Peter Clack on X - "The science says 600–1000 ppm of CO₂ plus 1–2°C warming hits the sweet spot for all terrestrial and marine life, including human civilization. We should be managing adaptation and energy abundance not waging war on a trace gas that makes the planet green. Higher CO₂ gives a net benefit to life on Earth. This means the current 'carbon policy' is anti-life.
CO₂ is plant food and also the foundation for all life. That’s not poetry, it’s biochemistry. Every 100 ppm increase in CO₂ typically boosts plant growth 25–50% in all non-water, limited conditions. My analysis draws on 776 studies (1993–2019) showing an ideal average CO₂ level of 550 ppm delivers a 38% increase in global biomass. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32470231/
Satellite records from 1982–2023 show the Earth greening at a rate never seen before in all recorded history: There's been a more than 18% increase in the global leaf area in 40 years. The largest gains are in India and China (from CO₂ fertilisation) and warmer more balmy temperatures are lengthening the growing seasons. NASA 2016 & 2023 updates: https://nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/nasa-satellite-data-show-rapid-greening-of-earth/
There is a sound reason for commercial greenhouses to pump CO₂ to 1000–1500 ppm deliberately. It ensures that crop yields jump 20–70% depending on the crop. If 1000 ppm is good for tomatoes, why is 420 ppm an 'emergency' for the planet?
Coral reefs: Corals calcify faster at higher CO₂ (there is more dissolved bicarbonate). The best growth rates are seen in aquaria at 500–800 ppm. Field evidence reveals that reefs around CO₂ at 800–1200 ppm are more diverse and grow faster. Sources: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30274998/ https://nature.com/articles/s41598-019-48476-7
Agriculture: Global crop yields are up ~15–20% since 1960, almost entirely attributable to CO₂ fertilisation alone (Idso, 2013; IPCC AR6 WG1 Ch5 admits this). Famine deaths have plummeted while population has doubled and CO₂ deserves most of the credit.
Warmer biomes: The Boreal forest is advancing northwards at around 30km a decade; the tundra is greening by 1–3% each decade. The Sahel is regreening (a Great Green Wall is now unnecessary—nature did it all by herself). This is all driven by longer growing seasons plus the higher CO₂. The optimal level of CO₂ for the global biosphere under controlled environment agriculture is 800–1200 ppm.
Under previous paleoclimates, all C3 plants evolved when CO₂ was 1000–2000 ppm. They suffered CO₂ starvation below 250 ppm during glacial conditions. C3 plants are more common in temperate climates and very efficient in cool, moist conditions (rice, wheat, barley, oats, soybeans and potatoes). We're still in a CO₂ famine by geological standards. Human health is far better today: Warmer winters alone save around 100,000 lives a year in Europe (cold kills at 10–20 times more than heat). Source: Lancet 2015 & 2021 studies. What is the 'dangerous' level of CO₂?: Even the alarmist IPCC AR6 says 3–4°C warming (which would require at least 1000 ppm) has mostly moderate risks for agriculture and ecosystems. At 600–800 ppm and at 1.5–2°C we will get longer growing seasons, fewer cold deaths, more arable land, higher crop yields and a greener planet That’s not a crisis. It's the best climate for life in 500,000 years. Current radical 'net-zero' policy versus deliberate CO₂ starvation: Trillions have been spent to keep CO₂ to around 450 ppm. This actively reduces the primary nutrient for 99% of all food chains on earth. We are making energy vastly more expensive and unreliable in the West, while China and India keep building on coal. The result is self-inflicted economic damage in the west but with zero measurable climate effect."
Thread by @magattew on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "People in wealthy countries don’t think about electricity. They wake up, flip a switch, make coffee, scroll on their phones, and everything just works. But the day the power goes out, even for one hour, everyone panics. It’s on the news. People tweet about it. Stores shut down. The whole city feels it. Now just pause and imagine living like that every single day. That’s the reality for millions of Africans (about 600 million people, precisely). In Africa, power cuts are not “breaking news.” They’re just… life. Children study by candlelight. Businesses close early. Hospitals run on fumes. And yet the same people who panic when their lights go out are the ones pushing “green policies” that make it harder for Africans to have reliable, affordable, abundant energy. How can you talk about saving the planet while keeping millions of people in the dark?
