Would you believe the climate change crisis reporting numbers are being manipulated? Crazy, why would the governments want to manipulate numbers? Well, Irina Slav, Tammy Nemeth, David Blackmon, and Stu Turley sit down and talk about the reporting errors from around the world on the Energy Realities Podcast. We are live and take questions from around the world. Texas, Bulgaria, and the UK are our normal hangouts.
#energynews #aiinenergy
Highlights of the Podcast
00:11 - Introduction
01:18 - Wind Turbines
06:29 - Data and Media Manipulation
10:38 - Coordinated Climate Narratives
14:54 - Gas Stoves and LNG Policy
16:54 - Media's Role in Climate Agenda
19:12 - Big Oil and Democracy
21:17 - Media Influence on Climate Narratives
23:31 - Data Manipulation Concerns
25:10 - Self-Censorship in Journalism
28:08 - Questioning Climate Data Integrity
33:02 - Energy Realities vs. Climate Narratives
36:13 - Green levies on UK electricity bills set to climb by more than a fifth
38:04 - World will miss Paris climate target as Nitrous oxide rises, Report says
39:37 - USGS scientists confirm massive smackover lithium resource
40:49 - Standard Chartered: Global oil demand hit an all time high in August
42:52 - Scientists were wrong: Plants absorb 31% more CO2 than previously thought
47:16 - Orsted divests share of four UK offshore wind farms to Brookfield
50:41 - Billions pouring more into UK renewables
52:53 - Electricity demand for data centers in Europe may more than double by 2030
International Author writing about energy, mining, and geopolitical issues. Bulgaria
Principal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.Principal at DB Energy Advisors, energy author, and podcast host.
Energy Consulting Specialist
President, and CEO, Sandstone Group, Podcast Host
Climate Reporting Fraud
Irina Slav [00:00:11] Well, we live in the Energy Realities podcast with Stuart Earley, The Sustainable Tammy Nemeth. The transition is David Blackmon. The deep populationist and me Irina Slav the inflation. Now, clearly I've been overdosing on Game of Thrones watching it for the fourth time, which is neither here nor there. But it involves emotions, epic emotions on occasion, which is what a lot of climate reporting is doing these days instead of being factually accurate and impassioned at. Instead of a rant, I'd like to start with a quote, if I may, from the Am I'd climate portal, which is responding to the question Do wind turbines kill birds? The answer, yes, but only a fraction. As many as are killed by house jets, buildings or even the fossil fuel operations that windfarms replace.
Stuart Turley [00:01:18] Wow.
Irina Slav [00:01:19] Discuss.
Tammy Nemeth [00:01:21] My. Gosh.
David Blackmon [00:01:23] What a load.
Tammy Nemeth [00:01:24] Of. So that's M.I.T.. I'm assuming they have data to back them back up. There aren't.
Irina Slav [00:01:29] Yeah, yeah, yeah. They've got numbers. They've got everything.
David Blackmon [00:01:36] Well, you know. You're in trouble. You know you're in trouble arguing a point when your only response is to immediately resort to what about Islam? Okay. Yeah, that's what that whole thing is right there. It's pathetic that a university supposedly with the reputation that it used to have before it got taken over by the DCI crew that runs it now would immediately resort to that logic free conclusion, you know? Sure. Yeah. Cats kill a lot of birds. That's nature. Buildings kill a lot of birds because birds run into glass buildings mainly. Yeah, but they also run into wind turbine blades. Lots of them. A lot more than is estimated by, you know, the official sources who estimate that if you want to see the carnage that they really cause, all you have to do some day is get signed up for a tour of your average wind farm and you're going to see bird and bat graveyard below those those blades. Everyone knows that. It's obvious that's going to happen. And if the Biden administration gets its way, the carnage is only going to dramatically increase in the United States because they want to put the 700 to 1100 foot tall turbines out in the Gulf of Mexico, right in the center of what the Biden administration itself refers to as the migratory bird superhighway, across which billions of migratory birds from thousands of different species traverse every year, twice a year going back and forth. And that's intentional. I mean, you know, they want to send him there because that's where the winds pass. That's why the birds use that route. Right. But, you know, you're going to intentionally be killing a bunch of migratory birds, some of which are threatened and endangered species, according again, to the official dogma of the Biden administration. So we're better off if we reelect if we elect Kamala Harris to be our president tomorrow. Lots and lots of birds are going to continue to be killed by the offshore wind industry. That's just a fact. And no, no exercise. And what about ism can change that?
Stuart Turley [00:03:57] And I think a lot of pet squirrels are going to hit the, you know, get killed as well, too. So.
Irina Slav [00:04:04] Do you think they're going to repeat that huge mistake?
Stuart Turley [00:04:09] Do what now?
Irina Slav [00:04:11] Do you think they will repeat the huge mistake they made with that family? Squirrel?
Stuart Turley [00:04:17] Yes. Government overreach is on its way.
Irina Slav [00:04:22] So they come. From
Stuart Turley [00:04:24] No matter who you are, the government will come into your house. And she has said, even if you are a gun owner, a legal gun owner, we will come in your house and check to make sure they're stored properly. That is a direct. Kamala Harris quote.
Tammy Nemeth [00:04:44] Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:04:47] Tammy, what you think about climate reporting in this day and age.
