Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #647 – Watts Up With That?

The Week That Was: 2025-06-21 (June 21, 2025)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.” — Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist (1998)

Number of the Week: 35,000 MWh needed, 4.6 MWh approved

THIS WEEK:

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

Scope: TWTW begins with a paper by Richard Lindzen and William Happer calling for a repeal of the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) which provided hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to unreliable wind and solar. TWTW continues with the significant omissions in proclamations by NOAA and other organizations in claiming increasing carbon dioxide is acidifying the oceans. TWTW discusses assertions by organizations and individuals that climate misinformation should be criminalized, ignoring the fact that such organizations and individuals rely on information that fails to meet the standards of the scientific method. TWTW questions what is meant by an existential threat, then concludes with a presentation of part of the program of the upcoming DDP conference and where to register to attend in person or by Zoom.

*********************

Repeal IRA Subsidies: Last week, TWTW focused on a paper by Richard Lindzen and William Happer emphasizing Gold Standard Science. “Scientific Knowledge Is Determined by the Scientific Method, Not by Government Opinion, Consensus, 97% of Scientists’ Opinions, Peer Review, Models that Do Not Work, or Cherry-Picked, Fabricated, Falsified or Omitted Contradictory Data.” This week, the CO2 Coalition published a paper by the same two authors titled “IRA Climate Subsidies Should Be Repealed.” The authors state:

“Physics demonstrates that the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA’s) trillion-dollar climate subsidies rest on false science. The real science, which is virtually never reported, is that the IRA subsidies of $4.7 trillion (Cato’s estimate to 2050) aim to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will have no climate benefit, for two separate and cumulative reasons:

First, the physics of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases shows that reducing them to net zero will have a negligible effect on temperatures and extreme weather. At present, there are no effective replacements for fossil fuels, and eliminating them will be disastrous for people worldwide. The scientific fact is that doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase the world’s food supply by about 40%, with a trivial effect on Earth’s climate.

Second, the theory that GHG emissions are the primary driver of climate change is based on false science, such as consensus, theoretical models that do not work, fabricated and falsified data, agenda-driven peer review and government opinions. None of this is real science. (See our June 7, 2025, paper for details, Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm.)

In summary, IRA subsidies will waste trillions of dollars for no climate benefit, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce the amount of food worldwide, eliminating fossil fuels will be disastrous for people worldwide, and the trillions of dollars would be better spent improving Americans’ standard of living.

Accordingly, all the IRA climate subsidies should be repealed ASAP.”

See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

**********************

Another Significant Omission: The false Endangerment Finding by the EPA under Lisa Jackson in 2009 under the Obama Administration asserts: “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and to endanger the public welfare of current and future generations.” The finding ignores or omits contradictory evidence including the only comprehensive global temperature data existing, the estimates of temperature from satellite evidence calculated since 1979 by Roy Spencer and John Christy and published monthly by the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

Similar calculations by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) independently verify their results. In 1998. Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS discovered that UAH failed to correctly compensate for orbital drift. When the error was discovered and verified, Spencer and Christy quickly made appropriate adjustments, in keeping with the scientific method. Errors need to be exposed, verified, and corrected. Ignoring them or omitting them is contrary to the scientific method.

For years, NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research has funded the Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), a climate modeling laboratory at Princeton. NOAA also funds the Cooperative Institute for Modeling the Earth System (CIMES), which is a collaboration between GFDL and Princeton University. For over forty years, GFDL and CIMES have ignored UAH data and have omitted validating their models against atmospheric data, which is where the greenhouse gas effect occurs. NOAA funds organizations that systematically ignore the scientific method and fail to test their predictions against physical evidence. The findings of these organizations cannot be considered scientific.

Another NOAA activity that is considered scientific but fails the scientific method is ocean acidification which was boosted when environmental ecologist Jane Lubchenco was administrator of NOAA during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013. The claim that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will acidify the oceans contains a bit of scientific fact surrounded by a bodyguard of lies and omissions.

As a gas, water vapor contains no CO2 and has a pH of 7 which is neutral. But when it liquefies in the atmosphere and falls as rain, it absorbs CO2 making a weak acid, carbonic acid. All rain is carbonic acid and has a pH ranging from 4 to 6. Thus, it is common that in land areas with moderate to heavy rainfall, such as the tropics, the soils are acidic. Millions of years of rainfall have washed CO2 from the atmosphere into the oceans. Roughly, there is about 50 to 60 times more carbon dioxide in oceans than in the atmosphere. So, direct rainfall will slightly increase CO2 in the oceans, slightly lowering the pH.

