This is an update of articles that I have read that I want to mention but only have time to summarize briefly. I have also included links to some other items of interest. Previous commentaries are available here.
I have been following the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed and most of the articles described below are related to the net-zero transition. I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
How to Think About Climate
William Happer gave a talk entitled How to Think About Climate at the National Leadership Symposium at Hillsdale College on February 19, 2021. A video of the presentation is available and Watts Up With That published a transcript with illustrations recently. Dr. Happer is professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. He is a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. Activists claim that he is not a climate scientist but he is an expert in atmospheric radiation propagation, you know the physics of the greenhouse effect. It is well worth your time to read or listen to this talk because it is an excellent summary of the science and the politics of the climate change crusade.
He concludes with two takeaways:
So, the takeaway message is that policies that slow CO2 emissions are based on flawed computer models which exaggerate warming by factors of two or three, probably more. That is message number one. So, why do we give up our freedoms, why do we give up our automobiles, why do we give up a beefsteak because of this model that does not work?
Takeaway message number two is that if you really look into it, more CO2 actually benefits the world. So, why are we demonizing this beneficial molecule that is making plants grow better, that is giving us slightly less harsh winters, a slightly longer growing season? Why is that a pollutant? It is not a pollutant at all, and we should have the courage to do nothing about CO2 emissions. Nothing needs to be done.
Endangerment Finding
Francis Menton did an excellent review of the EPA Endangerment Finding of 2009. He explains that this declared that CO2 was a pollutant which gave the EPA the mandate to regulate CO2 making it the basis of all the EPA regulations limiting emissions. Menton described litigation associated with the Finding that was intended to rescind the finding that CO2 was a “danger” to human health and welfare. Unfortunately, the first Trump Administration ignored the litigation, and it was dismissed.
The good news highlighted in his article is that among the blizzard of Executive Orders signed by Trump was “Unleashing American Energy.”
There is a large amount of important material in this EO. In overall summary, it directs the reversal of all of the Biden administration efforts to restrict and suppress the production and development of America’s energy resources. But one provision, I would argue, is important above all the rest. That is Section 6(f), which directs a reconsideration of the so-called Endangerment Finding (EF) of December 2009. That provision of the EO reads as follows:
(f) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the EPA, in collaboration with the heads of any other relevant agencies, shall submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).
Menton concludes: “If the EF is rescinded with a well-reasoned regulatory action, the courts will have little to no ability to stop the Trump roll-back of all the Obama/Biden restrictions on fossil fuels and energy transition.” Needless to say I think that would be an enormous victory.
The scourge of prosocial censorship
John Ridgway describes a recent research paper published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argued that both self-censorship and the prosocial censorship of colleagues are commonplace within the sciences — and the problem is only getting worse.
Ridgway explains that prosocial censorship is a “form of censorship in which work is rejected, and individuals cancelled, not because the work is substandard or flawed, but because it threatens to undermine a cherished ideology or someone else’s concept of societal safety and harmony. Such censorship is never portrayed as such, of course; the reason given is always that the individual(s) concerned were peddling substandard work leading to harmful misinformation.”
He provides multiple examples of experts in their field who fell from grace by publishing something that gatekeepers felt was inappropriate. He describes the range of this cancellation of individuals and describes climate skeptics like me.
Somewhere in the middle are the concerns harboured by the climate sceptic. Whilst we understand that science is not supposed to operate by consensus, we would, nevertheless, like to believe that an emergent consensus is the result of a developing common knowledge, rather than the result of social engineering enabled by prosocial censorship
For my part I fear the science is getting lost in the pursuit of the climate change religion.
Green Hydrogen
The Climate Act Scoping Plan proposed to use “green” hydrogen to provide the needed dispatchable emission-free resource (DEFR) required to backup wind and solar during extended periods of low resource availability. Vijay Jayaraj explained that the “miracle” of green hydrogen is becoming a faded mirage. He explains:
Green hydrogen start-ups are shuttering operations, major projects are being shelved, and investors are retreating from what was once seen as the next frontier in “renewable” energy. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone whose attention to fundamentals has not been diverted by the extravagant claims of promoters.