Stuart Turley [00:04:53] I'll tell you what, with what has happened over in the United States, what we're seeing is that, A, I don't trust the government. B, I don't trust the government and see the government falsifies records in order to make things better. I think I just got us canceled out of YouTube. But what happened when you take a look at the jobs numbers? Kamala Harris only created what she 12,000 jobs and she was expecting 722,000. You got to be kidding me. They are making the same numbers up. And then you take a look at the U.S. oil and gasoline supply numbers. They're manipulated do to impact the markets one way or the other. Did I just say something like a conspiracy theory? No, it's a fact. They're falsifying records. So when I interviewed a young man, he had the data scientists. He was taking a look at how they were manipulating climate data. And the climate data is manipulated and it's easily done. If you take about ten of the art and Arctic substation reporting, and then you manipulate that data because at 20 and 30 below zero, you only change those, The whole world numbers are skewed. So it's easily skewed when you manipulate the data in the proper way. That I just say that.
Tammy Nemeth [00:06:29] You said all that out loud. Good for you. I would say that, you know, with respect to the MIT quote, you know, we're always told we need to have nuance and context. And those that description that you read lack both. Right. So, yes, cats kill birds, but what kind of birds? It's the small ones that have many eggs and so on. But did the wind turbines tend to slaughter the most of the large raptors that don't have a lot of offspring? They also slaughter the bats that eat the insects and do other things. And and the offshore ones, I think are doing irreparable harm to whales and various other large sea life. And I don't think we we understand the impact. I don't think it's been monitored properly for all the offshore wind turbines that there are offshore Europe and in the North Sea, but off the coast of the UK. So there's there's a few things there. And then I think when when Stu's talking about the data and we have all these supposed climate journalists who are being fed information from so called climate scientists and there's there's a few organizations and I think of like. The Society for Environmental Journalists, which connects journalists with different grants and storylines and so on. We have Climate Central, which was originally set up by supposedly scientists and and other people who had a keen interest in promoting certain stories. Then there's, of course, Covering Climate Now, which is probably the biggest organization in the United States that links the different sort of journalistic organizations like Agence France to press and the various newspaper entities, TV stations and magazines and so on, that they coordinate stories. And one of the interesting things that I thought a thought of with with respect to this is like in Canada, they have a local journalism initiative and where they provide government money to hire local journalists, but they tend to be for the climate beat. So you have government money going specifically to hire people to write on climate stories. But the stories they write on to try and make it seem like this is happening in your local community and broad in the broader nation and world and so on is it's always the negative story. So it's about changing the narrative to reinforce amongst people that every normal weather event is extraordinary, that things like this have never happened before. And we forget about, you know, things that happened 50 years ago, 100 years ago, even ten years ago. They just kind of goes down the memory hole. But you have all of these different groups coordinating messaging, coordinating. When a negative study comes out, you'll suddenly see this amplified across lots of different news. So news organizations and so on. And two of the stories that that we'll talk about when we come to it, the headlines that I put forward are stories about plants and the oceans sequester more CO2 than they previously thought by a significant percentage. That's those stories are not amplified. So when you have a negative story, suddenly that's amplified all over the place. But you have something that's like, wow, maybe this isn't such a problem. Maybe this helps explain why the climate models always run too hot because they haven't taken into account these things that actually sequester carbon better. So climate journalism, climate reporting, why should there even be a climate reporter in the first place is an issue?
Irina Slav [00:10:38] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:10:39] Why is Bill Gates burying billions of trees that are not billions of dollars worth of trees? He is trying to bury trees which, you know, they like they like CO2. It just does not make sense. That man, when I met him and made him extremely mad, I should have made him a lot more so that he would have had a heart attack.
Tammy Nemeth [00:11:02] But you needed
Irina Slav [00:11:05] You know.
Stuart Turley [00:11:05] Do what? Irina
Irina Slav [00:11:08] In my head? Punched him. Save the trouble.
Stuart Turley [00:11:13] Yeah, I knew. I want to do now.
Tammy Nemeth [00:11:15] Well, I want to add that he does have significant investments in direct air capture. So aren't trees competition for that?
David Blackmon [00:11:25] Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:11:28] Vision to direct their capture.
Tammy Nemeth [00:11:33] Irina, What do you think of all of climate reporting?
Irina Slav [00:11:37] Well, I've been seeing all the the, you know, the said phrases which come from this network of organizations that you spoke about. You can see it in every single energy related report. With planets warming CO2 or climate related disasters. It's like no weather, no kind of weather is unrelated to climate change, which is just saying this sounds idiotic. Of course, weather patterns are manifestations of the climate, the local manifestations. But everything is climate change related. And it is factually because the climate changes constantly. But the way they present it is, as you say, that every normal weather event, even if it's devastating, it is normal. We have always had, you know, storms, hurricanes in hurricane growing regions and droughts and floods. These things happen. But now they are being presented as extreme weather events and they are being called extreme weather events again and again and again. And this planet warming stuff with CO2. It gets hammered into people's brains up to the point when they internalize it and they assume this is correct. They do not spare a moment's thought on the fact that CO2 is basically a trace elements in the atmosphere. Nobody thinks about that. Nobody thinks that all life on earth is a carbon based form of life. Because, you know, we release CO2 and take in oxygen. Nobody thinks about that. Nobody thinks that CO2 is instrumental. So it's essential. It's vital for life on Earth because of this planet, warming gases and extreme weather events and emissions and carbon pollution that have gone to carbon pollution. Yeah. Or it's, you know, compounds then, not pollutants. There's a very specific definition of a pollutant. It's a compounds, a chemical substance that causes health problems. And CO2 and its concentration in the atmosphere does not cause health problems. But yeah, we now have people dying of climate change. Yeah. And this is going to get worse. Think about it. And this is what we're doing right now. We're doing something about it
Stuart Turley [00:14:31] Every Monday. This is one of the highlights of my week getting to visit with you three on this. And I hope that I don't get us thrown off the air because of anything that I say, because I am really tired of climate change, especially when it man made climate change.
