.09696(incorrect.) No CIMO Assessment. Claims is currently operational but………

Manby weather station was installed in 1946 close to the end of the runway at RAF Manby. The RAF ceased operations there in 1974 and the station was relocated and came under the auspices of the Lindsey Marsh Drainage board. Water Authorities are usually only concerned with the rain gauge aspects or weather reporting so from 1974 onwards there were no temperature records taken. The story should have ended over half a century ago but this is the Met Office we are reviewing here.

Firstly is this site actually closed down for temperature readings? A glance at the CEDA Archive suggests it is still operational.

The “station end date” clearly states that it is “current”. Further more the link to available data reads as below

The letter codes at the end indicate what readings are taken i.e. DR/Daily Rain, DT/Daily Temperature etc and again it is shown as “Current”

Interrogating the Weather Observations Website for Manby helpfully brings up its location so it is there after all……surely?

Furthermore when I first started this reviewing process, the Met Office supplied me under Freedom of Information request with a list of all their “Climate Averages” reporting stations and that clearly showed Manby was “open”.

So why persist down this silly line of investigation – I must be wrong in thinking it is long closed or the people who told me it was long closed must be wrong. After all the Met Office could not be wrong because here is the data to prove it is still operational.

There we have it, the nearest “Climate Station” to my search request of Manby is indeed…..Manby. The Met Office has detailed figures (impressively to the second decimal place from measurements only recorded to the first decimal place) that run for 30 year averaged periods from 1960 to 2020 and ongoing. Nobody could possibly make up 51 years worth of readings. Who of sane, rational mind would dig any deeper as there would be no point or is there?

Okay, so who told me this site was closed down over half a century ago? Well the Met Office of course – who else would? Going back to that WOW site and looking for the data shows you

Seeing this I contacted the Met Office and they confirmed closure. So then I looked back at the archived readings and saw this.

Things finally became clearer, the site is still open but only as a rain gauge – no Stevenson screen was installed at the new location when the airfield closed down, so it is still “open” but any temperature reading is “closed” . Temperature data ended 31/5/1974 – “end data” is somewhat final or maybe not.

The coordinates supplied by the Met Office for this site only link to the office address of the Lindsey Drainage board and there certainly is no compound or screen possible there.

For temperature readings Manby is as dead as the famous bird in the Monty Python dead parrot sketch and almost as old. Thus the Met Office really does feel it is acceptable to be fabricating numbers for over half a century with the pretence that the site exists. Perhaps they should read this web page on tackling climate misinformation.

https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/tackling-climate-misinformation

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/V5tBXFr

March 25, 2025 at 01:35PM

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/t7TFcZq

March 25, 2025 at 12:07PM

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

Obama’s decision to declare CO2 a pollutant has now finally been overturned:

From LawyerLisa:

“President Donald Trump has issued a new executive order declaring that carbon dioxide (CO₂) is not a pollutant but an essential element of Earth’s natural ecosystem. The order highlights CO₂’s critical role in photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert sunlight into energy and produce the oxygen we breathe. Trump emphasized that labeling carbon dioxide as harmful ignores its foundational importance to life on Earth and to global agricultural productivity. This executive order represents a major shift from prior climate policies that treated CO₂ as a dangerous greenhouse gas. By affirming its natural and beneficial role, the administration aims to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens from American industries, particularly in energy, manufacturing, and farming. Trump stated that overregulation based on politicized science has held back economic growth and undermined the nation’s pursuit of energy independence.

Read the full story here.

The original decision lies behind so many of the EPA’s anti fossil fuel actions. Trump’s EO is welcome as a measure of commonsense.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/sbUIxCp

March 25, 2025 at 11:58AM