Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #509 – Watts Up With That?

The Week That Was: 2022-06-25 (June 25, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”― Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays

Number of the Week: 70% capacity for 40% of the day

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Scope: Last week, TWTW gave a brief summary of the importance of the scientific method. It was developed over centuries to settle conflicting scientific speculations such as an earth-centered universe, or a planetary system orbiting the sun. Physical evidence from experiment and observations divides scientific knowledge from speculation, or fiction. It makes no difference what scientists say; physical evidence decides if various scientific theories are sound.

The submission to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by eminent physicists William Happer and Richard Lindzen is discussed. They detail how the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) abandons the scientific method to arrive at politically negotiated reports, particularly the Summary for Policymakers. The divergence between science and IPCC is illustrated by the large and growing divergence between atmospheric temperature trends and IPCC models.

In arriving at its proposal accepting the false claim of dangerous global warming from greenhouse gases, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) failed to perform necessary due diligence. It is as if SEC is putting out slick promotional brochures rather than factual profit and loss statements showing little change. The importance of due diligence is discussed, and that investment advisors are subject to criminal prosecution if they fail to take adequate steps.

The state of California has declared the bumblebee to be a fish to extend regulatory control over possible harm. In similar fashion, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) extended the Endangered Species Act to include potential habitats of endangered species. Using similar logic, the FWS could declare Manhattan is a potential habitat of polar bears.

The UK National Audit Office (NAO) delivered a blow to the green dreams of prime minister Boris Johnson, The NAO warned the government it must ensure the public is not shortchanged by environmental policies.

As President Biden continues to restrict US independent oil and gas producers, he is planning a trip to Saudi Arabia to encourage it to produce more oil and gas. US independent oil and gas producers survived an effort by OPEC plus to bankrupt them. One can speculate what the Saudis think of the trustworthiness of Mr. Biden.


IPCC Reports Are Not Science: After giving their qualifications, Happer and Lindzen begin their comments: Unless noted otherwise all boldface is in the original.

“Comment and Declaration

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed SEC requiring disclosures of climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

We are career physicists who have specialized in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades.

In our opinion, science demonstrates that there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.

Further, nowhere in the more than 500 pages of the proposed rule is there any reliable scientific evidence that there exists a climate related risk. None. It refers to the International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) and other outside groups, but never provides any reliable scientific evidence that supports the rule. The science is just assumed. Therefore, there is no reliable scientific basis for the proposed SEC rule.

Further, contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food and not enough oxygen to breathe.

Moreover, without fossil fuels there will be no low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food. Eliminating fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions will be disastrous for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the country. Finally, the cost of the proposed rule is enormous and would have no public benefit. It would increase the reporting burden to companies to $6.4 billion, which is 64% more than the $3.9 billion all SEC reporting requirements have cost companies from its beginning in 1934. Id., 87 Fed. Reg., p. 21461.

Thus, the rule must not be adopted or, if adopted, ruled invalid by the courts. Here’s the science why.


After substantiating this assertion, they assert


They go on to explain that in geological time, even 20 million years is nothing, rendering EPA assertions in its Endangerment Finding about greenhouse gases being unprecedented meaningless. After discussing matters such as how trivial the IPCC dates are, they explain how the IPCC politicizes good science. [Footnotes omitted]

“F. The IPCC is Government Controlled and Only Issues Government Dictated Findings, and Thus Can Provide No Reliable Scientific Evidence for the Proposed Rule

“Unknown to most, two IPCC rules require that IPCC governments control what it reports as “scientific” findings on CO2, fossil fuels and manmade global warming, not scientists. IPCC governments meet behind closed doors and control what is published in its Summaries for Policymakers (“SPMs”), which controls what is published in full reports.

“The picture below tells all. [Picture omitted here]

This is not how scientific knowledge is determined. In science, as the Lysenko experience chillingly underscores, and as Richard Feynman emphasized:

“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.”