David Blackmon [00:14:54] Can I? I want to reinforce a couple of points here. Tammy talked about how the media amplifies these these ridiculous studies. And we've had two real world examples of it majorly impact energy policy in the United States during this corrupt administration. The first one had to do with gas stoves. You had the Rocky Mountain Lofts Foundation found a, you know, ridiculous, absurd fake study contending that gas stoves kill a bunch of people through lung disease. It doesn't do that. It's nonsense. The study was completely faked. But you had a whole exerted effort by the Department of Energy and Consumer Safety Products Commission to ban gas those in the United States they have abandoned, but they increased efficiency standards to the extent that about half the ones on the market can no longer be made. So they make some progress. And then you have this idiotic, baseless pause in permitting for LNG infrastructure here in the United States that went into effect in January. Based on a preview of a study from a professor at Cornell University named Robert Howard, who for the last quarter century has issued an endless stream of anti natural gas studies, all of which have been thoroughly debunked, easily debunked. He's a known crank who does this for a living and why. How he manages to stay on the faculty of Cornell is just a scandal. But anyway, they took this preview in which he claimed that LNG produces up to 333% of the emissions of a coal fired power plant, which is absurd on its face, and invoked this pass to conduct a study that we now know the Energy Department had already conducted in 2022. Okay. So the study itself, I mean, the whole claim that you need to conduct a study about it is a fraud. And then he releases the final study in September, and his finding has suddenly been lowered to, well, LNG only produces 24% more emissions than a coal fired power plant, which of course, is absurd on its face. And everyone knows it's just ridiculous. But this is how these studies and of course, back in January, the everybody in the news media had a headline story about this homework report. Knowing this guy has has issued this endless series of studies that have been debunked completely. And so that's how the media operates. And, you know, if they ever issue any kind of retraction on their initial report, it's going to be buried on page 32, Section D, but right behind the comics page. Right? So no one sees it. And that's just the, you know, one tiny sliver of the the anti fossil fuel agenda. Conducted by the mainstream media. You talked about climate reporters. Washington Post has something like 40 staff reporters who do nothing but climate reporting. Okay. I mean, it's incredible. And it's all funded by some of the groups show mentioned that pour millions of dollars into these dying legacy media operations. Business models do not work anymore and can only be sustained by selling their souls to organizations like that to keep the money stream coming in to keep them afloat. The Washington Post is going to be in a lot of trouble because it's obvious at this point Jeff Bezos is tired of I mean, they lost $75 million despite everything last year. So he's tired of losing money on the operations. So they're going to have to find yet another billionaire to buy that newspaper soon and keep them afloat. And that's happening all across legacy media. But in the meantime, they're going to propagandize us about climate change as much as they can because that's one of their major revenue streams at this point.
Tammy Nemeth [00:19:10] From the foundations, not from.
David Blackmon [00:19:12] From foundations. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's just. Yeah. I got. And I wrote about this on my substack. I got, you know, I get these emails every day from these people hawking stories. And this one comes in from a group called Fossil Free Media. Yes. And it's a it's a press release with a headline that reads, With four days until the election. This came in on Friday. Big oil, $75 billion Trump spending spree Threatens Democracy. Britain's Democracy Now! Now, Bill Gates alone has probably put $1 billion into Kamala Harris's supporting pacts. I mean, 75 million from the oil industry threatens democracy. Give me a break. And probably, of course, it references a New York Times report about there. But The New York Times report doesn't mention all the millions of dollars Democrat oil executives and many of these executives are, in fact, Democrats. I used to work for one, you know, have poured into the Harris campaign. So this isn't a one sided deal. There's plenty of big oil executives supporting Harris. But what the story of The New York Times doesn't mention that because that won't get them a big bonus from all of these foundations. Still.
Irina Slav [00:20:32] So how about the Google donations for the Harris campaign? Google is a huge is the biggest donor. So that campaign doesn't that threaten democracy if a big tech the big supermarket supermajor is throwing all its sizable weight after you know behind one candidate is
David Blackmon [00:20:54] Billion worth of free media.
Tammy Nemeth [00:20:58] Are they helping beyond the donation?
Stuart Turley [00:21:01] Yes, they are.
David Blackmon [00:21:03] So, of course, they're like.
Tammy Nemeth [00:21:04] When you start I mean, it's the biggest engine in the world. And. Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:21:11] yeah. They are manipulating search results. People have tested it.
Tammy Nemeth [00:21:17] Yeah. So I think related to the search issue, if you have all of these stories being amplified, especially even when they're debunked, it's not like they're taken down and you have to think of this long term. So let's say that, you know, part of the new narrative that they've been pushing, I would say, for about the past four years, a little bit stronger than they had before, is that bad weather is caused by using hydrocarbons. So when you drive your car, you're creating bad weather. And they're trying to say that if we just had a higher carbon tax and people stop driving around so much, there'd be fewer forest fires. This is the big thing they were saying in Canada and in Europe and whatever. And Climate Home News, which is a UK version of covering climate now, but they're not very big. They were running stories from their scientists and their climate reporters about the flood in Valencia and how you could directly link this to driving cars and various other things. So let's say that that lawyers using LexisNexis or whatever, three years from now when there's a court case and there's several court cases out, even right now in Canada, the United States, or they're building in Canada, in the United States, in some jurisdictions in Europe, you go in LexisNexis and suddenly you can find all of these stories. Look, they were pointing this out. They were pointing this out. And governments didn't do anything and the industry didn't do anything. So it's not it's it's part of what you said. I read it in the sense of trying to lay the groundwork for it to seep into people's minds on on how they perceive these things. But it's also another element of it is to show their funders that, look, we're we're putting this story out there and we're changing minds about it. And it's also used for litigation down the road where they can have all this proof that it was out there. And it's also for future researchers because when people Google stuff or whatever, that's what's going to come up. The debunk things are not going to come up. All of them. You'll just say, well, look, it was here and it was there and and now it's being used in this lawsuit. It must be good.
