The Thirty Year War

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

This is the 30th anniversary of James Hansen’s testimony to Congress regarding “global warming”. It was his testimony that set off the disastrous 30 Year War on Carbon. There have been articles in the press celebrating the anniversary of his testimony and lauding Hansen’s role, but I see nothing to celebrate. It has been a war with lots of casualties, mostly among the poor who can least afford it. It’s a war that has increased my electricity price by 50%. I can afford that … but there are many who can’t. It’s a war that has plunged thousands of people into a new kind of poverty, “fuel poverty”. Fuel poverty is where in midwinter, you have to make a choice between heating and eating …

I shudder to think about what that choice must be like.

And sadly, one of the main casualties of this mad war is the reputation of climate science itself. The disreputable actions of far too many activist scientists have blackened the names of every honest climate scientist and indeed of the entire field.

How did we get into this insane fight against a natural component of the atmosphere? Much of it traces back to a very successful underhanded scam pulled off by Jamex Hansen surrounding his Congressional testimony during that summer thirty years ago.

Why do I call it an “underhanded scam”? Here’s a description of the chicanery from an interview with Senator Tim Wirth, one of the flim-flam artists who helped James Hansen with his Congressional testimony. The interviewer is asking Senator Wirth about the events surrounding that Congressional Hearing. The interviewer asks:

What else was happening that summer? What was the weather like that summer?

Senator Wirth: Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense.

Simultaneously [Mass. Gov. Michael] Dukakis was running for president. Dukakis was trying to get an edge on various things and was looking for spokespeople, and two or three of us became sort of the flacks out on the stump for Dukakis, making the separation between what Democratic policy and Republican policy ought to be. So it played into the presidential campaign in the summer of ’88 as well.

So a number of things came together that, for the first time, people began to think about it. I knew it was important because there was a big article in, I believe, the Swimsuit Issue of Sports Illustrated on climate change. [Laughs.] So there was a correlation. You figure, well, if we’re making Sports Illustrated on this issue, you know, we’ve got to be making some real headway.

So these underhanded cheats set the stage for hyping “global warming” by deliberately choosing the hottest day of the year for Hansen’s testimony. Then they morphed his oh-so-movingly hot testimony into a very successful partisan political issue for the Democrats.

And the amazing thing is, Senator Wirth sees his deceit as something to boast about!

“But wait”, as they say on TV, “there’s more”. Here’s the next question to Senator Wirth:

And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

Senator Wirth: … What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …

There you have it. Wirth and Hansen picked the hottest day, opened the windows, and disabled the air conditioning to create a made-for-tv illusion of global warming, nobody could deny it seeing Hansen and the Senators sweat … and now Senator Wirth is boasting about how clever they were. Can’t get much more pridefully underhanded than that.

They say that “Fish rots from the head down”, and the Thirty Year War on carbon dioxide is a clear example of that. The war on carbon dioxide was born in lies, cheating, deliberate subterfuge, and intentional misrepresentations by James Hansen and Senator Tim Wirth … and it has continued down that same path since the beginning.

They also say “As the twig is bent, the tree’s inclined”, and starting with Wirth and Hansen deceiving the US Congress, down through Michael Mann and his lies about the Hockeystick being validated, to Peter Gleick and his lies about the Heartland Institute, to Caspar Amman lying to get the Jesus Paper into the IPCC report, the field has had far, far too many devious, deceitful “scientists” shading the truth, ignoring opposing evidence, disabling air conditioners, and telling porkies to advance their allegedly noble cause.

And to advance their careers as well, although surely that is only coincidental …

The most amazing part of this story is that even though these scientific malfeasants fooled Congress, and even though they lied their keisters off, even though they stacked the peer review panels with reviewers blind enough to put Stevie Wonder to shame, and even though the governments and the universities and the scientific organizations and the mainstream media all bought into their deceit and lies, even despite the fact that tragically they poured billions and billions of dollars down the rathole in the process … they still haven’t convinced the core of the US population that CO2 is the double extra secret control knob that can simply be turned up and down to regulate the global temperature to the nearest degree.

Thirty years on now, and all that time they tried and they tried, and they lied and they lied, but they just couldn’t pull it off.

