Precision Forecasts image image
Feb 28, 2021
NASA Study Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing

Illustration depicting the overturning circulation of the global ocean.Illustration depicting the overturning circulation of the global ocean. Throughout the Atlantic Ocean, the circulation carries warm waters (red arrows) northward near the surface and cold deep waters (blue arrows) southward. Image credit: NASA/JPL

Larger image












For more information about NASA and agency programs, visit NASA


See GWPF’s coverage of the Science News story on “New findings from an international ocean observing network are calling into question the longstanding idea that global warming might slow down a big chunk of the ocean’s “conveyor belt.”

Feb 27, 2021
The record cold and blizzard exposed the perils of electrifying everything

Robert Bryce, Energy Forbes

The massive blast of Siberia-like cold that is wreaking havoc across North America is proving that if we humans want to keep surviving frigid winters, we are going to have to keep burning natural gas - and lots of it - for decades to come.


That cold reality contradicts the “electrify everything” scenario that’s being promoted by climate change activists, politicians, and academics. They claim that to avert the possibility of catastrophic climate change, we must stop burning hydrocarbons and convert all of our transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial systems so that they are powered solely on electricity, with most of that juice coming, of course, from forests of wind turbines and oceans of solar panels.

But attempting to electrify everything would concentrate our energy risks on an electricity grid that is already breaking under the surge in demand caused by the crazy cold weather. Across America, countless people don’t have electricity. I’m one of them. Our power here in central Austin went out at about 3 am. I am writing this under a blanket, have multiple layers of clothes on, and am nervously watching my laptop’s battery indicator.

Texas Outages Put Reliability Of Renewable Energy In The Spotlight

This blizzard proves that during extreme weather winter, solar panels and wind turbines are of little or no value to the electric grid.

This blizzard proves that our natural gas grid is part of our critical infrastructure and that we shut it down at our peril. The natural gas network is essential because it can deliver big surges in energy supplies during periods of peak demand. In January 2019, U.S. natural gas demand set a record of 145 billion cubic feet per day. That record will be smashed during this blizzard, and daily volumes will exceed 150 Bcf. That is an enormous amount of energy. In fact, on the coldest days of winter, the amount of energy delivered by the gas grid is roughly three times as great as the energy consumed during the hottest days of the summer.

During peak cold events like this one, the gas grid delivers about 80 Bcf/d to homes and businesses. In energy equivalent terms, that’s roughly 83 trillion Btu, or the energy output of about 1 terawatt of electric generation capacity for 24 hours. Put another way, to equal the 80 Bcf/d of gas delivered during cold snaps, the U.S. would need an electric grid as large as all existing generation in the country, which is currently about 1.2 terawatts.

Thanks to excellent geology, a century of gas production, and a fully developed transmission and distribution grid, the domestic natural gas sector can deliver surges of the fuel that are, in fact, lifesaving. That is due, in large part, to the fact that we can store vast amounts of gas and only tiny quantities of electricity. In short, our electric grid simply cannot deliver the massive amounts of energy needed during the winter to keep us from freezing to death. That means we need to keep burning natural gas. If you prefer to rely on batteries, be my guest.

It’s essential to note that the blizzard and blackouts that are paralyzing the country are occurring at roughly the same time that some of America’s most famous activists and politicians are saying we should quit using all hydrocarbons and dozens of cities across the country are imposing bans on the use of natural gas.

On January 22, Bill McKibben, the founder of and arguably America’s most famous environmentalist, published an article in the New Yorker in which he said if there is a “basic rule of thumb for dealing with the climate crisis, it would be: stop burning things” including natural gas. McKibben says we should shift our energy needs to solar and wind energy.

Six days later, on January 28, in his state of the city address, Mayor Bill de Blasio declared that New York City will “renounce fossil fuels fully” and “ban fossil fuel connections in the city by the end of this decade, literally ensuring that our only choice is renewable energy.”

As I showed in a report last year for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, dozens of communities in California have banned or restricted the use of natural gas. According to the Sierra Club, 42 California communities have now imposed bans. So has the city of Seattle. In Massachusetts, about a dozen towns have partnered with the Rocky Mountain Institute, which recently got a $10 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund, to advocate for the right to ban the use of natural gas in homes and commercial buildings.