The two IPCC rules are:

IPCC SPM Rule No.1: All Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) Are Approved Line by Line by Member Governments”

After supporting this by quoting an IPCC fact sheet. Happer and Lindzen state:

“Since governments control the SPMs, the SPMs are merely government opinions. Therefore, they have no value as reliable scientific evidence.

What about the thousands of pages in the IPCC reports? A second IPCC rule requires that everything in an IPCC published report must be consistent with what the governments agree to in the SPMs about CO2 and fossil fuels. Any drafts the independent scientists write are rewritten as necessary to be consistent with the SPM.

IPCC Reports Rule No. 2: Government SPMs Override Any Inconsistent Conclusions Scientists Write for IPCC Reports

IPCC Fact Sheet: “’Acceptance’ is the process used for the full underlying report in a Working Group Assessment Report or a Special Report after its SPM has been approved…. Changes …are limited to those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers.” IPCC Fact Sheet, supra. (Emphasis added).

IPCC governments’ control of full reports using Rule No. 2 is poignantly demonstrated by the IPCC’s rewrite of the scientific conclusions reached by independent scientists in their draft of Chapter 8 of the IPCC report Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change (“1995 Science Report”). The draft by the independent scientists concluded:

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate warming observed) to (manmade) causes.” Frederick Seitz, “A Major Deception on Climate Warming,” Wall Street Journal (June 12, 1996).

However, the government written SPM proclaimed the exact opposite:

“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” 1995 Science Report SPM, p. 4.

What happened to the independent scientists’ draft? IPCC Rule No. 2 was applied, and their draft was rewritten to be consistent with the SPM in numerous ways:

• Their draft language was deleted.

• The SPM’s opposite language was inserted in the published version of Chapter 8 in the 1995 Science Report, on page 439: “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8 …now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.”

• The IPCC also changed “more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report … after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.” Seitz, supra.

As to the full IPCC reports, hundreds of world-class scientists draft some very good science. What to do? Use a presumption that anything in IPCC reports should be presumed to be government opinion with no value as reliable scientific evidence, unless independently verified by scientific method.

Stop for a moment. Just imagine what would have happened if the IPCC accurately reported the science. The scientists concluded there was no science that attributed all or most of the climate warming observed to manmade causes.

There would be no Massachusetts v. EPA, Green New Deal,” Net Zero” regulation, efforts to eliminate fossil fuels, huge subsidies of renewable energy and electric cars. For whatever reason, the IPCC as a government-controlled organization did not and has never followed the science if the science contradicts the theory of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and other human emissions.

In conclusion, none of the IPCC SPMs, models, scenarios and other findings asserting that dangerous climate warming is caused by human CO2 and GHG emissions and fossil fuels are reliable scientific evidence, they are merely the opinions of IPCC governments.

Thus, the IPCC SPMs, models, scenarios and other findings provide no reliable scientific evidence there is any climate related risk caused by fossil fuels, nor do they provide any reliable scientific evidence to support the proposed rule.”

Happer and Lindzen go on to assert:

“The Endangerment Findings and National Climate Assessments Rely on IPCC Findings and Thus Provide No Reliable Scientific Evidence to Support the Proposed Rule”

They give details for this assertion with examples of false science. Further, they explain how nature and humanity are benefiting from increasing atmospheric CO2. They conclude with:

“Thus, in our opinion, science demonstrates that there is no climate emergency and no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2. Therefore, there is no reliable scientific evidence that supports the SEC proposed rule.

Further, contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food and not enough oxygen to breathe.

Moreover, without fossil fuels there will be no reliable, low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food. Eliminating fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions will be disastrous for the United States and the rest of the world, especially for lower-income people.”

This remarkable document is an impressive criticism of what is wrong with climate science from the IPCC and all government entities that accept IPCC reports as scientific. With proper use of the scientific method, one can use physical evidence to separate knowledge from fiction. Happer and Lindzen have the evidence, the IPCC and its followers have the fiction. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


Due Diligence: Investopedia has a clear description of Due Diligence:

“Due diligence is an investigation, audit, or review performed to confirm facts or details of a matter under consideration. In the financial world, due diligence requires an examination of financial records before entering into a proposed transaction with another party.