So what I’m celebrating today is the 30th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln being proved right when he said “you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

And on this anniversary I’m also celebrating those who have fought the good fight in this war, and it is a long and tiresome fight indeed. First and foremost, Anthony Watts, whose original Surfacestations project morphed into Watts Up With That, the most successful climate blog ever. Next, Steven McIntyre, whose dogged pursuit of the smallest details showed just where the Hockeystick was fatally cracked, and who exposed errors in dozens of papers.

Among the professional scientists who have followed the facts and fought for the scientific method, I give big props to Drs. Bill Gray (sadly no longer with us), Roy Spencer, Tim Ball, John Christie, Pielkes Pere et Fil, Willie Soon, the dean Fred Singer, the irrepressible Judith Curry, Craig Loehle, and many more honest scientists known and unknown.

Beyond them are dozens and dozens of amateur scientists, bloggers, journalists, and people from other disciplines doing or reporting on interesting original climate research—Jo Nova, Steve Goddard, Matt Ridley, Warwick Hughes, Jennifer Marohazy, Donna Laframboise, Roger Tallbloke, Bishop Hill, the delightfully mad Lord Moncton, Lucia Liljegrin, James Delingpole, Ross McKitrick, and many, many others.

(I apologize in advance for leaving out anyone whose name I should have mentioned, but rest assured, your contributions are known beyond the confines of my faulty memory.)

Next up for war decorations are the moderators of all of the climate-related blogs, particularly of WUWT. Since WUWT has a worldwide reach, it needs to be moderated 24/7. This is done by a global group of dedicated people who have selflessly donated their time to keep the doors open. Kudos to the moderators on all the blogs.

Next are all of the other active participants in the climate discussion, AKA the commenters. I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned from the comments on all of the blogs—there’s always something new, some different way to look at things, some insight about how I might be able to solve a problem.

Next, a special war medal for those who have show me and others where our scientific claims are wrong. Science progresses inter alia by one person trying to find flaws in the scientific ideas of another person. It is essentially adversarial, and nobody likes to be publicly shown to be wrong. Me, I hate it … but being shown wrong has saved me months, perhaps years, of following some incorrect understanding down some blind alley. It is the willingness of the skeptics to be wrong that will sustain people’s faith in the scientific process.

To round it all out, I want to give a shout-out to the lurkers, those who read the articles and comments with great interest, but rarely or never comment. The lurkers are the unseen nine-tenths of the iceberg that give it the mass necessary to bring down the big “ship of fools” …

Anyhow, that’s what I’m celebrating on this 30th anniversary of the start of the Carbon Wars—this mad, ad-hoc, unorganized, chaotic army of professional and amateur scientists, interested individuals, bloggers, people with unconventional scientific ideas, intellectual nonconformists, lurkers, climate curmudgeons such as myself, general weirdos, and a host of other in-laws and outlaws who have united under the banner of science-based skepticism, and who have fought the combined power of governments, universities, activist scientists with billions in funding, and the mainstream media to a standstill.

My profound congratulations to all involved. Not that the war is won, but at least we’re at what might be called the “Churchill inflection point” … well done to everyone, thanks for fighting the good fight.


PS—The “Churchill inflection point”? It is that point in a war that Churchill described as follows:

It is my best judgement that after thirty years of climate science being hijacked by activists, we are now at the end of the beginning of the fight to return sanity, transparency, and honesty to climate science.

PPS—when you comment I ask that you quote the exact words you are discussing. Your subject is always crystal clear to you … but not to others. So please, to avoid misunderstandings, quote the subject of your musings.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 20, 2018 9:14 pm

“There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts.”

Mark Twain

Reply to  Stephen Heins
June 20, 2018 11:17 pm

Here’s more sophisticated way of coming to that same conclusion:

Or if you to go really hard core:

Aynsley Kellow
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
June 21, 2018 1:46 am

I always think an interesting game would be to try to find climate science papers that do not contain the word ‘could’ in the abstract. It’s all conjecture, and no refutation.

Greg in Houston
Reply to  Aynsley Kellow
June 21, 2018 6:00 am

Other climate science paper red flags: might; has the fingerprint of; has the potential to; substantiated in the lab; likely; may; no other explanation….