In addition to being bad for energy security, these bans are a form of regressive tax on the poor and the middle class because they compel consumers to use electricity, which costs four times more than natural gas on an energy equivalent basis. Despite these very cold facts, it is certain that the efforts to ban natural gas and electrify everything will continue.

I am pro-electricity and electrification. Over the past year, I’ve published a book (A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations) and co-produced a documentary (Juice: How Electricity Explains the World) that spotlights electricity and why we need many terawatts of new generation capacity to bring the 3 billion people in the world who are now living in energy poverty out of the dark and into the bright lights of modernity. But more than being pro-electricity, I am pro-human. The ongoing blizzard is proving our vulnerability to extreme weather events and it is showing that we can’t rely on electricity alone.

Events like the September 11 attacks, Superstorm Sandy, and the coronavirus proved that we need to must make our society more resilient to threats of all kinds. A robust natural gas grid helps our resilience. Electrifying everything will do the opposite.

Robert Bryce

Robert Bryce is the host of the Power Hungry Podcast. An author and journalist, Bryce has been writing about energy, politics, and the environment for more than 30 year.


See a Powerpoint on The Folly of the Green New Deal with a focus on wind power.

Feb 25, 2021
The Never Ending War

By Meteorologist Art Horn

The oceans of the world contain vast quantities of heat. Most of that heat is contained in the upper reaches of the ocean which average 2 miles in depth. In fact, between 30 degrees north of the equator and 30 degrees south of the equator the upper 1000 feet of the ocean contain about 1,000 times more heat energy than the atmosphere!

Due to this extraordinary imbalance, changes in ocean temperature can have a significant impact on atmospheric wind and thermal variations. It is important to remember that the atmosphere of earth is not in balance and it never has been. It is always out of alignment, constantly seeking to find an alignment that will strike a balance between the cold of the polar regions and the heat of the tropics. It will never happen. Forever searching but never finding.

As a result of this never ending battle to find a balance between the cold and the hot, we have weather. The “job” of the weather is to mix the cold and the hot together in an attempt to find atmosphere peace and tranquility. That will never happen either! Constantly searching, always looking but never finding, the atmospheric wars wage on for days, weeks, months, years, centuries, forever.

At times the forces of cold and hot bottle up, bulging at the seams, ready to explode. That’s when the weather machine revs up to another gear. The cold bursts from the arctic, the hot gushes northward, great differences in air pressure and the spinning of the earth whip up gigantic cyclones producing blinding snows, torrential rains, hurricane force winds, floods, tornadoes, frozen pipes and bad air days! And then it’s over. The great expenditure of pent up fury have done their job. The opposing forces shake hands. The sun comes out, the wind is gone and the snow and rain have ended and all that’s left is the cleanup.

Two hundred years ago there was much less to cleanup after the storm than now. The storms were just as severe, just as frequent but we had much less to break. What the storms did break was the food chain. Famine was the ultimate cost paid by the living in those days. A great prosperity has emerged in the last 200 years. Starting with the innovations of the industrial revolution, we now live twice as long as then. We enjoy something that was unknown to most 200 years ago, leisure time and a lifestyle unimaginable to those that lived in the early 19th century.

But with our advancement has come a vulnerability. Even though we now, for the first time in human history have a fighting chance against the atmosphere war machine, we are, in a very real way more vulnerable to the destruction caused by storms than in the simpler times of the past. There’s a lot more to break now than in the past.

There is always a price to pay for anything, and there should be. Our increased vulnerability to weather in some aspects of civilization is just one of those bills we have to pay, like it or not. I for one am willing to pay that bill. There’s nothing like a warm place to live with food on the table and a good internet connection when the snow is falling, the wind is howling and the temperature is plunging, just ask those folks in Texas and the other southern states that felt the wrath of nature’s imbalance this month. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from their collective suffering and it might be, If it works, don’t fix it.

Feb 25, 2021
The risks of communicating extreme climate forecasts- history of failure


Research News









That’s a problem for climate science, say Rode and Fischbeck.














Leonard Nimoy talked about the coming ice age in 1979 here.

Tony Heller exposes the fraudsters here:

Feb 22, 2021
Texas’s Blackouts Are The Result Of Unreliable ‘Green’’ Energy


By Jason Isaac, The Federalist

FEBRUARY 18, 2021




Fossil Fuels Aren’t to Blame




Increased Reliance on Unreliable Renewables




Special Breaks Helped Cause the Blackouts






Keep This from Happening Again




Here’s What to Do







Feb 20, 2021
Why the sun played a role in the extreme cold?

