Tag: climategate

UK Pays Wind Farms $1.3 Billion To Shut Down When It’s Windy

Bloomberg reports UK Is Paying £1 Billion to Waste a Record Amount of Wind Power

Burgeoning capacity and blustery weather should have driven huge growth in output in 2024. But the grid can’t cope, forcing the operator to pay wind farms to turn off, a cost ultimately borne by consumers. It’s a situation that puts at risk plans to decarbonize the network by 2030 and makes it harder to cut bills.

Crucial to the net zero grid target is a massive build-out of renewable power, particularly from wind. Britain has boosted its offshore fleet by 50% in the past five years and is set to double it in the next five, Bloomberg data show.

But the grid hasn’t expanded at the same pace. As a result, the operator is increasingly paying wind farms, particularly those in Scotland, not to run. So far this year, the UK has spent more than £1 billion ($1.3 billion) in “congestion costs” to turn off plants that can’t deliver electricity because of grid constraints, and switch on others.

Last month for example, when Storm Bert swept across the UK, some of its newest and biggest wind parks were still. Scotland’s £3 billion Seagreen project, owned by SSE Plc and TotalEnergies SE, was shut off. SSE’s Viking development on the Shetland Islands was also closed.

Wind vs Gas

UK generators usually sell output in advance on the wholesale market. But those transactions don’t take into account the physical limitations of balancing supply and demand in real time. To keep the lights on, the operator steps in, paying some plants to turn off and others that are closer to demand centers to fire up.

Often, this means shutting off a far-flung wind farm and starting up a gas-fed plant that’s closer to a city.

Keep reading

Bovaer: What is the cattle feed additive and why is it leading to shoppers pouring milk down the toilet?

Shoppers have threatened to boycott three major supermarkets over their participation in a new trial to add a methane-suppressing supplement into cow feed.

Arla Foods, which owns the UK’s biggest dairy co-operative, announced on 26 November it was going to start using the supplement.

The initiative is aimed at tackling climate-heating methane emissions produced by cows during digestion.

Arla said it will work alongside Aldi, Morrisons and Tesco to trial the use of the feed additive known as Bovaer across 30 British farms.

But the announcement has since been heavily criticised, with swathes of British shoppers threatening to boycott all three supermarkets and Arla brands, especially Lurpak butter.

Arla’s X post announcing the trial has been viewed more than five million times and gained 13,000 comments.

Videos on TikTok also showed some people throwing tubs of Lurpak in the bin, while others poured cartons of Arla Cravendale milk down the sink and down the toilet.

Keep reading

UN “Climate” Deal OKs “Carbon Markets”

“Commitments must quickly become cash.” Well, of course: cash talks, B.S. walks. No wait. it’s ‘B.S. talks and cash walks.” The South has been plundered for decades, and this is just another scam. They will get pennies on the dollar as kleptocrats along the way make the cash disappear into their own pockets. Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood

Posted By: Alex Newman via Liberty Sentinel

After two weeks of negotiations at the 29th annual United Nations “climate” summit, the UN and its member governments agreed to rules for a global “carbon market” led by the global body. The scheme will put a price on emissions of the gas of life, carbon dioxide (CO2), and allow carbon credits to be traded. UN bosses called it a “base to build on.”

The final deal, inked over the weekend, also saw Western governments pledge $1.3 trillion per year in “climate” wealth transfers by 2035. The money for Third World kleptocracies and climate profiteers will come from what remains of the middle class in the West. These reparations are to compensate for “loss and damage” supposedly caused by Western CO2, the UN claims.

Of that sum, about $300 billion annually will be in the form of grants and low-interest loans for “climate reparations,” starting immediately. That represents a tripling of previous pledges. The rest of the funding will come from government-backed “investments” and potential new international taxes on fuels or aviation in the years ahead.

Trading Emissions of CO2

The most important part of the deal involves the UN’s “carbon market” schemes. “This will be a game-changing tool to direct resources to the developing world and help us save up to $250 billion a year when implementing our climate plans,” explained COP29 boss Yalchin Rafiyev, deputy foreign minister for the Islamo-Marxist regime of Azerbaijan.

“When operational, these carbon markets will help countries implement their climate plans faster and cheaper, driving down emissions,” he continued. “We are a long way from halving emissions this decade. But wins on carbon markets here at COP29 will help us get back in that race.”

Deal a “Base on Which to Build”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, former leader of the Socialist International, also said the deal was a good start. “I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome — on both finance and mitigation — to meet the great challenge we face. But this agreement provides a base on which to build,” he said in a statement after the deal was signed.