Reply to  Greg in Houston
June 21, 2018 7:07 am

Greg in Houston

Computer model.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Aynsley Kellow
June 21, 2018 10:10 am

Yes, “could.” Along with its cousins “might,” “may,” “likely,” and the extended family of “since,” “from,” “between,” (baselining and cherry-picking).

Reply to  AGW is not Science
June 21, 2018 1:16 pm

Let’s all contribute to this list. Here’s mine: researchers believe, scientists suspect CC, no one can say, authors suggest, could be, according to the NYT, the Guardian etc, as seen in the IPCC model, and the key to it all…..more research is needed.

Reply to  Sandyb
June 21, 2018 3:45 pm

And, surely, more research is needed.
AKA Send more of other peoples’ money.

Am I cynical?
Do bears wander into the woods with bathroom tissue?
[We know about the Pope . . .]

Reply to  Auto
June 21, 2018 7:41 pm


[Uncalled for. No need to insult through inference those who hold a belief in a creator. -mod]

Reply to  Aynsley Kellow
June 21, 2018 12:23 pm

There are also the papers which contain clear refutations of climate predictions but which, in order to get past the peer review censors, must contain a phrase similar to, “but this does not refute global warming predictions,” followed by a forced or convoluted rationalization.

F. Ross (aka: a lurker)
June 20, 2018 9:20 pm

Very good post Willis.

Reply to  F. Ross (aka: a lurker)
June 21, 2018 7:08 am

F. Ross (aka: a lurker)

A lurker no more it seems.


June 20, 2018 9:31 pm

Some of us have had the dubious pleasure of a fire alarm and having to wait outside (sometimes in the cold, sometimes almost in PJs) for the fire department to come and give the all-clear, “false alarm”.

After 30 years of climate alarms, still waiting….

Ross McKitrick’s latest:
“All those warming-climate predictions suddenly have a big, new problem”

Reply to  Toto
June 21, 2018 12:29 am

McKitrick’s article is excellent. The good news is that it isn’t buried somewhere hard to find. On FP’s front page it is listed #1 in the Popular Posts section.

The other good news is that we’ve had a Conservative victory in the recent Ontario (Canadian province) election. The reigning Liberals had become remarkably unpopular. Among the issues that brought them down were the price of electricity and the price of gasoline.

People might give lip service to global warming but when government policy raises energy prices, they rebel. McKitrick’s article will give the opinion leaders the ammunition they need. I’m guessing that FP’s readers are among those who, at most, give lip service to global warming. The article could tip many into those who sabotage global warming policies without outwardly opposing them. It reminds me of the underground in WW2. As Willis (and Churchill) points out:

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. link

Reply to  commieBob
June 21, 2018 12:35 am

I don’t mean this as condescending as it sounds, but people will always support things that sound good until it comes time to pay for them. My scepticism always starts with “how much”, because I learnt long ago the first rule of economics – there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  commieBob
June 21, 2018 1:41 am

Trudeau will take Saskatchewan and Ontario all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The other premiers will meekly go along with the scam. I don’t remember the last time that the Supreme Court in Canada disagreed with the government of the day.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 2:03 am

It is beginning to click why Trudeau gave that woman a lecture on “peoplekind”. It’s Margaret Mead’s anthropological condescension – a herd running before an alarm. Drive real individual people to, even some of the time, believe they are to be herded, even culled, and looting rhem outright is easy. There is a Royal perogative there!

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Toto
June 21, 2018 1:28 am


Why havent you learned to pull back the curtain of the Wizard of Oz? Until you learn that trick, we are all suffering by being electricity priced and carbon taxed to death.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 9:55 am

Those were the days, my friend. The curtain has been pulled back, by many others, and Willis has listed some of them. The problem is that you see what you want to see, you believe what you want to believe. Not you in particular, but in general, and unfortunately that includes many people who should know better, such as scientists. Watch out for scams and bubbles and what “everybody knows”.

Reply to  Toto
June 21, 2018 2:00 pm

Reply to  Toto
June 21, 2018 2:08 pm

Alarmists hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.

Peter Plail
Reply to  Toto
June 21, 2018 2:20 am

An interesting insight into the mind of the alarmist can be found in the comment from one Quercus Rubra who cites plastic as one of the consequences of global warming.

paul courtney
Reply to  Peter Plail
June 21, 2018 12:01 pm

Peter: Indeed. There were several nasty tr0lls prowling the comment string, calling them useful idiots might be too kind. But Rubra brought a new term to my mind- useless idiot.