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM





See the warming at 50mb.




See the result the last month at the ground level.






See the 2009/10 warming and persistent -AO.


2009/10 was most negative since 1976/77.


The warmings are more frequent near solar max and solar min.






We have had longer minima with more sunspotless days.









Jan 14, 2021
Climate Claim Fact Checks

Joseph S. D’Aleo, CCM

Below are a series of fact checks of the 11 most common climate claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report.[2] The authors of these reviews are all recognized experts in the relevant fields.


See Impacts of Climate Change Perception and Reality by Indur M. Goklany here.

UAH reports a continuing cooling in the global lower troposphere. See how it correlates with El Nino (red bars) and La Nina and can be dampened by volcanic eruptions.




Serious cold is coming in response to a Sudden Stratospheric event the builds cold air masses that make it to middle latitudes.




Heat Waves - have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally.

Hurricanes - the decade just ended as the second quietest for landfalling. hurricanes and landfalling major hurricanes in the U.S since the 1850s. 2020 saw a record 30 named storms and many Gulf impacts like the quiet solar periods in the late 1800s and this century, but the AC index ranked 13th highest. See 2020 Update showing similarities to late 1800s here and global contrasts here.

Tornadoes - the number of strong tornadoes has declined over the last half century. More active months occur when unseasonable cold spring patterns are present.

Droughts and Floods - there has no statistically significant trends

Wildfires - decreasing since the very active 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management. See Australia Wildfire story here.  See this analysis that shows how public lands are ablaze but private lands are not because they are properly managed here.

Snowfall - has been increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set.

Sea level - the rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where today, it is increasing - local factors such as land subsidence are to blame. See how sea level trends are being adjusted here.

Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice - the polar ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels. Arctic ice returned to higher levels with a very cold winter in 2019/20. Ice was highest level since 2013. See update here on the AMO, PDO ocean cycles, the Solar and Arctic temperatures.

Alaska July 2019 heat records/ winter 2019/20 cold - the hot July resulted from a warm North Pacific and reduced ice in the Bering Sea late winter due to strong storms. Record ice extent occurred with record cold in 2012. 2019/20 has been the third coldest winter in Fairbanks since the Great Pacific Climate Shift in the late 1970s.

Ocean Acidification” - when life is considered, ocean acidification (really slightly reduced alkalinity) is a non-problem, or even a benefit.

Carbon Pollution as a health hazard - carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless invisible trace gas that is plant food and it is essential to life on the planet. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Climate change is endangering food supply - the vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2.

There is a 97% consensus that climate change is man-made - a 97% consensus is a convenient fiction meant to bypass the scientific method and sway public opinion and drive societal changes and policies that support political agendas.


Mar 24, 2020
Solid Reasons To Push Back On The Dangerous Globalist Radical Environmental Plans












Joseph D’Aleo, CCM













See detailed peer reviewed studies on this here.





















Massachusetts lawmakers have been aggressive in enacting policies they believe to combat climate change. Policymakers passed the Global Warming Solutions Act and joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative intending to reduce the state’s GHG emissions. As a result you can see Massachusetts tops all the other lower 48 states in the cost of electricity according to the EIA (173.2% of the average of the lower 48 states). Right up there with Massachusetts are all the other northeast RGGI states and not surprisingly California.  Connecticut is #1 now with 175.1%.












Mar 09, 2020
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methane - a more scientific view

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, Dr. James P. Wallace III & ABD. Joseph S. D’Aleo

The greenhouse effect makes this planet more hospitable. Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere keep the planet warmer than it would otherwise be by re-radiating some of the energy back toward the earth - in a process called back radiation. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas. Much of the discussion of the greenhouse effect has been rooted in an incorrect picture of the atmosphere: nearly all climate models begin by assuming “dry air” as the gas. As shown in Figure 1, that assumption yields this picture of the atmosphere:


Mentioning H2O (Water vapor) in an asterisk is definitely not the right way to go about it. Dry air does not exist in nature, but must be created in the laboratory with specialized equipment. Therefore, the above picture seriously misrepresents the reality of air and the reality of the greenhouse effect. In reality, the greenhouse gases (GHGs) comprise a small finite fraction of the atmosphere, and H2O is by far the most important of them. In the pie-chart shown in Figure 2 below, we illustrate better how the greenhouse effect is “divvied up” in the real world, unlike the imaginary world of dry air.