Stuart Turley [00:23:31] Do you also find it very odd that the Wayback Machine and the Google backup to validate articles and see what was changed on the Internet has been taken down before the election?
Tammy Nemeth [00:23:47] Yeah, they had a DDoS attack, wasn't it?
Stuart Turley [00:23:50] It was more than that. It was intentional.
Tammy Nemeth [00:23:54] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:23:55] No.
Tammy Nemeth [00:24:00] But if we could go back to Brian's Zinchuk point that. Hi, Brian, where he said this is the local reporting initiative that I mentioned. So like he said in Canada, local papers can add and do get up to 25% of their newsroom staff budgets paid for by federal subsidies. And Brian asks, What impact do you think that has? I think it's got a big impact because they're hiring people they wouldn't normally hire because where where would be the the sort of market for the kind of stuff they're selling? And ultimately, it is it's a sales pitch of the these types of articles. How realistic are they where they're only choosing the alarmist side of things? They're not necessarily reporting about good stuff happening out there. So I think, you know, even if the government's not telling them what they should be reporting on it, journalists are like, well, I'm getting this money and, you know, maybe we should have stories that are supportive or in alignment or in the same direction of travel that the federal government.
Irina Slav [00:25:10] If it's the worst kind of censorship, it's self-censorship for whatever reason, feel for fear, material gain limiting user who I suspect is Travis Lynn has a great comment that quote from a U.N. chief who said, We own science. Yeah.
David Blackmon [00:25:32] Well, we.
Irina Slav [00:25:32] Have understand and wiretap they own search engine and what what's what's particularly outrageous is everything is a done deal. Climate change is a done deal. The anthropogenic climate change is a done deal. And there is no space for debate, which is not how science is done. There is always room for debate. There are always people who disagree and it's their job to come up with evidence, to says there are hypotheses and people are doing this based on data rather than computer modeling, but they're being summarily dismissed as climate deniers. You know, these paradoxical phrases are really being accepted as something perfectly normal. How can you deny the climate? It's like denying gravity. And yet this gathers traction begins an offense for certain people. You know, stigmata for those who disagree with the dominant narrative. And it has actual practical implications, as you said, is being used in lawsuits because, of course, lawyers, NGOs want to make some money. So why not make it of governments for them not being responsible enough with the climate? They say it's dangerous and it's getting worse. I don't know why it's getting worse. Okay. Sorry. Limiting use. It's not Travis. But thank you for this comment.
Tammy Nemeth [00:27:12] Well, you know, Tom Nelson has said some really great people that he talks with on his guest and he's been talking a lot to people who have been watching the data sets and how there's been just endless adjustments of the data sets. And so you can't even really trust what's the data anymore. And and I think that's very disturbing from a from a scientific perspective, because if you're if you're in science and you're basing things on certain data sets and those data sets have been to some extent corrupted, then what kind of conclusions are you drawing from data that's inaccurate? Right. So then now you're offering policy advice from data that's being corrupted. That's and then it's reported on as being everything's all right, like the M.I.T. quote at the beginning of this podcast.
Irina Slav [00:28:08] Yeah, they have numbers. They're figures, they have percentages and everything. And study is cool, too. That's the problem because this whole manipulation of scientific data and the corruption of data is undermining science.
Tammy Nemeth [00:28:26] Absolutely.
Irina Slav [00:28:27] And that,
David Blackmon [00:28:28] you know. That was a that was a concerted effort by the Biden team and the Obama administration starting in 2009. That was a direct objective at Noah, was to completely revise the historic temperature record. And they went about it very systematically and for eight years. And Lamar Smith, a congressman from San Antonio at the time, chaired the House Science Committee, and they held a series of hearings on it. And how did the media cover it with with focused, assassinate character assassination stories targeting Lamar Smith, who was ultimately run out of the Congress and not reelected or chose not to run for reelection because of it. And so that's how the media responds to obvious proof that was raised in those studies that the temperature record was being destroyed by these bureaucrats at Noah was to go after the Republican congressman from San Antonio, who was leading the effort to expose it publicly. And, you know, that's that's the nature of our news media in this country at this point.
Tammy Nemeth [00:29:39] Yeah. And, you know, around that time was when the Copenhagen climate talks were supposed to be basically what the Paris agreement was. And then we had the climate gate stuff get released and that was has been totally thrown down the memory all of this minute. How the the editors of the journals were explaining how they were excluding people and various other nefarious things. And and that really derailed things for a little while. And unfortunately, they just kind of circled the wagons and pressed on. And then we got Paris in 2015.
David Blackmon [00:30:17] So, Yep, yep. It's all very, very. You have to give them credit. Okay. It takes a lot to mount this. This level and this complexity of the propaganda effort related to climate alarmism that we've been subjected to really for 25 years now. I think it was about 20 right at the turn of the century when every TV network and American cable station in America. Together started airing programing and running ads about going green. The theme was It's time to go Green. And that was at the time I was just marveling at how what it would take to actually coordinate that kind of propaganda campaign across every television, radio and newspaper platform in the country. It was really extraordinary. And it's only continued to grow since then, grow more intense. And it's it's the people behind it. You know, there's billions of dollars. I mean, it's a it's a big industry. It's a huge industry. There's billions and billions, if not trillions of dollars at stake. And, you know, it's a hard thing to unwind.