Reply to  Peter Plail
June 21, 2018 12:09 pm

Presumably from NE North America.

Reply to  Toto
June 21, 2018 2:45 am

For McKitrick

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Toto
June 21, 2018 10:27 am

A good article to be sure. But it could go even further on some important issues. Like the “average” temperature increase, which is a somewhat useless construct. The basic assumption in people’s minds (especially those who support the Climate Fascist movement) is that this “average” temperature increase will occur evenly everywhere. The basic hypothesis they espouse, however, indicates that it is the coldest, driest areas that would warm the most (IF such warming were driven by “greenhouse gases, in particular, CO2). So all the wailing about, as an example, crops withering in the heat is just nonsensical (based on their OWN pet hypothesis). If, just by way of example, Antartica “warms” from minus 40 to minus 30, where’s the harm, exactly?! So discussing the “damage” (or more likely, the lack thereof) from x degrees of “average” temperature increase quickly becomes another meaningless collection of assumptions about exactly WHAT changes will occur WHERE.

And the article also fails to mention (once again) that most of these ECS type studies have probably made the generous assumption that all of the warming over the period being considered was caused by CO2, when this has NOT ever been demonstrated, and which notion has been refuted by those who have looked more seriously at natural climate factors.

Bill Rambo
June 20, 2018 9:33 pm

As a lurker, I thank you.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Bill Rambo
June 21, 2018 4:05 am

Nice to get a bit of recognition at last. 😉 Thanks Willis.

June 20, 2018 9:34 pm

Willis, can’t agree more. Well said, as always.

June 20, 2018 9:40 pm

Good article Willis,but the biggest problem is the terrible waste of 1 to 2 trillion $ every year on the so called mitigation of their CAGW. ( see Lomborg)

Lomborg estimates that Solar and Wind generates just 0.8% of the world’s total energy today and according to the EU based IEA this may increase to just 3.6% by 2040.

Of course this will make no measurable change to temp or climate at all and the non OECD co2 emissions continue to soar. Oh and China generates 66.7% of their energy from coal while the US generates just 17.1%, unbelievable but true. Here’s the links.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  ngard2016
June 21, 2018 10:32 am

Not to mention the negative effects of the massive land use requirement to generate such a pittance of (mostly useless) electricity or the related holocaust of “biofuel” plantations created by razing rainforest.

The supposed (in reality completely ineffective, useless, economically destructive and ACTUALLY “planet destroying”) “cures” are worse than the (imaginary boogyman) disease.

Reply to  ngard2016
June 21, 2018 1:11 pm

I think that renewables should run on their own grid. That way those who push them can use renewables exclusively, and we won’t have to be concerned with the damage to the original grid. My gas bill is going up because of the transmission costs going up just so they can get renewables connected. Again, I say let them build their own grid. Then they can find out, like Southern Australia, what a complete and utter failure they are and only those who wanted them will suffer.

Komrade Kuma
June 20, 2018 9:45 pm

This is really down to the media and in particular the audio-visual media. They are the ones who recklessly use the power of confected, contrived imagery to sell, sell, sell any marketable frogwash with no interest in truth or reality at all, just how the rating will trend and thus how much $$$advertising they can extract from the economy. If there was a claim that Thalidomide cured cancer they would promote it.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
June 20, 2018 10:04 pm

The Storm Channel (et al) are just doing their part to promote “The Cause”.

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
June 24, 2018 3:24 am

“Rehabilitating thalidomide
Infamous thalidomide, regrettably used to treat morning sickness in the late 1950s was catastrophic for developing foetuses and responsible for the birth of thousands of disabled babies. But despite this dark past, the potentially beneficial properties of thalidomide are being re-explored and it is currently one of the most talked about drugs in cancer therapy. More than 700 thalidomide clinical trials are currently registered in almost every cancer type imaginable and it is currently approved to treat a blood cancer called myeloma.

Although it isn’t fully understood how thalidomide works in cancer treatment, it is known to prevent the growth of new blood vessels, which can “starve” tumours and potentially cause them to shrink. There are other drugs which have similar properties, but many are expensive and come with a range of side effects. Thalidomide on the other hand is off-patent, cheap and relatively well evaluated.”