Due diligence became common practice (and a common term) in the United States with the passage of the Securities Act of 1933. With that law, securities dealers and brokers became responsible for fully disclosing material information about the instruments they were selling. Failing to disclose this information to potential investors made dealers and brokers liable for criminal prosecution.

The writers of the act recognized that requiring full disclosure left dealers and brokers vulnerable to unfair prosecution for failing to disclose a material fact they did not possess or could not have known at the time of sale. Thus, the act included a legal defense: as long as the dealers and brokers exercised “due diligence” when investigating the companies whose equities they were selling, and fully disclosed the results, they could not be held liable for information that was not discovered during the investigation.

It is clear that leaders of the SEC did not investigate the science of the IPCC with due diligence. If they did, they should have realized there was a huge disparity between climate models and atmospheric temperature trends, calling into question any claim of a climate crisis. See Article # 1 and links under Other News that May Be of Interest.


Not What Is, But What Could Be: Last month a California court ruled bumblebees are fish and can be protected as fish under the California Endangered Species Act. Not to be outdone, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) expanded the definition of species habitat for endangered species from where they currently live to where someday they could live.

During the last major glaciation, Manhattan was covered with thousands of feet of ice. Caving icebergs carved huge gouges in the sand off the beaches of South Carolina. During the next glaciation, something climate modelers ignore, polar bear habitat could include Manhattan and stretch to South Carolina. Nothing is too absurd for this FWS. See Article # 3 and link under Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.


How Much Will It Cost? Last November during the UN 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, western leaders were bragging about the extent they could destroy their fossil fuel industries to achieve zero carbon dioxide emissions, Net Zero. Above, Happer and Lindzen demonstrate that the science used to justify Net Zero is false and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has tremendous benefits for nature and humanity. Yet, the politicians cling to their vain boasts.

According to reports from the UK, the Auditor General of the National Audit Office (NAO) has started to ask how much will Net Zero cost and what are the benefits? Two years ago, the NAO seemed indifferent as to cost. But, as costs escalate, there is reason for concern. A June 22 report addresses the problems with Ofgem, the energy regulator for Great Britain. In part, the report states:

“But the sheer number of supplier failures means a significant additional cost on every bill at a time when wider cost increases are already causing major financial challenges for many households. Ofgem has rightly recognised that it must quickly improve its capacity to oversee the financial resilience of individual suppliers and the sector as a whole.

Ofgem, along with the Department [for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy], must also ensure the supplier market recovers from its current state, where high wholesale prices combined with the price cap has stifled some aspects of competition, and where ongoing volatility means many suppliers still face financial risks. But this recovery needs to facilitate a longer‑term transition of the supplier market to one that truly works for consumers and supports the achievement of net zero. This is a significant and difficult task, requiring Ofgem and the Department [for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy] to maintain the capacity to consider the longer‑term objectives while managing the short-term challenges of stabilising the market. This will require a nuanced approach to regulation that finds a balance between its aims of competition, innovation, resilience and affordability for consumers.”

Who knows what will happen? But, as Paul Homewood writes:

“Hopefully, they might now start to do what they were set up to do, and that is to hold government to account and provide value for money for taxpayers; something they totally failed to do in 2020.”

See links under Questioning European Green and


Why Bail Him Out? After the bragging about Net Zero at COP26 and the intended destruction of the oil and gas industries, President Biden is preparing to go to Saudi Arabia and ask it to replace the oil and gas from Russia that Europe needs. It is questionable if Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates can produce sufficient oil and gas quickly. To make the massive investments necessary these countries need long term commitments. There is no reason petrostates should trust western politicians who promise to ban import of their resources.

Certainly, Saudi Arabia can look at what Biden is doing to the US oil and gas industries to get an idea about how trustworthy he is. See links under Change in US Administrations


SEPP is conducting its annual vote for the recipient of the coveted trophy, The Jackson, a lump of coal. Readers are asked to nominate and vote for who they think is most deserving. The entire Biden Administration won in 2021, so individuals in it are still eligible.