“It must be honored in full and on time,” continued Guterres, touting “multilateralism” (better known to Americans as globalism). “Commitments must quickly become cash. All countries must come together to ensure the top-end of this new goal is met.… I appeal to governments to see this agreement as a foundation — and build on it.”

UN climate boss Simon Stiell emphasized that the agreement is merely the next step on the road to even more grandiose grabs for money and power. “This is no time for victory laps,” said Stiell. “We need to set our sights and redouble our efforts on the road to [COP30 in the Brazilian city of] Belém.”

In his final statement on the summit, Islamo-Marxist dictator Ilham Aliyev boasted of success. “I consider the ‘Baku breakthrough’ as a triumph of multilateralism,” he said, celebrating the confab’s approval of rules for the UN’s “carbon markets” and wealth redistribution. “The COP29 is a turning point in the climate diplomacy.”

Keep reading

How The Rush To Net Zero Is Accelerating Britain’s Industrial Decline

It’s Toytown basic economics that the price of any commodity or service is determined by the relationship between supply and demand. The less there is of anything, the higher its price will be, depending on the level of demand. The greater the level of supply the lower the price, and thus the greater the demand and usage.

Nothing could exemplify that better than energy. Restricting the supply of energy whether by design or circumstance, or even elevating the price artificially with taxes and levies, is bound to inhibit demand. And that diminishes the economy.

The Telegraph has published an article by Jonathan Leake on how Net Zero has accelerated Britain’s national decline:

For Ed Miliband and Sir Keir Starmer, Net Zero is the route to clean energy, economic growth and turning the U.K. into a global green superpower.

Across the Atlantic, however, Britain’s drive for “decarbonisation” is increasingly seen as an economic experiment – one that risks tipping the U.K. from miniscule economic growth into full-scale decline.

Chris Wright, Donald Trump’s nominee for US energy secretary, has warned that Britain’s rush to ditch fossil fuels in favour of wind and solar power is causing higher prices, driving away energy-intensive businesses and contributing to Britain’s national decline.

“The U.K., although no longer part of the EU, has continued aggressive climate policies that have driven up energy prices for its citizens and industry,” he wrote in a recent report. “The once world-leading United Kingdom now has a per capita income lower than even the poorest state in the United States.”

Leake doesn’t dispute the effects of climate change or “other consequences of greenhouse gas emissions”. His main point is that a key part of Net Zero policy is to reduce energy usage, but only in Britain. How much less?

To quote the Government’s advisory Climate Change Committee: “In our Balanced Net Zero Pathway, the U.K. economy becomes much more energy efficient, with total energy demand falling by around 33% in end-use sectors between now and 2050.”

Improved efficiency – delivering more output for the same amount of fuel, or less – could help to deliver a reduction in energy consumption. Yet huge advances would be necessary to yield a reduction in consumption of a third. Many observers believe the tail will wag the dog when it comes to this target, meaning the U.K. may be forced to curtail energy use in order to hit it.

For Wright and others, slashing energy consumption by a third and still expecting growth is heresy – an economic experiment no other country has achieved, or even attempted before.

Their view – one supported by most economists – is that access to energy has historically always been directly related to prosperity. The more energy we have, the richer we will become. And if we have less, we get poorer.

Keep reading

Florida Republican Lawmaker Introduces Legislation to BAN Weather Engineering Amid Rising Concerns Over Climate Manipulation

A Florida Republican Senator has introduced SB 56, a bill that aims to prohibit weather modification activities within the state.

Introduced by Senator Ileana Garcia, this legislation targets chemical and technological methods used to manipulate weather patterns, temperature, or sunlight intensity, effectively halting a controversial practice often linked to geoengineering.

What Does SB 56 Say?

The bill repeals existing provisions in Florida statutes related to weather modification.

It specifically prohibits the “injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of 36 a chemical, a chemical compound, a substance, or an apparatus 37 into the atmosphere within the borders of this state for the 38 express purpose of affecting the temperature, the weather, or 39 the intensity of sunlight.”

Violators could face stiff penalties, including fines of up to $10,000 and potential misdemeanor charges.

SB 56 is set to take effect on July 1, 2025, but it will likely encounter opposition from industry stakeholders and environmental scientists.

Florida is not the only state taking a stand against weather manipulation. Earlier this year, the Tennessee State Senate took a definitive stance against the controversial topic of “chemtrails” by passing SB 2691/HB 2063.