K. Kilty
June 20, 2018 9:58 pm

In Hansen and Lebedeff Geophys. Res. Letters. Vol 15, n. 4, pp 323-326. We find this conclusion

“… the 1987 global temperature relative to the 1951-1980 climatology is a warming of between 2 and 3 standard deviations. If a warming of 3 standard deviations is reached it will represent a trend significant at the 99% confidence level. However, a causal connection of the warming with the greenhouse effect requires examination of the expected climate system response to a slowly evolving climate forcing, a subject beyond the scope of this paper.”

Six months later, in his testimony before congress Hansen stated “… the global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high (99%) degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.”

Neglect for the moment that the statistics may not make any sense at all, and presuppose all sorts of things about climate that are doubtful, and also neglect that an additional 30 years of expenditure and work has clarified the issue no further; it seems that Hansen presented his conclusions in 1988 in ways tailored to the sophistication of the audience. That is not a mark of integrity.

Reply to  K. Kilty
June 20, 2018 10:30 pm

“In Hansen and Lebedeff Geophys. Res. Letters”
He said the causal connection was “a subject beyond the scope of this paper”. Well, it was. That paper was titled “Global surface air temperatures: Update through 1987”. The update was to a much more comprehensive paper published in 1987, adding in 1987 data. And the statistical test quoted is just whether the single year 1987 is outside the base range. If that was a test for global warming it would be a weak one. Stronger ones are available, and would have been used for the Congress statement.

“it seems that Hansen presented his conclusions in 1988 in ways tailored to the sophistication of the audience”
No, you have presented only part of it. His Senate testimony said:
Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming. Certainly further study of this issue must be made. The detection of a global greenhouse signal represents only a first step in analysis of the phenomenon. “

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2018 10:51 pm

Nick, I think the important point is that in his testimony, Hansen claimed detection. In your quote, Hansen refers to this claim. However, in Hansen & Lebedeff (as quoted by K. Kilty above) they do not claim detection – no ‘causal connection’. In both cases the 3 sigma 99% is referred to, but in the testimony (written and spoken and in the press interviews after) it is used to claim detection.

Reply to  BernieL
June 20, 2018 11:17 pm

You missing the point that that is a brief paper updating the earlier paper with 1987 data. It isn’t describing a grand test for global warming; it is testing whether the particular year that is the subject of the paper is outside the 1951-80 distribution. That is a weak test. The trend 1951-1987 of the GISS Ts data (which was the subject of the 1987 paper) was positive with a t-value of 7.1 (using Ar(1) autocorrelation from monthly data). That is most certainly significant.

He does refer to the significance of the 1987 warmth at the Senate, but that is certainly not the sole justification for saying there has been significant warming. He says that the warming in the period was 0.4°C. The warming as measured by the 1951-87 trend is indeed 0.391°C, on my calculation.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2018 1:49 am

Today no difference in the increase ~1C per century. Nick since the world’s population has increased since 1950 of 2.5 billion to 7.6 billion cant all of the warming be explained by the increase in population. Why do you always take the side of the alarmist argument when us skeptics point out to you the ridiculous nature of the alarmist argument? Even you must agree after learning all you have on here, that you are merely a warmist and not an alarmist I hope.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 2:14 am


Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2018 3:06 am


Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2018 8:42 pm

Nick Stokes got snipped?!?! But he always has his facts in such perfect order! The conclusions he reaches with those facts I frequently find strange, but he always has his facts! See you on the next one, Nick!

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 10:18 am

A person doing moderate work will produce .97 kg/day of CO2. That additional 5 billion people therefore creates 5 million tons of CO2 per day. I’ve never seen whether this number is added to the anthropogenic contribution to global CO2 production.

Reply to  dan no longer in CA
June 21, 2018 11:05 am

Probably just about replaces that lost with the whales, bison, etc.

Reply to  dan no longer in CA
June 22, 2018 8:46 pm

If human exhalations significantly contribute to global CO2 production, then NASA’s CO2 satellite should show huge plumes at major metropolitan areas. It did not.

Reply to  dan no longer in CA
June 24, 2018 3:34 am

Yes ….and those EXTRA BILLIONS of people are a
GREENER…..( Photosynthesis……especially in the Oceans
MUST BE SEQUESTERING large amounts of carbonaceous
material surely ! ) More plants and more animals utilising
more carbon compounds ! A sort of perpetual balance ???