Yet after millions of years of rainfall, the oceans are alkaline with pH of about 8.1. A fact that NOAA and others ignore. To recall, the acidity or alkalinity of a solution is measured by the pH scale with 7 as neutral. The scale is a base 10 logarithm. Alkaline drain cleaner has a pH of about 14; bleach has a pH of about 13. Is bleach 10 times more acidic than alkaline drain cleaner? Hen eggs have a pH of about 8 (oceans 8.1); sweet cream butter has a pH of about 6.0 to 6.7. Does cooking eggs in butter make them acidic?

Further, the areas in the oceans, called Marine primary production areas or regions, are areas where ocean upwellings bring carbon dioxide and other nutrients to the surface and marine life flourishes. Examples are the Grand Banks in the Atlantic off Canada, the area off Monterey, California, off Canada and Alaska, and off most of Europe.

As with most such distortions, the claim of ocean acidification requires a huge ignorance of geological history. Mollusks evolved in the Cambrian explosion of life, about 540 million years ago, when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were about ten times what they are today. Marine creatures with shells containing calcium carbonate evolved before then, with even higher concentrations of CO2. Great limestone beds were laid down during the hot, high CO2 Cambrian period.

Reef building corals evolved around 245 million years ago. Since then, Earth has experienced periods far hotter than today and periods with CO2 concentrations far greater than today. Reef-building corals have a symbiotic relationship with microscopic algae called zooxanthellae, which live within their tissues. The coral provides the algae with a protected environment and the carbon dioxide and nitrogen (for chlorophyll and other compounds) needed for photosynthesis, while the algae, through photosynthesis, provides the coral with energy, nutrients, and their vibrant colors. Changes in water temperatures, salinity, or solar irradiance can cause corals to expel the algae, turning them white. They are not dead but may need a different variety of zooxanthellae, which are diverse with many clades (groups of organisms believed to have a common ancestor) and types.

There is no reason to assume that a modest lowering of pH will kill corals any more than slow changes in temperatures will kill them. However, human causes including sediment from land disturbances and destructive fishing practices such as using dynamite and cyanide do kill them. Water running into the oceans for millions of years often passes over many types of alkaline material resulting in a pH of about 8.1, alkaline.

The best scientific explanation why increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will not acidify the oceans TWTW has seen was written by the late Roger Cohen and William Happer ten years ago. The paper is mathematical, but the summary is clear. The authors begin the section titled Alkalinity of the Unbuffered Ocean with:

Ocean water is salty because of the weathering of the earth’s rocks by rainwater, and because of salts dissolved from the ocean floor, especially near plate-spreading boundaries. The salt water contains positive ions (cations), mainly sodium Na+, magnesium Mg2+, calcium Ca2+ and potassium K+. For clarity, we can think of the ions as coming from the strong bases NaOH, and potassium hydroxide, KOH (lye) and much less soluble magnesium hydroxide, Mg(OH)2 and calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 (slaked lime). The ocean also contains negative ions (anions), mainly chloride Cl− and sulfate SO4^{− 2}, which we can think of the anions as coming from the strong acids, hydrochloric acid, HCl and sulfuric acid, H2SO4. For want of a better word, we will refer to the cations of strong bases, and anions of strong acids as pH-independent ions. The concentration of pH-independent ions is unaffected by normal changes in the pH of water.

Further, the authors explain how weak acids (notably carbonic acid (H2CO3)) make rainwater slightly acidic, with a pH = 5.4 (vinegar has pH ~ 3). The authors estimate that if the oceans were not buffered by weak acids, the oceans would have a pH of about 11.4. The Summary states [figures not shown here, boldface added]:

“This minimalist discussion already shows how hard it is to scare informed people with ocean acidification, but, alas, many people are not informed. For example:

• The oceans would be highly alkaline with a pH of about 11.4, similar to that of household ammonia, if there were no weak acids to buffer the alkalinity. Almost all of the buffering is provided by dissolved CO2, with very minor additional buffering from boric acid, silicic acid, and other even less important species.

• Doubling atmospheric CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to 800 ppm only decreases the pH of ocean water from about 8.2 to 7.9. This is well within the day-night fluctuations that already occur because of photosynthesis by plankton and less than the pH decreases with depth that occur because of the biological pump and the dissolution of calcium carbonate precipitates below the lysocline. [The depth where the rate of dissolution of calcium carbonate starts to increase significantly due to these changes in pressure and temperature.]

• Doubling atmospheric CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to 800 ppm only decreases the carbonate-ion concentration, [CO2− 3], by about 30%. Ocean surface waters are already supersaturated by several hundred per cent for formation of CaCO3 crystals from Ca2+ and CO2− 3. So, scare stories about dissolving carbonate shells are nonsense.