Figure 2: Breakdown of the “natural” greenhouse effect by contributing gas. IPCC ReportAR-1. 1992. (Because halocarbons are industrial gases they are not represented here).

However, to draw even this graph, it was necessary to choose some specific amount of water vapor in a representative atmospheric model. That’s not a very reliable way to guess (given the forecast reliability of climate models), but it’s far better than guessing zero, which is the case with “dry air.” In Figure 2, 28% of the greenhouse effect is attributed to “other gases” which are almost entirely CO2. That percentage is very likely way too high. The magnitude of CO2’s influence is now being challenged worldwide See 1, 2 . However, the point we wish to make herein is about methane (CH4) and its actual greenhouse impact, not that of CO2.

In the U.S., regulation of methane emissions from numerous sources is currently being debated. Currently, this debate is not at all about the scientific basis for regulation, but rather totally about the costs involved with regulating various sources. However, contrary to the common assertions, the GHG temperature impact of methane is negligible 3. Thus, water vapor and clouds are primarily responsible for the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect. Climate modelers have tried to model this highly complex thermodynamic process by starting with dry air and then introducing H2O as a “feedback” effect. That clearly doesn’t work as shown below.

There is a huge difference between methane as a confined gas inside laboratory equipment and methane as it is found in normal air. In the real world of real air, the very few possible absorption-lines of CH4 are utterly swamped by the prominent absorption-lines of H2O at the very same wavelengths. Any photon that might be captured by CH4 has long since been captured by H2O. Add to that the fact that there is very little energy in the CH4 region of the infrared spectrum (7.65 microns), because the radiation emanating from earth is centered around 15 microns and spread from about 9 microns to 30 microns. Also, add to that the fact that CH4 concentration is about 1.8 parts per million, while H2O is about 15,000 parts per million. As it turns out, H2O’s impacts, including its phase-change-related impacts, overwhelm everything else in the entire “greenhouse” game.

The entire furor over methane (and the “cow farts” which are good for some giggles) is simply a result of imagining an atmosphere having an idealized chemical-laboratory setting instead of thinking of the earth’s actual atmosphere, made up of real air, which contains H20 - lots of it, not to mention the enormous oceans always ready to evaporate more H2O upon warming.

The mechanism by which methane goes away is this: being far lighter than air (atomic weight 16), CH4 drifts from the surface (where its origin is termites, wetlands, rice paddies and a little from human and animal activities, etc.) up through the troposphere into the stratosphere. There it is soon oxidized to H2O and CO2 . That happens in the daytime, aided by solar photons. (CH4 and O2 molecules don’t just automatically combine when nearby, and infrared photons are too weak to energize the reaction.) The amount of H2O in the stratosphere is about 4 or 5 ppm. Why not zero? H2O was supposed to have all frozen out and turned into clouds in the upper troposphere, was it not? It seems very likely that virtually all the H2O molecules in the stratosphere are what is produced via the oxidation of CH4. But these H2O molecules are of such low density that the H2O-to-H2O collisions (required to begin a snowflake) would occur very infrequently. People guess that the lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere might be around 5 years. That’s a guess because it hasn’t been measured well. The many different emission sources of CH4 are ‘ubiquitous”, i.e. “all over the place” and there’s no current way to track atmospheric CH4 concentration. Moreover, there is more being originated every day. But, once again, since CH4 is lighter than air, it gradually heads for the stratosphere anyway where the above mentioned chemical reaction dispenses with it!  Hence the hand-waving guess of 5 years still stands. But, nobody cares, because CH4 goes away on its own with negligible impact on the Earth’s temperature. There is no place akin to Mauna Loa where CH4 atmospheric concentration has been measured over a large fraction of the past century; thus, unlike for CO2, any claim that a century ago CH4 concentration was half its value
today is specious.

Rather the entire fear of CH4 is based entirely on the IPCC “Global Warming Potential” number being a “factor of 28 stronger” than CO2. But that concept is rooted in thinking about “dry air” in the laboratory, not about “real air” in nature.


Water vapor and clouds totally dominate the greenhouse gas impact on the Earth’s temperature. Methane emissions have negligible impact and there is no need whatsoever for their regulation. In fact, the cost/benefit ratio associated with any attempt at regulation to reduce methane emissions would be infinite, since the “global cooling benefit” would be zero - not to mention the costs being huge!

