This week’s roundup slices through the fog of consensus science, sustainable finance groupthink, and renewable energy theater. Peer-reviewed studies continue to dismantle the foundation of climate alarmism, exposing stable greenhouse gas dynamics and the limits of CO₂ forcing. Meanwhile, ESG loyalists push disclosures and ratings that mask scientific illiteracy with moral preening, and states like New York double down on energy suicide missions. From academic clarity to regulatory absurdities, we connect the dots between flawed theory and destructive policy.
CHART OF THE WEEK
SCIENCE
IPCC misrepresentations: comments made by former IPCC contributors after cutting ties with the politicized body — so scientists no longer subject to professional repercussions.
IPCC scientist #30 -Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-all- sky model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used. The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming [emphasis added]. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.
Our take: This paper offers a compelling empirical analysis showing that the Earth’s global average greenhouse gas optical thickness has remained stable over time, despite rising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. By examining the Planck-weighted optical depth, the author demonstrates that the atmosphere has already reached a saturation point in its radiative properties, a conclusion consistent with the logarithmic diminishing effect of CO₂ forcing. This undermines the central premise of climate alarmism: that increasing CO₂ will continue to drive significant warming. Instead, it supports the view that Earth's radiative equilibrium is self-regulating and resilient, a conclusion that should prompt serious re-evaluation of Net Zero policy assumptions.
This paper presents observed atmospheric thermal and humidity structures and global scale simulations of the infrared absorption properties of the Earth's atmosphere. These data show that the global average clear sky green-house effect has remained unchanged with time. A theoretically predicted infrared optical thickness is fully consistent with, and supports the observed value. It also facilitates the theoretical determination of the planetary radiative equilibrium cloud cover, cloud altitude and Bond albedo. In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all-sky surface up-ward radiation is equal to the available solar radiation. The all-sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all-sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation. The plane-tary radiative balance is maintained by the equilibrium cloud cover which is equal to the theoretical equilibrium clear sky transfer function. The Wien temperature of the all-sky emission spectrum is locked closely to the thermo-dynamic triple point of the water assuring the maximum radiation entropy. The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.
Our take: This paper provides a detailed and physically grounded exploration of the Earth's infrared radiative structure, challenging the simplistic greenhouse effect narrative. It clarifies that the radiative transfer processes in the atmosphere are governed by complex interactions among various gases, with water vapor playing a dominant role. The author underscores that CO₂’s contribution to greenhouse warming is limited by saturation in key infrared bands, a fact long recognized in radiative physics but often overlooked in climate policy. This reinforces the necessity of moving beyond CO₂-centric models and adopting a more nuanced, spectrally accurate understanding of atmospheric energy dynamics.
Comparison of the atmospheres of Venus, Earth and Mars in terms of carbon dioxide content is considered as evidence of the existence of the greenhouse effect (IPCC report, 1990). However, the applicability of the ideal gas equation to the description of the properties of the atmosphere of Venus and the Earth shows that the temperature of the gas is determined by the total atmospheric pressure, and not by the ability of molecules to absorb or not absorb infrared radiation.
Our take: This paper presents a cross-planetary analysis that challenges the universality of the greenhouse effect theory by comparing atmospheric temperatures across different planets. The author argues persuasively that planetary surface temperatures correlate far more strongly with atmospheric pressure and solar input than with greenhouse gas concentrations, a conclusion in line with the adiabatic lapse rate rather than radiative forcing. This comparative approach exposes the weaknesses in applying simplified CO₂-driven models to Earth's climate. It supports a broader thermodynamic perspective, emphasizing gravitational and convective processes over trace gas effects, and calls into question the central role of CO₂ in current climate policy frameworks.
For many financial advisors and their clients, ESG disclosures and ratings can be confusing and frustrating.
But advisors can cut through the confusion if they understand what to look for and how to match that to their clients’ expectations, delegates at the Responsible Investment Association conference heard on Wednesday.
One thing Lee said advisors should look for is whether a fund is broadly focused on environmental, social and governance issues and whether those three pillars are equally weighted, or if the fund is more focused on one pillar than the others or a subset of those three pillars. They should then measure that against what their client values.
Another area advisors can dig into is the extent to which ESG factors were considered by a fund, Lee said.