Stuart Turley [00:31:35] I find it amazing that the politicians like John Kerry and his daughter, Mr. Ed, Absolutely are rich like you. And boy.
David Blackmon [00:31:47] The main thing to call John Kerry's daughter. What did you should have said? Mrs.. Mr..
Stuart Turley [00:31:54] Sorry, I couldn't tell by looking at her.
David Blackmon [00:31:57] A 60 year old know. Look, I know, 50s.
Stuart Turley [00:32:00] I know. I know that Wallace was trying to get a hold of her, though, so. Sorry.
Tammy Nemeth [00:32:12] Brian has another point here. He said can they obliterate the record of the glaciers covering Canada with two miles of ice for 80,000 of the last 200,000 years? But they just don't talk about it. They don't talk about if you mention glaciation or whatever, they'll say, well, that's 10,000 years ago. You know, we've got we're doing stuff now that's making things so bad. So they just they ignore it when, when you mention the ice ages and stuff.
Irina Slav [00:32:38] And that's that's actually the broader thing is that the people who believe in manmade climate change and the energy transition that will save us, they have this tendency to completely ignore the inconvenient facts. Even if these are hard physical facts, they just don't pay attention. And that extends to the two climate journalists.
Tammy Nemeth [00:33:02] Good point. Because, like, I mean, think of the physics involved with wind and solar. Can't do it. Unreliable. Need the batteries. Even the batteries can't do it. Meet all of these material requirements. Simon Michaud, who wrote that amazing paper, a report, 900 page report a few years ago. He's got a new one, a new peer reviewed one. It's a bit shorter, but he makes the same argument that they're just. Even if you get all the mining companies out there exploring and developing and stuff, there's still not enough. And it's it's a problem. And all of that stuff like you say, I mean, it's just conveniently, you know, fingers in the air as long as it doesn't matter. And yeah, so, I mean, what can you do when? And I think part of it is what you say with the climate reporting. If you just keep saying the narrative, repeating it over and over and over again, it's, yeah, reality wears reality.
Irina Slav [00:34:03] But. You know, the reality is that, for example, the global shortage, the everything shortage, if we're going to go through with the whole thing that the FTC admits and Reuters is amazing and Bloomberg is annoying, but they spin is but we must do it. We must find a way to do it.
Stuart Turley [00:34:21] Yeah. The great man named David Blackmon once said, I told you in physics matter. In energy.
David Blackmon [00:34:31] The physics of the world. They're not suggestions. They're laws.
Tammy Nemeth [00:34:35] But I can't remember if it was Professor Michaud or someone else, but they said this isn't an energy transition, it's a materials transition. Because you know, which I thought, you know, that kind of makes sense because it's not about energy so much anymore. It's about all these materials that are required in order to do whatever it is the great transformation is is about.
Irina Slav [00:35:07] Things are going on. Reality, age, Iran. They have the wrong witness.
Tammy Nemeth [00:35:12] That's why we're here talking about the energy realities and and what against what we're facing. We're repeating it. We're repeating energy realities matter.
Stuart Turley [00:35:24] Yes.
David Blackmon [00:35:25] Reality does matter. And it's it's going to win regardless.
Irina Slav [00:35:31] Well, we're going to headlines.
Stuart Turley [00:35:34] You bet. Yeah. This is me going to the headline, this is me morning getting all excited to get you guys here to get all riled up. Okay. Who's first?
David Blackmon [00:35:51] First.
Tammy Nemeth [00:35:54] Irina.
Irina Slav [00:35:55] Is that me?
David Blackmon [00:35:57] That's you.
Irina Slav [00:35:58] Is it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let him go. Sorry. I put them in so many of where they are. Yeah, just very, very quickly, because these are both fun. So first from Financial Times, green levies on UK electricity bills set to climb by more than a fifth. A fifth is 20%. And this is coming from the government that promised. To bring down electricity bills by building more wind and solar and batteries. And so what was it, flywheels to store? And then
David Blackmon [00:36:39] Do this.
Irina Slav [00:36:41] At these same governments is now bringing electricity bills higher. But there's a solution. Did you hear about the demand response mechanism, Tammy? Yes. Yes. I can see how they're going to do demand response more often. They're going to do it throughout the year instead of just during the winter months. And people can save on their electricity bills by using less electricity. When I excuse me when that electricity supplier tells them to because there's too much demand and not enough supply because the wind is not blowing, isn't this just wonderful?
Tammy Nemeth [00:37:24] I love the euphemism demand response. You mean rationing? We're going to ration you and it's going to be arbitrary. And that's why we have they're trying that. They've mandated smart meters, but not everybody's taking them and quite often they don't work.
Irina Slav [00:37:40] And so now that they're trying the carrot, you know, put a smart meter so you can earn money, you can be smart on electricity, bill. They're even calling it demand flexibility and demand response. It's so it's so cute. And now we have a new targets in addition to carbon dioxide and methane. World will Miss Paris Climate Targets as Nitrous oxide Rises. Report says I have completely forgotten where the report comes from, and I really don't care because what it does is just, you know, let's thrash anada chemical compounds.
Tammy Nemeth [00:38:25] That comes from farming.
Irina Slav [00:38:27] Not just from farming.
Tammy Nemeth [00:38:31] methane and nitrous oxide. Another. Another way to hit farming?
Irina Slav [00:38:36] Yeah. So essentially that's telling us about all these pollutants which are not all pollutants. But they are, as Tommy says, they're actually targeting essential industries for human civilization. They're targeting the energy and the food yet again. They're just spreading the attack on a wider front, if I might say so.
