ClimateCharts

This graph is scientific garbage masquerading as precision. You're comparing modern temperature measurements with geological proxies from 56 to 252 MILLION years ago, pretending they have comparable temporal resolution. They don't. Mass spectrometers measure isotope ratios, not ancient temperatures or dates. Geological records smooth out rapid changes, and sampling resolution isn't chronological accuracy. No error bars. No meaningful uncertainty. No accounting for geological smoothing. And the cherry on top? They use RCP8.5, an extreme emissions scenario whose plausibility as a business-as-usual future has been seriously challenged in the scientific literature, to project warming thousands of years into the future. So we have ancient proxy records with enormous uncertainties compared against modern instruments and an implausible high-end projection. This isn't evidence of unprecedented warming. It's a textbook example of how to manufacture a terrifying graphic by ignoring uncertainty, mixing incompatible resolutions, and choosing an extreme scenario.

Libs in the comments are totally fine with the charity named and created for maintaining bridges having their annual spending look like this. Has completely lost its way.

‘We'd have a British sovereign wealth fund now that will be worth probably a trillion pounds’ Chancellor @JohnHealey_MP suggests what Britain could have gained if it had set up an energy wealth fund like Norway’s back in the 1980s #Peston

🚨Sneaked out by OFGEM this morning, a warning for the first time EVER they cannot guarantee that demand will be met on a peak day in winter. Let’s be clear what that means. They cannot guarantee that homes will be warm, lights come on or industry function on a peak day this winter. And why? Because of an accelerated decline in domestic gas supply from the North Sea. So what is the solution? For British bill payers to pay more, to IMPORT more from Europe (specifically Belgium) to keep the lights on in Britain. Britain. A country with vast supplies of gas, untapped, deliberately due to Labour policy now going cap in hand to Europe and paying vast sums to import foreign gas. It is utterly outrageous. You couldn’t make it up. ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/f…

British businesses are cutting costs and eating into their profit margins to cope with rising energy costs, the Bank of England governor has warned. Andrew Bailey said that UK firms were taking measures such as reducing their headcounts and not passing on the higher costs of energy to their customers. Net Zero is crippling British industry. #CostOfNetZero

UK 🇬🇧 The Drax net zero con-trick - where a massive polluter has become a net zero manipulator. Yet more net zero environmental destruction masquerading as “saving the planet”. The Labour government is trying to force through an extension that would give Drax an estimated £1.8bn in taxpayer funded subsidies on top of the £11bn it has already received. Drax has burned an amount of wood equivalent to 300 million trees. Burning wood creates 18% more CO2 emissions than coal. And here’s the con trick: Drax is a sneaky way of exporting our CO2 emissions. We pay billions of pounds to cut down ancient forests in the US and Canada, ship the wood across the Atlantic in diesel tankers, then burn it in a Yorkshire-based power station. And here’s the kicker - the CO2 emissions tally is not counted against the country that burns it, but the country that grows it. So Drax emissions are counted against the countries who grow and export the wood for Drax - like Canada and USA…not UK who burn it. So the UK can reduce CO2 figures by importing the burning wood grown elsewhere. A gigantic net zero con-trick.

My @thetimes column: Four/five incidents in 2 weeks on the UK electricity grid. We’re begging France for power. Why are the grid bosses gaslighting us? times-comment.com/72547570

BP announced this morning write downs of as much as $4.5 billion linked to its failed investments in green energy (to be fully disclosed during 3Q earnings)

We need to find out who is responsible.

Shell's biofuels flagship just hit reality. In Rotterdam, Shell was building what was meant to be Europe's largest biofuel plant at a cost of €1.2 billion. The annual output target was 820,000 tons of so-called "sustainable" aviation fuel and "renewable" diesel. The feedstock was supposed to be used frying oil, vegetable oils and animal waste. The sales pitch was "clean aviation." Then... construction costs soared and demand stayed weak. So Shell paused the project. Then killed it. 3,000 piles went into the ground, millions of work hours spent, hundreds of millions of euros already sunk. Now the unfinished plant is up for sale, set to either be dismantled, shipped abroad or sold for parts. That is the biofuels fairy tale.

If @NOAA wants to focus on another data set for its purposes - fine But why do they need to remove access to this data from the public? There is only one reason to do so…. Someone in NOAA doesn’t like what it says and doesn’t want it shown anymore @ChrisMartzWX