Clark Barr, head of methodology with Morningstar Sustainalytics, acknowledged that sifting through fund documents for these details can add quite a bit of work to advisors’ jobs. Part of the role of rating agencies in the industry is “doing some of that legwork for advisors,” he said.
Laure Maillard, senior advisor with Desjardins who oversees retail responsible investment disclosure at the firm, named a few other challenges that advisors specifically face in the responsible investment landscape.
She said it can be time consuming to do due diligence and difficult to manage differing client expectations about the same products “in a more polarized world today.” There’s also an abundance of products to choose from and there’s still no unified approach to responsible investing, adding to the complexity of the space.
Kan said this complexity, along with greenwashing concerns, tends to cause investors to disengage from ESG investing and lose trust in it. However, he stressed that advisors should not shy away from learning more about responsible investing because the more knowledge they have, the better they can support their clients and earn their trust.
“Because investors don’t really know as much, they certainly do take advisors’ words on any recommendations at face value. They’re not going to come back and second guess you,” Kan said.
“So, I think it’s very important [for advisors] to understand that information and be able to translate that to your clients, because by building the trust and having positive engagements, that leads to reinforcement and leads to future ESG investing as well.”
Our take: The article from Advisor.ca on helping clients navigate ESG disclosures and ratings assumes that understanding ESG is merely a matter of deciphering bureaucratic documentation. But this misses the foundational problem: if advisors are going to promote “sustainable” investment frameworks, implying scientific and moral necessity, they must first perform rigorous scientific due diligence. Most are unequipped to do so, and worse, it appears the rating agencies and regulators crafting these frameworks haven’t done their homework either.
Despite the far-reaching implications of ESG mandates, few of the institutions pushing them engage with core scientific findings that challenge their premises, such as the trivial warming impact of Net Zero policies (Lindzen et al. 2024) or the failure of climate models to match historical temperature data (Dagsvik & Moen 2023). The result is a hierarchy of ESG enforcement built not on scientific literacy but on layers of institutionalized ignorance.
Advisors are thus left in the untenable position of endorsing ESG products not as informed fiduciaries, but as conduits for narratives driven by flawed models, speculative harms, and selectively applied data. If due diligence is supposed to protect the investor, ESG as currently practiced offers the opposite: a cascade of unexamined assumptions disguised as moral clarity.
China continues to rapidly build out solar, with installed capacity beginning to rival the installed capacity of its coal fleet.
Top left is the 2024 Installed Capacity by resource in Gigawatts (GW)
Top right is the 2024 Generation by resource in Terawatt-hours (TWh)
The inset of the Generation graph has the capacity factors for each resource in 2024 in aggregated.
The inset of the top left chart uses the 2024 capacity factors to provide an installed capacity number for solar which would be needed to cover the 2024 coal generation. Its a big number.
The bottom graph has the generation by resource by year, with a stacked graph of the more dispatchable resources, and a stacked graph for wind and solar.
The inset line chart has the cumulative increase in generation (TWhs) for coal, solar, and wind since 2015 in China.
The growth of solar capacity (GW) in China is eye-popping.
The generation growth from solar (TWh) though still lags the growth in coal (at least over the last 10 years).
Our take: While headlines tout China's solar capacity growth, the real story is in the output—not the installations. Installed capacity is a hardware metric; actual generation, especially for intermittent sources like solar, is what powers societies. Despite surging capacity, China's solar panels delivered less than 4% of total electricity in 2023. By contrast, coal—derided in ESG circles—remains China's energy backbone for a reason: reliability and scale. The ESG narrative often celebrates megawatts installed while ignoring gigawatt-hours delivered. That confusion leads to policy built on illusion, not illumination.
ESG threatens Americans' retirement savings. Congress must do everything in its power to stop this overreach and restore the free market.
ESG investing has had a stranglehold on financial managers in the United States and around the world for the last few years. But Americans are finally catching on that so-called “socially conscious” investing actually means placing political ideology on a pedestal at the expense of financial responsibility.