Climate alarmists talk a lot about saving the planet, but their policies show little concern for the people who are struggling the most. If you really want to help poor people, you start with one thing: Energy that works, every day, at a price they can actually afford."
Sama Hoole on X - "Here's what cattle actually do for soil: Their hooves break up compacted earth, allowing water infiltration and root penetration. Their dung provides:
Organic matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Beneficial microbes
Food for dung beetles (which aerate soil further)
Their urine deposits nitrogen exactly where plants need it. Their selective grazing creates habitat diversity. Their trampling of grass stimulates root growth and carbon sequestration. Managed grazing builds topsoil at 1-2 inches per decade. Industrial crop agriculture depletes it at the same rate. We've lost 30% of global topsoil in the last 150 years. Primarily from annual ploughing for crops. Permanent pasture with grazing cattle? No ploughing. Soil builds instead of erodes. But sure, remove the cattle and plough the land for soy. See what happens to your soil in 20 years. Hint: It becomes dust.
The American Dust Bowl was caused by removing bison and ploughing the prairies for wheat. Not by grazing. We ran this experiment. Cattle won. Ploughs lost."
Chris Martz on X - "Climate “science” is political science and here's why. In the 1980s, global warming was an emerging “issue” of scientific interest. Politicians like then-Senator Al Gore saw this as an opportunity to use the scientific community to build a case to regulate energy companies, industry, and give the government more control over the economy. In 1988, long before there was an [alleged] “scientific consensus,” the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere was assembled to urge governments to adopt policies that reduced our carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by 20% by 2005 because of the supposed threat of catastrophic human-caused global warming. They stated, π¨️ “π»ππ πͺπππππππππ πππππ πππππ ππππ ππππππ ππ¦ πππ£πππππππ‘π ... [π]π... [π]ππ πππ πͺπΆ₂ πππππππππ ππ πππππππππππππ ππ% ππ ππππ ππππππ ππ πππ ππππ ππππ ππ ππ ππππ‘πππ ππππππ ππππ.” πhttps://digitallibrary.un.org/record/106359?ln=en&v=pdf (p. 296) Yet, the IPCC's First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990 found no evidence that catastrophic global warming is occurring, much less any warming beyond the bounds of natural variability, stating, π¨️ “π»ππ ππππ ππ πππ πππππππ ππππ πππ ππππ πππππππ ππ πππππππ¦ ππππ ππ π‘πππ‘ π€ππ‘β π‘βπ πππππππ‘πππ ππ¦ ππππππ‘π ππππππ , ππ’π‘ ππ ππππ ππ πππ ππππ ππππππππ π ππ πππππππ πππππππ πππππππππππ.” πhttps://ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf (p. 53) Despite the lack of evidence to support regulations on CO₂ emissions, in 1992, the United Nations went ahead with their UNFCCC Treaty to prevent dangerous emission-driven global warming, which 196 countries, including the U.S., signed onto. π¨️ “π»ππ π’ππ‘ππππ‘π πππππππππ ππ π‘βππ πΆπππ£πππ‘πππ πππ πππ πππππππ πππππ πππππππππππ ππππ πππ πͺπππππππππ ππ πππ π·ππππππ πππ ππ πππ ππ ππ πππππππ, ππ ππππππππππ π€ππ‘β π‘βπ πππππ£πππ‘ ππππ£ππ ππππ ππ π‘βπ πΆπππ£πππ‘πππ, πππππππππππππ ππ ππππππππππ πππ ππππππππππππππ ππ πππ ππππππππππ ππ π πππππ ππππ πππππ πππππππ π ππππππππ πππππππππππππ ππππππππππππ π€ππ‘β π‘βπ ππππππ‘π π π¦π π‘ππ.” πhttps://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (p. 4) The first draft of the second IPCC report, which was published in 1995, concluded very similarly to the FAR (1990) report, but the report, along with the summary, was rewritten under significant pressure from policymakers to have a stronger finding of dangerous global warming. This isn't science. It's fraud."
