“Targets don’t do that. Technologies do.” Marcel Crok explores Pielke’s alternative: cutting emissions through better technology while preserving prosperity. Also discussed: nuclear power, the IPCC’s shortcomings and the political backlash against expensive energy. clintel.org/paris-temperatur…

Have policymakers in the EU, the UK and US states never heard of El Hierro? A small island with 11,000 residents and plenty of wind. An ideal testing ground for the promise of 100% renewable electricity, before making millions of people depend on it. They installed wind turbines with more than twice the island’s average electricity demand in capacity, plus pumped hydro storage. Yet in 2025, this system supplied just 44% of its electricity. Diesel supplied the rest. @mhtncontrarian explains why: during prolonged periods of low wind, the upper reservoir empties. Then the diesel generators have to take over. If this setup cannot deliver on its promise on a small, windy island, why are politicians so confident it will work on a vastly larger scale? They keep pushing ahead, with millions of people’s electricity supply at stake.

You turn the heating down because you’re worried about the bill. The politicians telling you the energy transition must go faster have no trouble keeping warm. @mhtncontrarian draws a disturbing parallel with Mao’s Great Leap Forward. Mao told farmers to plant more densely and plough deeper. Officials promised ever bigger harvests. When the crops failed, the state still demanded the grain it had been promised. Tens of millions starved. Menton sees the same arrogance in Western energy policy: leaders determined to replace dependable power stations with wind and solar, brushing aside warnings about whether the system will work when people need it. And the consequences reach beyond your heating bill. Farms need fuel. Fertiliser production needs energy. So do food processing, refrigeration and transport. Expensive, unreliable energy can put food out of reach too. If you’re already struggling to heat your home or feed your family, being told the transition must go faster is hard to stomach. How much are ordinary people expected to lose before the leaders pushing these policies admit they could be wrong?

Climate policy is one thing. Paying for it is another. Charles Rotter on Pew’s latest poll: • Environment/climate policy matters greatly to 66% of Democratic supporters, versus 15% of Republicans. • The economy ranks higher for both. • 74% of adults are very worried about gas and energy prices. Yet Pew never asked: how much extra would YOU accept on your monthly energy bill for faster emissions cuts?

One IPCC scenario could come true remarkably soon: its own bankruptcy. Following the IPCC’s example, @marcelcrok picks the bleakest scenario. Under “business as usual,” its financial reserves disappear and it goes into the red by 2029. The irony: governments discuss trillions for climate policy, yet other countries are unwilling to replace roughly €2 million a year in lost US funding. Crok sees that reluctance as a sign of waning interest in the climate issue. Plenty of grand declarations. Rather less enthusiasm when the collection plate comes round.

🎥 Roger Pielke Jr.: What Climate Science Actually Says About Extreme Weather Watch his full first lecture at Clintel, recorded at Antropia in Driebergen, the Netherlands, on 11 October 2026. Around 57 minutes: youtu.be/VeELhhtzzqY

You take climate change seriously, support cutting emissions and publish research consistent with IPCC assessments. Then you find yourself labelled a “climate denier”. That happened to @RogerPielkeJr. He studied losses from hurricanes and other weather disasters. Those losses are rising—but how much comes from climate change, and how much from having more people and more valuable property in harm’s way? His findings were not well received. In his lecture at Clintel, he describes the political attacks that followed, including from the Obama White House. He also walks through what the science says about extreme weather. Heatwaves, floods, hurricanes and droughts each tell a different story. And he explains why he challenges the attribution studies behind so many headlines. His full first lecture, recorded on 11 October in Driebergen, the Netherlands, is now online. Around 57 minutes, with clear explanations and plenty of personal experience. Worth making time for. 🎥 Watch via the link in the first reply.

Remarkable: an entire month of copied temperature readings, a historical heat record deleted, and comparison measurements largely kept under wraps. @JennMarohasy examines Australia’s temperature archives: ▪️ All 31 minimum temperatures for August 1907 also appear under August 1867. The original observation books show different readings. ▪️ The 51.7°C recorded at Bourke on 3 January 1909 has been removed from the official dataset. ▪️ Other historical heat extremes were never digitised. ▪️ Parallel measurements from mercury thermometers and electronic sensors remain largely unpublished. Her blunt conclusion: management at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology prefer the hottest years to be recent years. In her assessment, that is why the old heat record had to go. A weather bureau should preserve the measurement history. Not the history it finds most convenient.

‘Net Zero’ is running into a world that cannot do without fossil fuels. That is the argument made by Wim Röst, chairman of Clintel, in his opinion article “The Climate Narrative Is Collapsing”. Countries within the IPCC are clashing over funding and the timetable for its next assessment report. Röst sees a more fundamental conflict behind those disputes: climate ambitions are colliding with the need for affordable energy, industrial production and food security. Natural gas is also a vital feedstock for nitrogen fertiliser. Disruptions to energy supplies therefore reach far beyond electricity bills—they affect harvests, food prices and livelihoods. The poorest countries have the least capacity to absorb the consequences. His sharp conclusion: ending all fossil fuel production would lead to a ‘Zero Economy’.

One sentence for the good news. Extensive coverage of regional fire disasters and climate threats. Charles Rotter highlights the striking emphasis in the abstract of the ‘State of Wildfires’ report. Global burned area last fire season was 18% below the 2002–2024 average. Carbon emissions from fires were 20–31% below average. Nor was this an isolated result: satellite records show that global burned area has been declining for two decades. Yet that global picture gets just one sentence. Another striking point: the report presents a lower projected fire risk compared with the extreme SSP5-8.5 scenario as a benefit of climate mitigation. Yet it describes that same scenario as no longer credible. In Rotter’s view, an unrealistic worst-case scenario becomes the benchmark for policy success. Severe regional fires deserve attention. The global decline deserves more than one sentence.