Over the past ten years, so-called “clean energy” stocks have significantly underperformed the market as a whole, with the S&P 500 Clean Energy Index returning a mere 4.5% annually compared to 11.5% annual returns for the S&P 500. The ESG bubble in 2020 was a result of low interest rates, government largesse (along with the expectation of more to come), and investor enthusiasm that wind, solar, and similar technologies would soon outpace fossil fuels in the energy marketplace. The past year has shown that enthusiasm to be misplaced.
In just the past year, not one of the largest individual ESG-labeled funds performed better than either the S&P 500 or NASDAQ. Aggregate returns on the top 20 largest ESG-labeled funds were -.2% during the past year, while the S&P 500 and NASDAQ went up 19% and 25%, respectively. Concerningly, these ESG-labeled funds have over $170 billion in total assets under management, tossing Americans’ hard-earned retirement savings to the wayside in the name of this insane agenda.
No matter how malicious the media narrative on climate change becomes, we won’t stop needing affordable, reliable energy. Even after decades of multibillion-dollar subsidies intended to take renewable energy mainstream, the share of our energy provided by fossil fuels dipped from 80% to — wait for it — 79%. All that expense, borne by the taxpayers, did next to nothing to improve renewable technology.
Energy producers shouldn’t have to apologize for existing. Instead, we should be celebrating the role of responsibly produced American oil, natural gas, and clean coal in protecting our environment, improving our quality of life, and fighting poverty all over the world.
ESG investing, which could be a useful tool for individuals to make informed choices about their investments, has instead become a wrecking ball that could destroy entire industries.
Our take: Isaac exposes how ESG investing undermines economic freedom by redirecting capital from reliable energy to politically favored, intermittent sources. His critique rightly highlights the moral confusion of mandating "virtuous" investments that deliver neither energy security nor retirement stability. True human flourishing demands transparency, energy abundance, and markets free from ideological distortion.
New York State has officially ordained the destruction of its electricity system and its economy with a mad dash to energy utopia, as prescribed by a 2019 statute called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). The Climate Act mandates a completely unachievable 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” by 2030, with even more draconian mandates following in quick succession thereafter. New York City has piled on with its own fantasy energy statute called Local Law 97, mandating, among other things, forced conversion to electric heat by 2030 of most residential buildings over 25,000 square feet. A so-called “Scoping Plan” on how to do all this, issued by the State in 2022, contains no bona fide feasibility analysis, and equally no bona fide cost analysis. Everybody with over a sixth-grade education who has taken any time to look at this knows that it can’t possibly work. The only question is how much destruction will befall us before the whole thing crashes to the ground.
Our take: New York is one of the beta-testers for climate alarmism policy, with the UK, Germany and California also early adopters. All of them are headed for de-industrialization, stagnation and decline. Germany has taken steps to reverse course. How long will New York take?
A new paper by Richard Lindzen and William Happer argues that increasing CO2 concentrations from 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available worldwide by roughly 40% while having little effect on temperatures.
Their (along with van Wijngaarden) “Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase” paper abstract says “If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 °C (0.13 F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 °C (0.061 F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 °C (0.50 F).”
Canada’s 1.5% contributions would be 0.001 °C (CO2 only) and 0.004 °C (based on the IPCC positive feedback assertion).
The authors are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2 and greenhouse gases (GHG) affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere. They state that in their scientific opinion the Net Zero Theory, all the Net Zero Theory rules and congressional subsidies are scientifically wrong. GHGs will not cause catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather. Instead, there will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations, Americans, and other countries if CO2 and other GHGs are reduced to Net Zero and fossil fuels eliminated. Net Zero policies will endanger public health and welfare. The summary says, “… the blunt scientific reality requires urgent action because we are confronted with policies that destroy western economies, impoverish the working middle class, condemn billions of the world’s poorest to continued poverty and increased starvation, leave our children despairing over the alleged absence of a future, and will enrich the enemies of the West who are enjoying the spectacle of our suicide march.”
Indeed, in this short review of climate data, it is clear that carbon dioxide is not the major climate driver – “CO2’s Moneyball Moment.”
Our take: the open letter contains a number of updates on Net Zero, all of them critical. Regulators should do their jobs, and ensure both they and the financial companies they supervise have actually done a proper due diligence on Net Zero, the policy that would, if fully implemented, destroy industrial civilization.