radioecological footprint of electricity production by wind turbines - "The worldwide transformation of electricity production goes hand in hand with increasing use of wind energy. The German ‘Energiewende’ project is no exception and relies heavily on the construction and use of an ever-increasing number of wind turbines. While the operation of wind turbines does not lead to the emission of pollutants (in contrast to, e.g. coal, oil or gas), the production processes of the construction materials do. Since the raw materials’ production primarily takes place outside Germany, radioactivity and doses related to these processes occur at remote places in the world. This effect might be called an ‘export of doses’. In the present paper, we perform a life cycle analysis of wind turbines, investigating the mining and production of the construction materials. We focus on rare-earth elements needed for the generator magnets and assess the associated releases of radioactive materials during mining and processing, primarily in China. Estimates of dose to the public in selected Chinese cities are calculated. Different electricity generation techniques are compared by the use of the quantity (collective) dose per GW per year."
The climate cult’s dissolution is inevitable - "The collapse of the Paris Agreement and the unmasking of the net zero illusion were never hard to predict — not for anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. It didn’t take a fancy research title or an advanced degree. The writing was carved deep into the stone of energy reality, which no press release, no activist lobby and no billionaire-backed foundation could erase. Most nations — particularly those early in the process of building their futures — offered only empty nods to their climate targets. Their participation was a transparent quest for political leverage. The climate crusade survived by hijacking the political class, manipulating data through compliant scientists, and converting media empires into megaphones of fear. Bill Gates stepped away from the front lines of climate alarmism in a recent essay timed for the United Nations’ COP30, an annual gathering of jet-setting moralists. Gates admits — and the recent U.S. Department of Energy report on carbon dioxide supports his view — that the world will not collapse because of climate change. Gates has called for a shift in focus to more immediate needs. He says that “we will still rely on fossil fuels for decades,” that “no single technology can decarbonize the global economy,” and that “the pace of change will be slow.” He is reacting to the wreckage of ideology from its collision with the laws of physics. In recent New York election campaigns, some of the Green New Deal’s most famous apostles, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, saw their climate gospel sidelined, no longer commanding the stage. Voters heard more about housing, jobs, and public safety than decarbonization, offshore wind or carbon credits. These are signals of a larger shift underway, both in the U.S. and abroad. In the U.K.’s North Sea and off the U.S. East Coast, massive wind projects are being canceled. “Green steel” is struggling to compete with fossil fuel-based conventional steel. Oil companies, after spending years and billions of dollars on “green” branding and virtue signaling, are quietly backtracking on ambitious climate goals. In 2025, Argentina shocked global institutions by saying it will reconsider its membership in the Paris Agreement. President Javier Milei declared that his nation would no longer “kneel before climate bureaucrats.” China continues its rapid construction of coal-fired power plants, adding more coal capacity than the rest of the world combined. India’s coal consumption is at an all-time high, and its government is aggressively auctioning new blocks of coal mines. Developing economies in Asia and South America know that survival requires coal, oil and natural gas. African leaders are also seeking to tap their continent’s reserves of hydrocarbons to power economic development. The fragile structure of global decarbonization depended on financing from its chief patron, the U.S. When that flow of dollars ceased with the incoming Trump administration, the fading of an already moribund climate narrative accelerated. What remains now is to utterly unmask the 21st century’s most malignant fraud and to educate a generation propagandized in public schools and woke universities. The truth has emerged bit by bit. We were once told that wildfires were unprecedented, yet historical data show fire frequency has declined globally. We were told the Arctic would be ice-free, yet it remains frozen. We were told of a “climate-driven” food crisis, but the mild warming and increased carbon dioxide — a vital plant food — have contributed to global greening and record crop harvests. The food supply is becoming more secure, not less. The gap between alarmist predictions and observed reality is no longer possible to hide. Scientists deliberately misled the public with cherry-picked data, tortured computer models until they produced the “correct” scary result and misrepresented natural weather events as proof of climate change. What masqueraded as “consensus” was nothing more than a cartel of profiteers feeding on public guilt and taxpayer money. This was not good-faith scientific inquiry but rather a narrative designed to frighten, to control consumer choices and to justify a massive political and economic reorganization. Much of the public, sensing this dishonesty, no longer listens. The authority of the climate “experts” has been damaged, perhaps irrevocably. Their incessant cries of “wolf” failed to produce the climate beast. The climate cult declared war on the very engines that lifted humanity from hunger and hardship. Its legacy is economic vandalism and moral decay. But the spell is breaking, and what’s emerging from the rubble is not despair, but liberation — a long-awaited return of reason to a world held hostage by fear."