David Blackmon [00:38:59] Yeah.
Irina Slav [00:39:02] That's it for me. I'm getting a bit too angry.
Stuart Turley [00:39:08] You're getting worked up like an orange cat.
David Blackmon [00:39:12] Here I am. Okay. So, first thing I want to do is corrects a misstatement I made earlier. I said The Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation concocted that fake study on gas stoves, and I apologize to my friends at the Rocky Mountain Gorilla Foundation. It was actually the Rocky Mountain Institute. And I just want to clarify that corrected. So Google USGS scientist confirmed massive smack over lithium resource. So I wrote that as a response to New York Times articles that claimed the USGS, which is the United States Geological Survey, to find institution that does resource estimates of major new mineral resources when they're reported and discovered. New York Times claimed that these government scientists had found this lithium resource. The fact is that we've known about this lithium resource in the water, in this makeover formation, which is about 10,000ft deep, southern Arkansas for at least 60 or 70 years, because we've been drilling oil wells down into that formation since the 1940s. And everybody's known that they're ExxonMobil. A year ago this month announced that it's going to become the biggest producer of lithium in the United States by drilling wells into this makeover, producing a water, extracting the lithium through a membrane process, and then returning the water back into the formation that stories over a year old. And yet The New York Times is just now finding out about it. And I thought that was ironic. Certainly isn't. Standard Chartered global oil demand hit an all time high in August. whiz, what a surprise. All the way to have continues to rise, as does global coal. Demand also has hit new highs this year, as does global natural gas demand, which is also hit all time records this year. And these stories are going to continue to come at us every year for the next I don't know how many years, but we're not at peak oil. We're not at peak gas. We haven't even gotten to peak coal yet, folks. So this this myth about an energy transition happening, as we have said many, many, many times at the Energy Realities podcast is exactly that. It's a myth. What we have happening is a grand expansion and diversification of all manner of energy resources. And we're and we're not doing away with fossil fuels any time soon. So that's my rant for today and I'm done.
Stuart Turley [00:41:49] Well, I'm going to back their rant up and raise you with a with a law Turley's law. The more we spend on renewable energy, the more fossil fuels we will use. And I've been proven right for the last four years
Tammy Nemeth [00:42:09] Can we put Jeff Chestnuts comment on there? Where Jeff said. Nope. This one. Lithium in the smack over fluids has been known forever. The USGS just needed a press release. I've heard, and I've heard other people say, okay, yeah, it's in the fluid, but the concentrations aren't very high. So why are you wasting money doing this? And I don't know. I thought the concentrations that they found in Saskatchewan and brines and check it probably tellus have been very high in the highest of all of the sort of fluid elements there. So my articles today, I had two there where it says scientists were wrong. Plants absorb 31% more CO2 than previously thought. And then the other one was that the the oceans absorb way more like I think it was similar percentages, more CO2 than previously thought. And so I Googled the titles. Right to see where did the where did these stories get published? And it was cited daily. And then I think it was picked up on what's up with that? But for the most part, it didn't go anywhere. It was they produced their their report. They had their headlines. And it it went nowhere. But then if you Google the Robert Howard study or there's been a couple of other ones where they're talking about the methane emissions or the nitrous oxide emissions, those are amplified all over, gets picked up by Daily Mail, gets picked up by the Metro in the UK and all the various networks in North America and stuff, and they get amplified and amplified. But here's a good news story. Wow, this is great. The plants are absorbing more CO2. The oceans are absorbing more CO2. This thin layer on top. Where are the headlines? What's the headlines? They're like nowhere. No one's talking about it.
Irina Slav [00:44:12] So what is bad? Did you read that? Sorry. Sorry for interrupting you, but this is kind of important. Is ridiculous. Did you read that story in The Guardian by their environmental editor who said that hope is a problem and positive. Promoting positive stories are a problem because they give people hope they can. I can see his logic, the logic we need. If you tell people that that's okay, plants absorb 30% more CO2 than previously. So we are in the clear. Then people will not want to buy EVs and heat pumps and reduce their electricity consumption, which is not the point. So how do we know.
Tammy Nemeth [00:44:56] It's not about the emissions? So it's not about the emissions?
Irina Slav [00:44:59] Well, it's about climate action because we feel we will not take climate action. So hope is a problem and positive news are a problem. Sorry.
Tammy Nemeth [00:45:10] Excellent. Thank you so much
Stuart Turley [00:45:13] All you have to do is get married and lose all hope.
Tammy Nemeth [00:45:18] Hey, getting married helps you. How? I hope you're not one of your children and whatnot.
Stuart Turley [00:45:23] I love my wife. She keeps me in line mostly.
David Blackmon [00:45:28] I hope she never watchThis podcast.
Irina Slav [00:45:30] Well.
Tammy Nemeth [00:45:31] I wanted to mention something about the toxic. What's toxic? Because I mentioned it earlier and David did. And I just wanted to say Canada has updated what's toxic, what how how they define it. And this is this is so cute. Using Irene is language. So a list of substances must be assessed in a timely manner. This is from the Government of Canada to determine if they are toxic or capable of becoming toxic. So toxic is defined in terms of risks that substances pose to the environment or human health. Well, GS almost anything can be.
David Blackmon [00:46:14] Anything.
Tammy Nemeth [00:46:15] Capable of being toxic, right?
Irina Slav [00:46:17] You're loading water, you know.
Tammy Nemeth [00:46:19] Including water. Right. You have to ask, why do you drown?
Stuart Turley [00:46:22] I think I know politicians are toxic.