1 See Data Research Report
2 See: EF DATA Comment on Christy et al Paper Press Release V5
3 See: GREENHOUSE GASES - A MORE REALISTIC VIEW at this LINK , pg. 7-9 & Methane and Climate, By W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, CO2 Coalition, 2020 (Link)

Aug 18, 2020
Green California Has the Nation’s Worst Power Grid

By Steve Goreham


By Steve Goreham

Originally published in Washington Examiner.


















Jan 24, 2020
Climate Alarmists = Chicken Little

By Frank Lassee

Climate alarmist are telling you a false story line




Be aware of the climate alarmist Trojan Horse















Australia, the desert continent, is getting wetter.







Be aware!

Frank Lassee


Surveys show the public largely does not prioritize climate change policies.


Nov 09, 2019
Who are these ‘11,000 Concerned Scientists’?

By Casey Plunkett

See how Facebook is doing fake Fact-Checking on papers that are not published on cabal controlled journals here.

Academics and scientists are yet again issuing “consensus” statements on climate change.  In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.” This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press, found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel.  Citing a “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is,” they’ve published the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” In dystopian tone, they’ve issued a demand for Earth’s population to “be stabilized - and, ideally, gradually reduced - within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country,” who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter?  Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields - their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science.  For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in biology, a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery, and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing.  How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology, or atmospheric science?  Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link - so I looked.

In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists.  As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S.  Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN, and linguistics.  Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could not care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change - let alone allow him to tell me how to live my life.

This raises the question: “Why did so few meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?” Perhaps they know that this is faux science?  The climate is a complex dynamic that science don’t fully understand, let alone predict.  Nonetheless, radical, statist elements of society continue to advocate economy-destroying actions - taking lemmings over the cliff with them.

At family gatherings in the upcoming holiday season, when annoying in-laws cite “scientific consensus” on man’s effects on climate change, expose their ignorance and the irrelevance of these doomsday papers with an analogy.  Advise them to seek out the consensus opinion of a group of chemists, linguists, and data scientists if they believe they tore a rotator cuff or have concerns with an asymmetrical mole they’ve discovered.

Aug 27, 2020
Back to school, back to academic brainwashing

Author : Walter E. Williams

Note: Walter Williams passed on December 1, 2020 (see).

Parents, legislators, taxpayers, and others footing the bill for college education might be interested in just what is in store for the upcoming academic year.

Since many college classes will be online, there is a chance to witness professors indoctrinating their students in real time. So, there’s a chance that some college faculty might change their behavior. To see recent examples of campus nonsense and indoctrination, visit the Campus Reform and College Fix websites.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, warned congressional lawmakers “that Antifa is ‘winning’ and that much of academia, whether wittingly or unwittingly, is complicit in its success,” reported Campus Reform.

In his testimony before Congress Turley said:

To Antifa, people like me are the personification of the classical liberal view of free speech that perpetuates a system of oppression and abuse. I wish I could say that my view remains strongly implanted in our higher educational institutions. However, you are more likely to find public supporters for restricting free speech than you are to find defenders of free speech principles on many campuses.

The leftist bias at our colleges and universities has many harmful effects. A mathematics professor at University of California, Davis, faced considerable backlash over her opposition to the requirement for “diversity statements” from potential faculty.

Those seeking employment at the University of California, San Diego, are required to admit that “barriers” prevent women and minorities from full participation in campus life.

At American University, a history professor wrote a book calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. A Rutgers University professor said: “Watching the Iowa Caucus is a sickening display of the overrepresentation of whiteness.”

A Williams College professor has advocated the inclusion of social justice in math textbooks. Students at Wayne State University are no longer required to take a single math course to graduate; however, they may soon be required to take a diversity course.

Maybe some students will be forced into sharing the vision of Laurie Rubel, a math education professor at Brooklyn College. She says

the idea of cultural neutrality in math is a “myth,” and that asking whether 2 plus 2 equals 4 “reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.”

Rubel tweeted: “Y’all must know that the idea that math is objective or neutral IS A MYTH.”

Math professors and academics at other universities, including Harvard and the University of Illinois, discussed the “Eurocentric” roots of American mathematics. As for me, I would like to see the proof, in any culture, that 2 plus 2 is something other than 4.

Rutgers University’s English department chairwoman, Rebecca Walkowitz, announced changes to the department’s graduate writing program emphasizing “social justice” and “critical grammar.”