Can we trust projections of AMOC weakening based on climate models that cannot reproduce the past? - "The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a crucial element of the Earth's climate system, is projected to weaken over the course of the twenty-first century which could have far reaching consequences for the occurrence of extreme weather events, regional sea level rise, monsoon regions and the marine ecosystem. The latest IPCC report puts the likelihood of such a weakening as ‘very likely’. As our confidence in future climate projections depends largely on the ability to model the past climate, we take an in-depth look at the difference in the twentieth century evolution of the AMOC based on observational data (including direct observations and various proxy data) and model data from climate model ensembles. We show that both the magnitude of the trend in the AMOC over different time periods and often even the sign of the trend differs between observations and climate model ensemble mean, with the magnitude of the trend difference becoming even greater when looking at the CMIP6 ensemble compared to CMIP5. We discuss possible reasons for this observation-model discrepancy and question what it means to have higher confidence in future projections than historical reproductions."
Weird, we keep being told that climate change models are super accurate. Just like with covid. But gullible left wingers keep falling for it
Chris Martz on X - "This chart shows the annual average number of days reaching 95°F, 100°F and 105°F at all 657 United States NOAA GHCNd stations (weighted by area) with at least 100 years of daily temperature data (90% daily completeness) between 1895 and 2025. Despite the endless scare mongering all summer, in terms of U.S. heat extremes, it wasn't exceptional. π‘️ Tmax ≥95°F (35°C): 12.1 days (98th most) π‘️ Tmax ≥100°F (38°C): 2.5 days (103rd most) π‘️ Tmax ≥105°F (40°C): 0.4 day (105th most) ππ¨π© ππ π²πππ«π¬ π°π’ππ‘ π¦π¨π¬π πππ²π¬ ππ¦ππ± ≥ππ°π
: 1⃣ 1936 2⃣ 1934 3⃣ 1954 4⃣ 1931 5⃣ 1933 6⃣ 1913 7⃣ 1925 8⃣ 1980 (most recent) 9⃣ 1930 π 1911 Interestingly, only one of top 15 has been recorded in the last 70 years, and only two in the 21st century made the top 20 (2011 and 2012, which sit at 17th and 19th place, respectively). ππ¨π© ππ π²πππ«π¬ π°π’ππ‘ π¦π¨π¬π πππ²π¬ ππ¦ππ± ≥πππ°π
: 1⃣ 1936 2⃣ 1934 3⃣ 1954 4⃣ 1930 5⃣ 1901 6⃣ 1913 7⃣ 1980 (most recent) 8⃣ 1931 9⃣ 1925 π 1918 ππ¨π© ππ π²πππ«π¬ π°π’ππ‘ π¦π¨π¬π πππ²π¬ ππ¦ππ± ≥πππ°π
: 1⃣ 1936 2⃣ 1934 3⃣ 1954 4⃣ 1930 5⃣ 1901 6⃣ 1980 7⃣ 1913 8⃣ 2023 (most recent) 9⃣ 1918 π 1933 The searing heatwave in Texas and Oklahoma back in 2023 bumped it up to 8th place for national average annual number of days with a Tmax ≥105°F."