Tammy Nemeth [00:46:25] Yeah, exactly. So this is so the the list in Canada back in the 80s used to be 2025 substances that that are actually toxic. Right. Well now it's like 200 and something. And the one of the very last ones they have on there with no indication of what what dose of toxicity. They just put carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is listed in Canada as being a toxic substance. But they don't say precisely how much is toxic. Therefore, they can regulate it however they wish because it's capable of becoming toxic. So it's it's ridiculous. Anyway, I had to throw that in there because Canada's a basket case. And so my second story here is Orsted divests share of four UK offshore wind farms to Brookfield. And basically that's a bit of an incorrect headline because what they did is they sold a 9.5% share to Brookfield or something like that. It's like Brookfield has paid 2.5 million billion pounds or something like that to to have a share of four UK offshore wind farms. And I kept thinking, okay, so how old are these wind farms? Are they coming due for maintenance? Is this a way for Orsted to generate more revenue to construct new ones? Is it to offload some of the maintenance to an institutional investor? I don't know. A lot of questions there. I know that Brookfield is is branching out. And one of the other stories that that broke, I think it was on Friday is Brookfield is moving its headquarters. It's a Canadian company. It's moving its headquarters from Toronto to the New York Stock Exchange. So they're moving their HQ from Toronto to New York. Now, the argument is, they'll be they'll be able to generate more investment and whatnot from the American market. Okay. But the United States, even if the SEC comes forward with their climate disclosures, they've got a lot of safe harbors in there and there's no guarantee Canada will will have that. So, I don't know, maybe that's one of the another reason why Brookfield's moving. And the other interesting element of Brookfield is that the senior executive in charge of their renewables is Mark Carney, who's talking about becoming. The. Leader of the Liberal Party in Canada. He's currently leading economic task force for the Liberal Party.
Irina Slav [00:49:03] Is he everywhere? How does he manage?
Tammy Nemeth [00:49:08] I know.
Irina Slav [00:49:09] He's busier than Bill Gates.
Tammy Nemeth [00:49:12] Yeah, totally.
David Blackmon [00:49:14] Probably.
Tammy Nemeth [00:49:15] And so what's interesting is he was also the economic advisor to the Labor Party before the UK election and so are some of these things that have come out in the budget, some of his recommendations and now he's advising the Canadian Liberal Party on their economic plans. So that could be bad for Canada.
Stuart Turley [00:49:37] These elites, Tammy, these elites and these people that are making energy policies. I've got a training video of what they think they're doing. Let me go ahead and show this right here. This is the energy policies in action. Notice that the guy at the driving the boat is getting a drink and he's checking his wife or date back there going, Hey, you want a drink? Okay, great. Yeah. And he's just now going to open up a drink and say, okay, let's go ahead. Watch this. Do, do, do, do do. This is a great policy. It's going to save humanity. Now, boom.
Tammy Nemeth [00:50:16] He wipes out.
Stuart Turley [00:50:19] boats keep going.
[00:50:22] When you love to see where that boat ended up. I would love to see how ended up
Stuart Turley [00:50:27] Had to sit back and realize that the people. And you also had one other one. Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:50:33] Yeah, that's that's the other one about the ocean warming more CO2 than previous.
Stuart Turley [00:50:37] Okay. So, yeah. All right. All right. Billions pouring more into UK renewables. This is an excellent article from Felicity Bradstock on Oilprice.com. She brings up some unbelievable points in here. I like this one. One of the ones that was in here was, let's see, it was since the Labor Party voted into government and we've seen a significant shift in the country's energy sector. For just over three months, Labor has launched a multibillion dollar effort to reposition the UK as a global pacesetter for clean energy. In July, the government established a new publicly owned clean energy company. This has all the makings for failure.
Tammy Nemeth [00:51:26] The UK looked at Germany. Germany's doing their their energy transition, running their economy into the ground in Germany and Britain said, Hold my beer.
Stuart Turley [00:51:35] That's exactly right. So you have Germany. You have. The UK. Sorry, Irina.
Irina Slav [00:51:41] No, no, no. Go on.
Stuart Turley [00:51:43] You have the Germany, you have the UK, you have New Jersey, you have New York, you have California. And this is a pattern. I mean, this is like I okay, once is like a pattern anyway. The largest UK supplier, Octopus Energy, has launched a new initiative to offer consumers a discount on their energy bills during times of favorable conditions for renewable energy production. So when the wind is blowing more, the company average consumers reduced electricity means wind turbines. I find this interesting. They also say they want you to invest in a particular wind turbine to get cheaper power. Yeah. Go figure that out.
Tammy Nemeth [00:52:30] So Octopus Energy is one of their largest investors. Is Al Gore's generation management and or whatever, whatever his company's called. Generation investment, whatever. And the Canada pension plan.
Stuart Turley [00:52:45] Nice.
Tammy Nemeth [00:52:48] Just thought I'd throw that in there.
Stuart Turley [00:52:49] Hey, on this other story, this story is about electricity demand from data centers in Europe could increase 2 to 3 times, largely fueled by rapid expansion of A.I.. We all know how that is. Currently, a host's about 15 to 20% of the world's datacentre capacity, with UK projected to see its unit energy use rise sixfold by 2035. I hate to tell this to people and I really don't want to ruin somebody's Monday. Physics matter. Fiscal responsibility matters. Green energy equals economic failure. Now we have taxes too. Way to go.
Irina Slav [00:53:38] Ireland. Recently the Climate Minister or Energy minister, I think it was climate ministers said that they've stopped approving new applications for datacentres in the country because they have to operate within climate limits. There are no limits, okay? And tech companies need to operate within them. And basically Ireland has no electricity to satisfy demand from datacentres. So that's why they're refusing applications.