Leonydus Johnson, a speech-language pathologist and libertarian activist, says Walkowitz’s changes make the assumption that minorities cannot understand traditional and grammatically correct English speech and writing, which is “insulting, patronizing, and in itself, extremely racist.”

Then there is the nonsense taught on college campuses about white privilege. The idea of white privilege doesn’t explain why several historically marginalized groups outperform whites today.

For example, Japanese Americans suffered under the Alien Land Law of 1913 and other racist, exclusionary laws legally preventing them from owning land and property in more than a dozen American states until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

During World War II, more than 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned. However, by 1959, the income disparity between Japanese Americans and white Americans had almost disappeared.

Today, Japanese Americans outperform white Americans by large margins in income statistics, education outcomes, and test scores, and have much lower incarceration rates.

According to Rav Arora, writing for the New York Post, several black immigrant groups such as Nigerians, Trinidadians, Tobagonians, Barbadians, and Ghanaians all “have a median household income well above the American average.”

We are left with the question whether the people handing out “white privilege” made a mistake. The other alternative is that Japanese Americans, Nigerians, Barbadians, Ghanaians, Trinidadians, and Tobagonians are really white Americans.

The bottom line is that more Americans need to pay attention to the miseducation of our youth and that miseducation is not limited to higher education.

Nov 10, 2019
Are they willing to go to these lengths?

James Visentine

"After our daughter of fifteen years of age was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN recently, she became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years”. So, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced of “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems”.  We are now committed to give our daughter a future again, by doing our part to help cool the planet four degrees.

From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car costs fuel, and fuel puts emissions into the atmosphere. Of course it will be winter soon and then she will want to go by bus, but only as long as it is a diesel bus.  Somehow, that does not seem to be conducive to ‘helping the Climate’.





We have found an eco store where the only clothing they sell is made from undyed and unbleached linen, wool and jute.  It shouldn’t matter that it looks good on her, or that she is going to be laughed at, dressing in colorless, bland clothes and without a wireless bra, but that is the price she has to pay for the benefit of The Climate.  Cotton is out of the question, as it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it. Very bad for the environment.



She will no longer be participating in winter sports to ski lodges and resorts, nor will she be going on any more vacations with us, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible by bicycle.





No ice cream in the summer. No soft drinks and no energy drinks, as the bubbles are CO2. She wanted to lose some pounds, well; this will help her achieve that goal too.


We will replace her 9600 coil, memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw, with a horsehair pillow.

And finally, she will no longer be using makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication. Her sanitary napkins will be replaced with pads made of linen, that she can wash by hand, with her wooden washboard, just like her female ancestors did before climate change made her angry at us for destroying her future.

In this way we will help her to do her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.  If she truly believes she wants to walk the talk of the girl on TV, she will gladly accept and happily embrace her “new way of life.

May your troubles be less, may your blessings be more, and may nothing but happiness come through your door! When we choose not to focus on what is missing from our lives but are grateful for the abundance that is present we experience heaven on earth.

Apr 29, 2019
Fake climate science and scientists

Paul Driessen

For years we’ve been subjected to what can only be described as fake science on climate change, brought to us by folks that can best be described as fake climate scientists.

They engage in practices that real scientists would never follow, and willfully ignore everything the scientific method prescribes as guidelines for honest, replicable, beneficial research. Even worse, these fake/alarmist scientists demand that their suspect work be used to justify energy policies that would upend and devastate modern industrial economies - for no climate benefit… with millions of acres blanketed by wind turbines and solar panels ...and with billions of impoverished people being trapped in energy poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death.

My article this week tackles this problem head-on. Thank you for posting it, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,


Fake climate science and scientists

Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else

Paul Driessen

The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” - and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief - or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited - it’s pseudo-science, at best.

Real science - and real scientists - seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature - at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” - or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system - all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes - and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.

Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate - and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” - and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”

When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” - while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”

Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand… The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal - and one political party ticket,” she explains.

The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use ...and upend modern economies.

The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists - a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation ... and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).

Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.

Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity - especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century - and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.

Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years - and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)

So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs - in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” - let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.


Apr 06, 2016







See the quotes here.


















Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

From: Malcolm Roberts []
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM

Dear Professor Hoj:




Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.













Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts










See faulty methodology of Cook study.







From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary



DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.




















See still more annotated here.


Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.




Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.


Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