Chris Martz on X - "I have mastered my Python skills to now be able to build datasets like this from scratch without having to do it all by hand, which was time consuming and tedious. Now that I have this skill, elected officials, journalists and activist scientists are going to have an increasingly difficult time getting away with making fraudulent claims about extreme weather in the U.S."
Kenneth Richard on X - "New study: A 2007 math proofs study (https://t.co/WhhiGDR05u) that affirmed a global mean temperature does not exist (because a temperature average can only be defined in equilibrium systems) has never been disproved. There are "infinite ways to average temperature," and the method chosen in modern "climate science" is arbitrary, non-physical, and yields fundamentally different results vs. other methods. https://jpands.org/vol30no4/cohler.pdf"
Meme - Man in lab coat: "WHY DOES THE PUBLIC NOT TRUST US?"
Blackboard: "Arctic ice free by 2000 2008 2013 2014 2027 "
*Angry man with "science denier" sign*
Russ Greene on X - "JP Morgan just released its 2024 "Sustainability Report." It is a useful indication of how companies are approaching ESG and DEI today. JPM reports using climate scenarios from the "Network for Greening the Financial System." Perhaps JPM is unaware that NGFS's modeling has come under fire from other academics, for using unrealistic climate scenarios, and faulty data from Uzbekistan. More info on NGFS and the overall report in theπ§΅. https://jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jp"
Andrew Neil on X - "In Nature magazine April 2024 scientists at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research projected that climate change would cause $38 trillion in economic damage EVERY YEAR by 2049 — so an annual economic loss bigger than the US economy. It also forecast rising CO2 emissions would cause a 62% reduction in global GDP by 2100. Economic damage over the next quarter of a century would exceed the costs of mitigating global warming by six times. Naturally the global warming grifters and their media cheerleaders jumped on this without the slightest scepticism. The Network for Greening the Financial System, a group of central banks (inc the Fed) and financial regulators, even incorporated the study’s projections into its bank climate stress test scenarios. But it turned out to be a load of old bollocks (to use a technical term). Nature was issuing corrections within months and in the end discovered so many errors that it has now retracted the whole caboodle. Funny and embarrassing. So much for peer review, which clearly doesn’t work when the peers all share the same worldview as the authors."
Rethinking the “Levelized Cost of Energy”: A critical review and evaluation of the concept - "Unfortunately, misleading LCOE estimates have become the norm as shown later. In fact, Schernikau et al. interviewed 70 experts, and found that “the overarching theme was the lack of understanding of the true, full cost of electricity and continued misuse of the marginal cost measure LCOE to compare costs of Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) with conventional sources of power”. The authors suggest stop using LCOE altogether."
This won't stop climate change hystericists from containing to claim that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, because they blithely ignore system costs
Ditch net zero, shareholders urge BP - "Investors said the shock departure of chief executive Murray Auchincloss should prompt the BP to refocus on “what it does best”... Elliot Management, the activist investor with a near 5pc stake in BP, is understood to support the change and is pushing for Ms O’Neill to move quickly to sell-off underperforming assets, including those in green energy... The surprise leadership shake-up comes as BP attempts to improve performance and win back investor support after a misguided shift to green energy under former chief executive Bernard Looney. Mr Looney pledged that the oil and gas business would reach net zero by 2050, out of step with the rest of the industry. Mr Auchincloss, who replaced Mr Looney in 2023, had been rowing back on the strategy but faced criticism he was moving too slowly.“In the past he has been a strong defender of capital allocation to low carbon areas of the business that have not yet delivered the expected returns, so it is perhaps easier for someone external to start with no baggage in refocusing the business and giving a credible message to the market,” one BP shareholder said. Ms O’Neill has been publicly sceptical of net zero, criticising activists for ignoring the carbon footprints of online shopping and emphasising the importance of oil and gas to energy security."