Stuart Turley [00:54:08] Well, here's here's a couple of predictions that I have a I has killed. Net zero net zero will not happen thanks to a I can't happen. We have California canceling and shutting down refineries. They're going to be importing gasoline from China. You're going to see that follow the money. Who gets paid on that gasoline? I believe it's going to end up in the Democrats hands. The other one is we also have another refinery shutting down in Houston. The more we have refineries shutting down, the more expensive oil will get as well on that. But Iryna, this one reminded me of you. This first video is going to be what the climatologists and the green folks think that they look like on stage. Okay. This is them. This is what they're going through. Right? You got to hand it to him. I mean, I love it. I think it's fantastic. But this is what John Kerry thinks he looks like. What do you think?
Irina Slav [00:55:23] He doesn't.
Stuart Turley [00:55:24] No Here's what John Kerry and his daughter and Al Gore and all that actually are. I think they're more like orange cats. I think that this is what the more like is. No, I think the moment after this, the more like, snap.
Irina Slav [00:55:48] It's like.
Stuart Turley [00:56:19] I love this life. Coming up.
Stuart Turley [00:56:38] Orange cats scare me.
Irina Slav [00:56:40] So they're a special kind of stupid. I've heard. I've never had an orange one. But they're adorable. But stupid in a very special way.
Stuart Turley [00:56:50] What my wife says about me.
Tammy Nemeth [00:56:53] Being.
Irina Slav [00:56:53] Stupid is not the right word. But that's cool. Yeah,
David Blackmon [00:56:58] it's crazy. Nothing better than the good orange cap. Baby cap.
Irina Slav [00:57:02] All cats are nice.
Tammy Nemeth [00:57:03] All cats.
Stuart Turley [00:57:04] This. I think, Patrick, we have way more of those in datacenters in design or construction in the Greater Phenix, Arizona area. I'm seeing them all over the place. And natural gas is the only way that we're going to be able to afford datacenters. And the other prediction that I was going to make is we will see an end to the Ukraine war. Very quickly, we're going to see the natural gas pipeline contract renewed through Ukraine so that the UK can buy cheap Russian natural gas. You heard it here first, believe me. And then I believe that the nuclear will not be able to save the A.I. data centers. So you're going to have to have microgrids. And we're going to see AI and data centers really segment our energy grid because the United States energy grid is going to have serious problems over the next ten years. You're going to have those that can afford it and those that cannot. And that's going to be microgrids are going to be discriminatory.
Tammy Nemeth [00:58:17] Yeah.
Stuart Turley [00:58:18] Yeah. Boeing just got rid of their DEI area. So I'd like to see how AI and data centers handle the grid discrimination.
Tammy Nemeth [00:58:30] Well, I find it interesting about the Phenix, the Greater Phenix, Arizona area, because it's not just about power. It's also what do you do with the waste heat and the overheating issue and water? They these data centers actually require a lot of water. If you if you have two truly.
Irina Slav [00:58:46] Is a very hot.
Stuart Turley [00:58:47] But they do have to do that. They do have nuclear reactor in in Arizona. So you.
Irina Slav [00:58:54] Also need water.
Tammy Nemeth [00:58:56] But you need the water for cooling.
Stuart Turley [00:58:59] Yeah. Intel, when they built their plants in Arizona, they did. The vice president or the one of the head muckety mucks demanded that it go there. And that was one of the biggest issues or failures for that Intel plant was because of the lack of water. Yeah.
Tammy Nemeth [00:59:21] Unless they can do something, you have to for cooling.
David Blackmon [00:59:27] you're going to have a natural gas boom in the short term and a nuclear boom in the longer term to provide power to the states because it was 15 years just to permit a nuclear plant.
Irina Slav [00:59:39] And we can hope it will be reported accurately.
David Blackmon [00:59:43] Of course.
Irina Slav [00:59:43] After all this.
Stuart Turley [00:59:47] Irina, you say you trust the government data. You know.
Irina Slav [00:59:52] Your neighbors.
Tammy Nemeth [00:59:56] Now we have hope. Unlike the grid.
Stuart Turley [00:59:59] Hope is a bad thing.
Irina Slav [01:00:01] We're sticking it to them with hope and emissions.
Stuart Turley [01:00:06] That is a T-shirt waiting to happen.
David Blackmon [01:00:09] My dad, he had a wonderful saying. He always told me whenever I said, I wish I could have this or I hope I can do that. He'd say, Son, you can hope in one hand, spit in the other and see which one fills up faster. I'm not sure how that applies here, but it's a good sign.
Stuart Turley [01:00:25] I'm sorry. All of our listeners. Let's have a moment of silence for that joke.
Irina Slav [01:00:33] The great closing remark.
Stuart Turley [01:00:34] It was great.
David Blackmon [01:00:38] You'll have a great week.
Stuart Turley [01:00:40] It's going to be a fantastic week.
Irina Slav [01:00:42] Make sure you produce as much the afternoon as possible. It's bland food and reasoning
Stuart Turley [01:00:49] Guys. I appreciate everybody.
Tammy Nemeth [01:00:51] Thanks Everybody, have a great week.
Irina Slav [01:00:52] Bye bye.
Tammy Nemeth [01:00:53] Bye,.
Stuart Turley [01:00:54] See you guys.
Sponsorships are available or get your own corporate brand produced by Sandstone Media.
David Blackmon LinkedIn
The Crude Truth with Rey Trevino
Rey Trevino LinkedIn
Energy Transition Weekly Conversation
David Blackmon LinkedIn
Irina Slav LinkedIn
Armando Cavanha LinkedIn
Our Podcast Sponsor
Share this post