Abu Dhabi emissions to fall *50% by 2025* as a result of Barakah plants reaching full capacity, new large-scale solar projects, and increasing water desalination efficiency. Is this a new record for decarbonisation speed? #nuclear #ClimateAction arabnews.com/node/2007731/bu…

Remarkable expose of how media bias operates

Isn't the mark where the ball is controlled in the hands? Feet position irrelevant? @afl #footy #aflcatssuns

"A landmark study drawing on ancient DNA from nearly 16,000 West Eurasians found that directional genetic selection is not only widespread but accelerating." Stephen Jay Gould famously argued there had been no biological change in humans for 40,000 years. David Reich's latest research is making that consensus increasingly hard to sustain, write @JonEntine & Patrick Whittle.

Does the IPCC Exaggerate Climate Science? A new study finds the IPCC Summary for Policymakers has systematically amplified climate science beyond what the underlying report actually says Link in reply

A week ago, Grattan released a report, called "Out of gas". I think it's something quite profound and awe-inspiring to behold. This is the last gasp of the credulous climate absolutists. Like seeing the last Thylacine, or Dodo. Grattan now occupies this exquisite remnant habitat of deep-Melbourne-progressive-globalist-elite-academia. They aren't aware this habitat doesn't actually have a place in the new political world order. They're smart enough and honest enough to know that the transition required to switch from fossil-fuels to renewable-electrified systems will require massive costs and coersion to bring about. And they're honest enough to look you in the eye, and state in plain language that it should and must be done anyway. Because climate targets are paramount, right? They show absolutely no awareness of the enormous betrayal that the mainstream would sense (if they read long academic reports) at the admission that the project is expensive, and requires economic pain and impingement of liberties to accomplish. It was always meant to be an initiative to reduce cost-of living pressures, and usher in new industrial productivity, right? The whole paper is weirdly oblivious to dominant policy mindsets, variously more (or less) intelligent and honest, which their position fails to cohere with: There's the dumb (or dishonest) transition advocates who persist in the narrative that electrification actually costs less than traditional energy. The market will get things done, if only we let it, or maybe just nudge it to get it unstuck. But really costs are lower, and people will wake up and adopt the right preferences imminently, mostly driven by the superiority and increased affordability of green alternatives. This is D'Ambrosio, Bowen, or Kean. But this Grattan report offers them no comfort, because of how bleakly they announced that all the miracle-cures like bio-gas, green hydrogen etc don't scale well, and how expensive the abandonment of shared infrastructure is. Then there's the savvy compromisers, like Minns and Malinouskas, who have whole-heartedly embraced gas as a cleaner alternative to coal. Not just a transition fuel, but something to be grown and developed. They're deeply concerned about costs and affordability, and wouldn't contemplate strong coercive measures, like banning gas appliances, or paying industry to shut off production while gas infrastructure is slowly disassembled. And of course, there's the climate and energy realists, who now represent the Taylor, Cananvan, Joyce, Hanson, everyone right of the left wing of Labor, who get that Net Zero is neither achievable nor necessary, as the plan to electrify everything with renewable energy isn't going to work at all, in Australia or elsewhere. And with the rest of the world not moving to net-zero either, the pain that Australia is justified in experiencing to lead the fast-thinning pack of climate absolutists is pretty close to zero. Grattan's report, which elevates emissions targets above everything, won't even register with them. So Grattan's stance here, declaring the transition to be expensive and painful, but unavoidable and essential, puts them firmly on the path to intellectual irrelevance. This is the last stand of the righteous-but-honest, climate-absolutist intellectual pitching to the mainstream. I admire their ignorance of political realities. In the same kind of way I admire the athletic and instinctive movements of the last Tasmanian Tiger filmed in captivity, still very much its own creature in the moment, detached from the doom that their lonely existence portends to the informed onlooker. 1/

You can’t understand energy and power systems if you don’t understand power density. Here's another look at the Iron Law of Power Density, which says, "the lower the power density, the higher the resource intensity." Link to my latest is below.

Overuse of round the corner kick case #639 #aflpiesdees #footy #Pickett

Agree with ⁦@salltweets⁩ here but why the return of biological sex to the Sex Discrimination Act must be a primary voting issue at the next federal election - make Labor & the Greens defend the current insanity

It's impossible to convey the amount of credibility "public health and disease experts" instantly torched the moment this was published. It will take decades to recover, if it ever does.

Out of 202 movie geologists found in 141 movies released between 1919 and 2023, 69 die on screen or are found dead—a mortality rate of about one-third, according to a new paper. The authors, several geologists–slash–movie buffs, began their analysis more than a decade ago and have provided regular updates, although this is the first in a scientific journal. Learn more: scim.ag/4tWvqIv @NewsfromScience

“market value” is becoming far more important than levelised cost alone...generation profiles increasingly matter as renewable penetration rises. As one example, he described mid-day solar output as becoming “junk in the middle of the day” #EnergyTransition

"many journalists fell prey to the unmarked-graves social panic because they didn’t understand the limitations of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) technology"

“Secular progressives’ attempts to displace ancient anthropocentric theology with ecocentric climate scientism failed. Something new is happening now.” My reaction to Pope Leo’s AI encyclical @TheBTI:

Climate activists keep saying: “Something must be done.” Okay. What exactly? Shut down farms? Consume less? Stop flying? Drive less? Heat less? Travel less? Work less? Grow less? Because modern civilization runs on energy, industry, fertilizers, transport and technology. You cannot demand lower emissions while pretending there are no trade-offs. And you definitely cannot scream “follow the science” while rejecting nuclear power, GMOs, dense cities, or innovation.

Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade / While global warming is still a threat, the decision to back away from a worst-case outlook raises questions about whether some risks have been overstated. nytimes.com/2026/05/26/clima…

Sanjay Govil, owner of Washington Freedom and co-owner of Welsh Fire, is “very, very interested” in buying a stake in the Hobart Hurricanes. codesports.com.au/cricket/bb…

It's complicated. Climate change is still occuring, and we're causing it. But RCP 8.5 has always been hyperbolic and wrong. Massively numbers of studies (including some of my own) were done on data made from models assuming RCP 8.5. We used those data because few other scenarios were run in the contexts we needed. So, climate science produced and incredible amount of research building on absurdities, making the whole thing look much worse than it actually was. Does that mean climate change is harmless? Of course not, but the idea that we're all going to bake in a few years was always nonsense.

Drop. Punts. 🤦‍♂️ #AFLHawksCrows #footy

The idea that RCP8.5 is today implausible because of climate policy success is a lie Climate scientists are hurting their own agendas when spinning falsehoods like this They know better

Une nouvelle étude révèle que le « récit dominant » sur les biais contre les femmes en sciences est faux. Les professeurs surestiment massivement les discriminations contre les femmes, qui en général sont inexistantes, voire dans le sens inverse. Les auteurs de cette étude ont par exemple constaté que dans les embauches en tenure-track (USA Europe), les femmes sont clairement préférées aux hommes aux qualifications égales.