The bill, which aims to ban the intentional release of chemicals into the atmosphere for geoengineering purposes, was sponsored by Representative Monty Fritts (R-Kingston) and Senator Steve Southerland (R-Morristown) and won approval in the Senate on Monday, The Tennessean reported.

The legislation is predicated on the claim that “it is documented the federal government or other entities acting on the federal government’s behalf or at the federal government’s request may conduct geoengineering experiments by intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere, and those activities may occur within the State of Tennessee.”

This new bill seeks to outlaw any such activities, stating that, “The intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight is prohibited.”

In New Hampshire, two motivated House Representatives, Jason Gerhard, Merrimack – District 25, and Kelley Potenza, Strafford – District 19, have introduced “The Clean Atmosphere Preservation Act” NH House Bill (HB) 1700.

Keep reading

Global First: Denmark Starts Taxing Farm Animals’ Burps, Farts And Poop

Denmark, known for its inventive restaurants and elegant design studios, is about to become known for something more basic: the world’s first belch and manure tax.

That’s because there are five times as many pigs and cows in Denmark as there are people. Nearly two-thirds of its land is taken up by farming. And agriculture is becoming its largest share of climate pollution, putting lawmakers under intense public pressure to reduce it.

So now, Denmark’s unlikely coalition government, made up of three parties from across the political spectrum, has agreed to tax the planet-heating methane emissions that all those animals expel through their poop, farts and burps. The measure, under negotiation for years, was passed by the Danish Parliament this month, making it the only such climate levy on livestock in the world.

“I think it’s good,” said Rasmus Angelsnes, 31, who was shopping for dinner in Copenhagen one recent afternoon. “It’s kind of a nudge to make different choices, maybe more climate-friendly choices.”

Never mind that his shopping cart contained thick slices of pork belly, which he planned to cook that rainy evening with potatoes and parsley. “Comfort food,” he said sheepishly.

The tax is part of a larger package designed to clean up the country’s agricultural pollution and eventually restore some farmland to its natural form, like peat lands, which are exceptionally good at locking away planet-heating gases underground but were drained decades ago to grow crops.

Denmark’s quest is also part of a reckoning for many agricultural powerhouses, including the United States, as they face calls to clean up pollution from farms, while balancing the needs of politically powerful agricultural lobbies.

Globally, the food system accounts for a fourth of greenhouses gases, and reducing those emissions requires making tough choices on diets, jobs and industries. At the same time, farmers are vulnerable to the hazards of climate change, with punishing heat, droughts and floods exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels. That makes food a particularly vexing climate problem to take on.

No wonder that efforts to reduce agriculture’s climate emissions have faced stiff resistance, from Brussels to Delhi to Wellington, where the New Zealand government proposed a burp tax in 2022 only to have a later government scrap it.

Keep reading

UN’s Latest Climate Agenda Sparks Alarms Over Online Censorship

The United Nations (UN) is engaging in yet another effort that can easily slip into a tool for “bolstering” online censorship.

Earlier in the week the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change was launched during a G20 Summit.

This adds to a convoluted list of various UN-driven treaties, initiatives, and goals – and here the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has found a partner in Brazil’s authorities.

Those behind the document say it’s there to help combat climate change disinformation and take aim at social media in particular. If UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay is to be believed, this type of “disinformation” is “running rampant” on the internet.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who addressed the summit, also contributed to building the dramatic and alarmist narrative around both issues – climate, and “disinformation” – when he, in a social media post, complained about “coordinated disinformation campaigns impeding global progress on climate change.”

So far, the countries that have joined include Chile, Denmark, France, Morocco, Sweden, and the UK. They will collectively contribute to the UN raising $10–$15 million to fund “research and awareness campaigns” but also advocacy groups, and what’s referred to as communication strategies to help achieve the initiative’s goals.

While clearly treating the climate change theories as scientific fact, Azoulay stopped just short of referring to that as an existential threat – but did call it an “existential challenge.”

The UN official wants to see more than governments, scientists, etc., on board: the role of journalists is also highlighted here – in a rather strange way. Instead of reporting the news, journalists are envisaged as a kind of advocates themselves, “a critical link between science and society,” said Azoulay.