The latest analyses predict that green hydrogen prices are likely to remain stubbornly high for decades. The goal of achieving production costs below $2 per kilogram – the threshold for competitiveness with fossil fuels – remains far out of reach. In most parts of the world, the economics simply do not add up. The reasons are multifaceted. One of the fundamental flaws of green hydrogen is its reliance on wind and solar energy that is expensive, intermittent and unreliable. The entire green hydrogen cycle is also inherently inefficient.
Broken record time – Why is New York pushing ahead without a solution to DEFR when the placeholder technology is clearly a non-starter?
Data Tampering
Tony Heller at Real Climate Science compares historical newspaper clippings for extreme weather events to recent weather events and invariably finds that there were events similar if not more extreme than the “unprecedented” events that the make today’s front page. He also tracks what can only be called malfeasance at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information. In his latest example he looks at the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data. These data are “used to quantify national and regional-scale temperature changes in the contiguous United States (CONUS). The dataset provides adjustments for systematic, non-climatic changes that bias temperature trends of monthly temperature records of long-term COOP stations. USHCN is a designated subset of the NOAA Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) Network, with sites selected according to their spatial coverage, record length, data completeness, and historical stability.”
The issue is the adjustments to the USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) RAW temperatures. These are “unadjusted temperature measurements collected from a network of high-quality weather stations across the contiguous United States.” According to my Perplexity AI query these are the key points about USHCN RAW temperatures:
- They represent original, unaltered temperature measurements from weather stations.
- The raw data may contain biases due to factors such as changes in station location, instrumentation, or observation times.
- The number of active raw data stations has been decreasing rapidly since 2005.
- Raw temperatures are used as a baseline for comparison with adjusted or “final” temperatures in climate studies.
- The raw data are flagged for possible quality issues but are not adjusted for these potential biases.
Tony Heller compared the original, unaltered RAW temperatures in this animated graph: USHCN RAW Tampering 2-13-2024 To 1-12-2025. Data since 2007 are markedly higher. The only reason I can think of is that the average values are affected by the choice of active stations used. If stations with lower temperatures are excluded then the average will get higher. If the result fits the narrative of dangerous warming all the better.
Be sure to click this link to see the malfeasance: USHCN-RAW-(MEASURED)-MONTHLY-TMAX-minus-Average-Maximum-Temperature (2)
Dunkelflaute
Timera Energy published a piece, Impact of German Dunkelflaute on flex asset value that examines the impact of Dunkelflaute or “dark doldrums”, referring to multi-day periods of low wind & solar resource periods on baseload prices, price volatility, and the value of flexible power assets. These are the periods where we expect that dispatchable emissions-free resources will be needed. Timera Energy provides consulting services to energy companies, investment funds, banks & utilities. I am not going to even attempt to explain their analysis of Dunkelflaute opportunities.
I mention this because these consultants are salivating over possibility that there will be “clear price signals” that spell opportunities for profits. Not mentioned when they discussed “the longer-duration storage solutions to bridge more sustained dips in renewable energy and storage output” was the fact that the technology does not exist. I cannot tell you how this issue will haunt you if this headlong rush over the green energy cliff is not halted, but I am sure that it will hit your wallet and the reliability of your electric supply.
New York State Climate Superfund
Last December Governor Hochul signed the “Climate Superfund” legislation to” bolster New York’s efforts to protect and restore the environment by requiring large fossil fuel companies to pay for critical projects that protect New Yorkers.” A commentary by Scott Axelson and Michael Dee in the Jamestown Post Journal examines a few of the absurd claims made by Superfund supporters. After debunking those claims the authors conclude:
Who will actually bear the cost of the Superfund? It will always be working people of NYS who bear the burden. Our cost of living will soar, and more jobs will move from NYS to more enlightened states that have not fallen for climate catastrophism.
One question for the Governor: Will your Superfund pay for the disposal of millions of tons of toxic and non-recyclable waste from Wind, Solar, and Battery Farms? Why do you ignore the massive environmental damage caused by “Green Energy”?
Instead of vilifying fossil fuels, we should be turning our attention to the greedy politicians who created the Superfund to extort our hard-earned money to benefit their wealthy friends in the Legal industry.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 