Homeowners at risk of £15k fines under SNP net zero regime - "Scottish homeowners are at risk of being hit with a £15,000 fine for failing to meet net zero rules if the SNP wins next year’s Holyrood election. The Scottish Government revealed last month that it aims to introduce a bill forcing the phase-out of gas boilers by 2045 and setting minimum energy performance rules for homes and other buildings. Homeowners with direct-emission heating systems, such as gas boilers, who fail to meet the new rules will be required to improve the energy performance of the building. They also risk being fined up to £15,000 under the sanctions regime set out in the draft legislation."
Adam Lowisz X Meetup πΊπΈπ΅π±πͺπΊπ¬π§πΊπ¦ on X - "We need to let Trump know that solar and batteries are the future of energy. Battery chemistry has improved tremendously in the last decade. Coal isn't the future of energy. We are going to fall behind China we don't transition now."
John Lee Pettimore on X - "The periodic table limits battery breakthroughs, with only 118 elements, most unsuitable: - 39 are radioactive - 23 are too scarce or costly (e.g., rare earths, platinum group metals) - 6 are inert noble gases - 4+ are toxic (e.g., cadmium, cobalt, mercury, arsenic) - Some are too heavy, scarce, valuable (e.g., gold, platinum), hard to recycle, or have low reduction/oxidation potential Energy density has peaked by using lighter elements—from lead to zinc to nickel to lithium. Be skeptical of battery improvement claims. A 100% renewable grid needs at least six weeks of energy storage. Storing one day of U.S. electricity with Li-ion batteries would cost $11.9 trillion, cover 345 square miles, and weigh 74 million tons, excluding grid upgrade costs. The mining required is immense and must be repeated every 15 years. Other battery types exist, but commercial focus remains on lithium. A 100% renewable grid with battery backup is a pipe dream."
Taxpayer-backed net zero project axed after five months - "A £14m taxpayer-funded scheme to deploy a fleet of hydrogen-fuelled delivery trucks across the South East has collapsed just five months after it was launched. Under the HyHaul scheme set up by Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, three hydrogen refuelling stations were to be set up along the M4 – supplying a fleet of 30 lorries delivering to factories and stores. However, millions of pounds of taxpayer cash now hangs in the balance after the project was scrapped owing to reluctance among trucking companies to commit to the vehicles. The collapse of HyHaul is just the latest of several hydrogen schemes recently abandoned as hype around the net zero fuel fades... The HyHaul scheme is part of a wider government strategy to use hydrogen to store and carry energy produced by wind, solar or from natural gas. It dates back to 2021 when Boris Johnson’s government published its Hydrogen Strategy suggesting that wind and solar farms would eventually make so much of the gas that it would supply over a third of UK energy by 2050."
Bjorn Lomborg on X - "Climate sanity, finally EU has been gripped in a decade-long climate panic But now fading, leaving an opportunity to finally focus on sensible, affordable climate policies Data: Just published Autumn 2025 with 9%, down from 35% in Spring 2019. Eurobarometer since start 2010, percent naming climate/environment as one of two top issues for EU https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/assets/about/MainIssuesEU.xlsx, https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3372, and https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/"
Hamburg referendum backs more ambitious climate action, 2040 net-zero target - "Voters in Germany's second largest city have approved a referendum requiring the city to reach climate neutrality by 2040 — five years earlier than planned. The result forces the local government to toughen its climate law despite warnings about costs and feasibility... With the exception of the Left party, no group represented in the city parliament openly supported the referendum, including the Greens... A study commissioned by Hamburg’s environment authorities found that the 2040 target is technically feasible, but would require steep efforts across nearly all sectors – including phasing out gas and oil heating, expanding electrified transport, introducing a city-wide 30 km/h speed limit, and ending industrial gas use. Business associations warned that the referendum will weaken local companies. “We can no longer rule out production relocations and job cuts among our companies, which are competing on a global scale,” said Andreas Pfannenberg, head of the Hamburg Industrial Association. Luisa Neubauer, the most prominent leader of the youth climate movement Fridays for Future (FfF), said that Hamburg is advancing on climate action, while the federal government is falling behind. “We have made history,” the Hamburg native said."
When they get what they want and make history by destroying their lives, they'll then blame Capitalism