Keep reading

Early-twentieth-century cold bias in ocean surface temperature observations

The observed temperature record, which combines sea surface temperatures with near-surface air temperatures over land, is crucial for understanding climate variability and change1,2,3,4. However, early records of global mean surface temperature are uncertain owing to changes in measurement technology and practice, partial documentation5,6,7,8, and incomplete spatial coverage9. Here we show that existing estimates of ocean temperatures in the early twentieth century (1900–1930) are too cold, based on independent statistical reconstructions of the global mean surface temperature from either ocean or land data. The ocean-based reconstruction is on average about 0.26 °C colder than the land-based one, despite very high agreement in all other periods. The ocean cold anomaly is unforced, and internal variability in climate models cannot explain the observed land–ocean discrepancy. Several lines of evidence based on attribution, timescale analysis, coastal grid cells and palaeoclimate data support the argument of a substantial cold bias in the observed global sea-surface-temperature record in the early twentieth century. Although estimates of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century are not affected, correcting the ocean cold bias would result in a more modest early-twentieth-century warming trend10, a lower estimate of decadal-scale variability inferred from the instrumental record3, and better agreement between simulated and observed warming than existing datasets suggest2.

Keep reading

Fact Check: The Guardian’s article about extreme weather being due to “the climate crisis” is FALSE

On Monday, The Guardian published an article claiming that climate change is to blame for extreme weather – it is false and based on flawed “attribution studies” that lack rigorous peer review.

Attribution studies use climate models to simulate extreme weather events, but these models often reflect overheated worst-case scenarios rather than actual observations.

Empirical data does not support claims of worsening severe weather, with long-term trends for many extreme weather events remaining stable or declining, contradicting the narrative presented by The Guardian and other media outlets.

On Monday 18 November, The Guardian published an “explainer” piece titled ‘How do we know that the climate crisis is to blame for extreme weather?’ This is false. Actual data on extreme weather does not support their claim, and the claim is mostly based on flawed “attribution studies.”

The narrative that severe weather events are worsening due to climate change has become a mainstay in today’s media. However, a closer look at the data and the science behind these claims often reveals inconsistencies that should give us pause. Attribution studies, which are widely used to link specific extreme weather events to climate change, frequently lack rigorous peer review and are published hastily to garner headlines, raising significant concerns about their reliability.

Attribution studies work by using climate models to simulate two different worlds: one influenced by human-caused climate change and another without it. These models then assess the likelihood of extreme weather events in each world. Yet the validity of such studies is only as good as the models and assumptions underpinning them. This methodology is prone to overestimating risks because climate models are often reflecting overheated worst-case scenarios rather than actual observations.

Moreover, these studies are often published without proper peer review. Climate Realism has documented how media outlets run stories based on these model-driven studies, ignoring real-world data that often contradicts the alarming conclusions. For example, articles frequently cite reports that heatwaves, floods, or hurricanes are “worsening” without disclosing that these claims rely on theoretical simulations rather than measured evidence.

Empirical data does not support claims of worsening severe weather. In fact, the long-term trends for many extreme weather events have remained stable or even declined. According to Climate at a Glance, heatwaves in the United States were most severe in the 1930s, with temperatures and frequency outstripping recent records. The number of strong hurricanes making landfall in the United States has not increased either. The country even experienced a record 12-year lull in major hurricanes between 2005 and 2017.

Keep reading

‘A Little Dystopian’: Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates Bankrolling Methane Vaccine for Cattle

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is investing $9.4 million to develop a vaccine designed to reduce the number of methane-producing microbes in a cow’s stomach, Agriland reported.

The funding comes from his Bezos Earth Fund, a philanthropy he established with $10 billion in 2020. The fund intends to distribute all of its money by 2030, by funding projects to “fight climate change and protect nature.”

Researchers at the United Kingdom’s Pirbright Institute and Royal Veterinary College, and New Zealand’s AgResearch are among the groups receiving funding to research how a vaccine could reduce the methane emitted by cows as they digest and expel food through manure, flatulence and burping.

“Vaccines have proven to be an incredibly cost-effective way to deliver global health solutions,” said Bezos Earth Fund President and CEOAndrew Steer in a press release. “If we can apply this approach to vaccinate cattle and reduce emissions, the scalability and impact could be phenomenal.”

Although scientists have sporadically researched methane vaccines for over four decades, no vaccine yet exists. The project’s first goal is to show that such a vaccine is possible.

“This grant is a moonshot for proof-of-concept — risky bets like this are essential to tackling the climate crisis,” Steer said, according to Agriland.

The researchers will study how methanogens, or methane-producing microbes, colonize the digestive tract of calves and how their immune system responds to those methanogens.

Keep reading