The voting will close on July 30. Please send your nominee and a brief reason the person is qualified for the honor to [email protected] The awardee will be announced at the annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness on August 14 to 16 at the South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. Registration:; Hotel:

Number of the Week: 70% capacity for 40% of the day. June 21 was the longest day of the year. There appeared to be no major storms (or atmospheric rivers) hitting sunny California that day. According to the California ISO website on the supply trend on June 21 at 7:55 (8 am), Solar generation hit 10,000 megawatts, which is about 70% of the nameplate capacity. Rough calculations show that for sunniest day of the year, California solar power generated at least 70% of capacity for 40% of the day. There was zero solar power from 8 pm to 6 am. And California promises to be net zero by 2045?

The California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan states:

“All new residential construction will be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020.

“All new commercial construction will be ZNE by 2030

“50% of commercial buildings will be retrofit to ZNE by 2030

“50% of new major renovations of state buildings will be ZNE by 2025.

How many suns will that take? See and

Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013


Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014


Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019

Download with no charge:

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015

Download with no charge:

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008

Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data

By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Comment and Declaration on the SEC’s Proposed Rule “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,” File No. S7-10-22, 87 Fed. Reg. 21334 (April 11,2022)

By William Happer and Richard Lindzen, CO2 Coalition, June 17, 2022

CO2 Coalition Tells Court Carbon Regulation “Scientifically Invalid”

By Gregory Wrightstone, CO2 Coalition, June 22, 2022

Amicus curie brief (friend of the court) at U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,

The SEC Should Not Be Setting Corporate Climate Policy

By Paul J. Ray, The Heritage Foundation, June 21, 2022

Epstein’s ‘Fossil Future’

By Allen Brooks, Master Resource, June 22, 2022

Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science

Study Reveals how Climate Change Can Significantly Impact One of the World’s Most Important Carbon-rich Ecosystems

Researchers from the University of Portsmouth say a ‘one size fits all’ approach to preserving mangrove forests will not work as new research reveals a delicate blue carbon system

Press Release, University of Portsmouth, June 23, 2022 [H/t WUWT]

Link to paper: Biodegraders of Large Woody Debris Across a Tidal Gradient in an Indonesian Mangrove Ecosystem

By Ian W. Hendy, et al. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, May 25, 2022

Study finds climate change reporting can momentarily change minds

“It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically informed reporting when they are exposed to it,” one researcher said.

By Adam Barnes, The Hill, June 22, 2022 [H/t WUWT]

Link to paper: Time and skeptical opinion content erode the effects of science coverage on climate beliefs and attitudes

By Brendan Nyhan, et al, PNAS June 21, 2022

Questioning the Orthodoxy

German Physicist: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 0.05°C Of The Global Warming Since 1750

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, June 20, 2022

Energy crisis making aggressive green agenda look like peacetime luxury

By Jeremy Beaman, Washington Examiner, June 22, 2022

The Many-Analysts Approach

By Kip Hansen, WUWT, June 22, 2022

Australian Intelligence Chief to assess climate threat but ignore risk of running country on windmills and batteries

By Joe Nova, Her Blog, June 23, 2022

“Cunning Plan: New Australian PM to set up an Office of Climate Change Threats, but not an Office to study the Threats of Climate Action.”

As Climate Screamers Spread Alarm, Germany’s Long-Term Forest Fire Trend Has Declined

Help! There’s fire!

By Peter Sommer (Translated, edited by P. Gosselin), Via No Tricks Zone, June 22, 2022

This time will be different

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, June 22, 2022

“Economist Rudi Dornbusch once warned that ‘In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could’.”

Energy and Environmental Review: June 20, 2022

By John Droz, Jr., Master Resource, June 20, 2022

Change in US Administrations

Biden Got the Energy Market He Wanted

Since day one, he’s tried to limit fossil-fuel supplies, and we’re all paying for

By Karl Rove, WSJ, June 22, 2022

Via Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, June 23, 2022

Source link


News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button