• The ocean has only absorbed 1/3 or less of the CO2 that it would eventually absorb when the concentrations of CO2 in the deep oceans came to equilibrium with surface concentrations. Effects like that of the biological pump and calcium carbonate dissolution below the lysocline allow the ocean to absorb substantially more than the amount that would be in chemical-equilibrium with the atmosphere.

• Over most of the Phanerozoic, the past 550 million years, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been measured in thousands of parts per million, and life flourished in both the oceans and on land. This is hardly surprising, given the relative insensitivity of ocean pH to large changes in CO2 concentrations that we have discussed above and given the fact that the pH changes that do occur are small compared to the natural variations of ocean pH in space and time.”

This is another instance where US government “science” is so politicized that it becomes nonsense. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

**********************

Censorship: An organization called the International Panel on the Information Environment has produced a report titled: “Facts, Fakes, and Climate Science: Recommendations for Improving Information Integrity about Climate Science.” The Synopsis of the report states:

Misleading information about the causes and consequences of climate change obstructs effective policy responses. This Summary for Policymakers summarizes findings from the larger Synthesis Report “Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review” (SR2025.1).

The central conclusion of the Synthesis Report is that powerful actors—including corporations, governments, and political parties—intentionally spread inaccurate or misleading narratives about anthropogenic climate change. These narratives circulate across digital, broadcast, and interpersonal communication channels.

The result is a decline in public trust, diminished policy coordination, and a feedback loop between scientific denialism and political inaction.

There is a severe gap in research on climate information integrity in the Global South, where impacts are likely to be significant but poorly documented.

Key takeaways from the synthesis include:

1. coordinated misinformation campaigns actively shape climate narratives;

2. scientific consensus is frequently misrepresented in media;

3. regulatory enforcement and access to data remain uneven globally;

4. information integrity research is heavily concentrated in the Global North.

The report concludes with an assessment of policy recommendations that have been made over time, identifying for policymakers the four areas where impact has been consistently positive:

• legislation to ensure standardized carbon reporting and labelling,

• litigation to ensure enforcement of the standards,

• coalition building across stakeholder groups,

• education of policymakers and the public.

This study delivers the first global, systematic assessment of information integrity about climate science. It draws on research by hundreds of scholars and thousands of peer-reviewed studies published over the past decade, with a methodologically rigorous review of 300 papers on policy solutions.

This consolidated evidence base affirms a scientific consensus and specifies the urgent measures policymakers must enact to shield humankind—and the planet we depend on—from an accelerating climate threat.

In short, this group proclaims that it understands scientific knowledge from “scientific consensus” and any group presenting physical evidence contradicting them should be punished.

This organization produced another report titled: “Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review.” It claims that [citations omitted here but in report, boldface added]:

“The United Nations (UN) has played an important role in placing the issue of information integrity on public and policy agendas, including for the area of climate change. In 2024, the United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity were presented; that year also witnessed the launch of the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, spearheaded by Brazil and coordinated through UNESCO. The Global Principles highlighted the need for ‘independent, free and pluralistic media’ around the world as vehicles of information and opinion formation. They also called for more “transparency and research” into whether and how traditional media and online communication platforms maintain information integrity in the public interest. That publication, however, stopped short of offering an explicit or operational definition of information integrity.

This consolidated evidence base affirms a scientific consensus and specifies the urgent measures policymakers (see SFP2025.2) must enact to shield humankind— and the planet we depend on—from an accelerating climate threat.”

Writing in WUWT, Eric Worrall uncovered a UN Human Rights Council report that calls for punishment of those who oppose abandoning fossil fuels. The summary of the report states:

“The present report clarifies States’ international human rights obligations and businesses’ responsibilities to phase out fossil fuels and related subsidies within the current decade. The interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle, coupled with six decades of climate obstruction, compel urgent defossilization of our whole economies, for a just transition that is effective, human rights based and transformative in protecting the climate, nature, water and food on which life and health for present and future generations depend.” [Boldface added]

For example, Richard Lindzen and William Happer used the scientific method to expose the folly of Net Zero. Are they to be punished for producing physical evidence contradicting the claims of the UN organizations which, for years, have led the effort to abandon fossil fuels which are needed for reliable electricity, heat, and transportation?

Do UN bureaucrats and their defenders believe they have the right to determine the truth of scientific principles? The quote of the week is: “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.” — Richard Feynman. If misinformation on the causes and extent of climate change becomes a criminal offence, would the UN be a criminal organization?

Has the UN become an advocate for causing destitute poverty and starvation (by prohibiting use of artificial fertilizer which produce greenhouse gases)? See links under Defending the Orthodoxy and Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science

**********************

An Existential Threat? It is commonplace for promoters of fear of climate change to call climate change an existential threat. But what the term means is not clear. Clinical psychologist Andrew Hartz provides an explanation of the use of existential threat. See Article # 1.

**********************

DDP Conference: The 23rth annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness will be held in Tucson, Arizona, from July 4 to 6. The program features the 2022 Nobel co-Laureate in Physics John Clauser speaking on “Serious errors and fudges in the IPCC et al.’s global power balance structure, albedo, and climate feedback assessments.”

Other noted speakers of interest to TWTW readers include Willie Soon, “Measuring the Earth’s Energy Budget”: Michael Connolly “Balloons in the Air: Revisiting Atmospheric Physics, with Data”; Joe Leimkuhler, “Prospects for the U.S. Petroleum Industry”; Jim Steele “Understanding Natural Climate Dynamics Best Prepares Us for Weather Disasters”; and David Legates “9.5 Weeks: My Time in the White House.” For registration in person or by Zoom see https://aaps.wufoo.com/forms/q1f6wbjr18g6o47/

*********************

SEPP’S APRIL FOOLS AWARD – THE JACKSON

It is time for voting on the Annual SEPP’s April Fools Award – the Jackson. The grand prize is a large lump of coal. Last year, the deserving winner of the lump of coal was the US National Science Teaching Association. In 2023, the Association banned the CO2 Coalition from its meeting which the Coalition members paid for and were approved because the CO2 Coalition exhibit pointed out that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis which is the food source of all complex life on Earth.

There are many strong candidates for this dubious honor including leaders of US scientific agencies who signed off on questionable reports on climate change. Get your votes in by June 29 with the reason why you recommend that person for the award. Send your vote to Ken@Sepp.org. If you wish, you will be anonymous. The award will be announced at the 43^rd annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness on July 5-6. The decision of the judges is final.

*********************

Number of the Week: 35,000 MWh needed, 4.6 MWh approved.

DEMAND: On June 20, the business day with the longest period of sunlight, the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) reported that the demand trend for electricity fell to its lowest point at about 12:30 pm (local time) with a demand of 19,500 MW. About 6:30 pm demand began peaking at 28,000 MW and remained there or above until 10 pm when it slowly fell to 25,000 MW. Except between about 10 am and 3 pm, demand did not go below 22,000 MW.

SUPPLY: On the same day, renewables (Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Biomass, Biogas, and Small Hydro) reached a near peak of about 25,000 MW at 8:30 am and remained there or more until 5:30 pm when they fell dramatically to about 7,500 MW at 8 pm where they remained the rest of the evening. When it is functioning solar is the biggest generator at over 18,000 MW with wind second at about 5,000 MW.

Large hydro provided an average of about 3,750 MW for the rest of the evening and Nuclear about 2,280 MW. The rest of the electricity came from imports (mostly coal and other fossil fuels), and batteries.

The government of California is trying to close its remaining nuclear power plant, small hydro and all fossil fuel power imports and rely on solar, wind, and storage.

On the longest business day of the year for sunshine, after 8:00 pm CAISO needed 28,000 MW of power until 10 pm when it slowly fell to 25,000 MW while renewables were delivering 7,500 MW and batteries were delivering between 7,000 and 8,000 MW until 10 pm when they declined.

Based on rough calculations, just for that evening (8 pm to midnight) CAISO needed 110,000 MWh of power while renewables delivered 30,000 MWh and the power delivered by large hydro alone was about 14,280 MWh. Thus, taking away nuclear, the shortfall would be about 35,000 MWh.

Existing batteries delivered about 27,000 MWh and California just approved the “World’s Largest’ Energy Storage Site” with 4,600 kWh (4.6 MWh) of battery storage with no costs given. If California goes net zero with no nuclear, what will California do on a cold, windless night in January? How will it replenish its batteries? If California cannot deliver the nuclear power needed by the Bonneville Power Administration to supplement its large hydro, will the Administration continue to deliver hydropower to California?

According to the US EIA, except for isolated Hawaii, residential electricity prices in California are already the highest in the country. In March, the US national average was 17.11 cents per kilowatt-hour, while in California it was 32.41 cents per kilowatt-hour and Hawaii 41.11.  See https://www.caiso.com/, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a, and link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy – Storage.

Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

Contraction of the World’s Storm-Cloud Zones the Primary Contributor to the 21st Century Increase in the Earth’s Sunlight Absorption

By George Tselioudis, et al., Geophysical Research Letters, June 8, 2025 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]

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