Aynsley Kellow
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 22, 2018 12:36 am

I think it should be noted for the record that there was an El Nino in 1988, so the heat in Washington was helped by that.
As for as attribution and deceit go, I must recommend most highly Bernie’s excellent book on this. The attribution in time for Kyoto was a most significant battle in the war, and he sets it out quite clearly. I especially liked the contrast between Ben Santer’s key paper (lead author) claiming attribution with that on which he was a co-author concluding it was too early to do so.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2018 9:49 am

The “ascribing” of anything can be done if you have rent seeking global governance politicians, leftist media, and rent-seeking tendentious “scientists” and academics controlling the message. That’s the whole purpose of the IPCC, to co-opt ALL science into it’s fold, or to marginalize those who are not in bed with them.

The task at hand is to dismantle this unholy network, to end the UNFCCC and the IPCC, to stop post-normal science and political activism pretending to be science, to TEACH AND TRAIN young people that science NEVER works backwards from a foregone conclusion, it NEVER seeks to “prove” things (like the GHE) like a trial lawyer. Instead of talking to their inner-Schneiders, climate scientists need to reconnect with their inner-Feynman, and start working to disprove their hypotheses. And the US needs to stop funding this propaganda war against it’s own interests.

And we (especially you Australians, Nick) need to end our insane government Renewable Energy Target (RET) mandates. This needs to be done soon, before we have a true Venezuelan style disaster on our hands. If it happens, it will be a disaster of our own making, born of the success of leftist, Utopian dreams co-opting both science and sensible environmental compromises intrinsic to public policy debates.

Reply to  K. Kilty
June 21, 2018 5:29 am

Oh, for Pete’s sake. Give it up. [Snip…let’s avoid making it personal. -mod]

Happy Summer Solstice Day, Nick. Try to enjoy the First Day of Summer and please try to see the other side once in a while. You’ll live longer.

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 6:18 am

Sara, [SNIP] Sometime in the 1970s modern environmentalism went from advocacy for the environment and the prevention of environmental degradation to a full blown religion. Academia had been attacking religion for a couple of decades. Kids were being raised with no religion. Most humans require some form of religion in their life, even devout atheists; atheism is their religion. It was in the 1980s when the merger between between modern environmentalists and the socioeconomic left took place. The Left had spent a good deal of time trying to figure out just how to get environmentalists on board with their radical socialist agenda. After all environmental organizations take in a LOT of money, most have slick newsletters and magazines. They were making little progress. Then along came global warming. Of course the devil in this case was a common enemy of both socialists and environmentalists, the deceitful and evil capitalistic corporations. It is ironic that those funding both the environmental movement and the modern socialists are all from that “evil” capitalist corporate world.

Where once environmentalists wanted to protect species and ecosystems with global warming the issue became protecting Mother Earth, their modern day God substitute. The political Left saw this as an opportunity to expand their numbers and their coffers. As in the 1920s and 1930s the Leftist hierarchy had a new band of fellow travelers and useful idiots. Yet unlike the communism of the middle of 20th Century, where religion was forbidden, this modern coalition had all the trappings and vigor of a religious movement (i.e., a God, priest, monks, etc) not found in traditional socialist movements. [SNIP]

[No need to make your opinions personal, especially regarding a longtime, valuable, commenter. -mod]

Reply to  Edwin
June 21, 2018 10:31 am

“CAGW has become a religion having little to do with science.”

The Christian religion has been in decline for some time, and science has been ascendant, as has environmentalism. It’s a long story, with huge consequences.
Nietzsche saw it coming when he said “God is dead”. You can read what he really meant by that here:

Take away the moral aspect that religion provided the western world, but science does not, and it’s wide open for other ideologies. The “meaninglessness void” will be filled by something.

Reply to  Edwin
June 21, 2018 11:17 am

Come on, folks, lighten up on Nick. Unlike Hansen, Nick is a serious scientist who is willing to engage civilly with people who disagree with him. That’s refreshing.

I often disagree with Nick, and nobody is right all the time, but Nick has, on occasion, caught & corrected my errors, for which I am sincerely grateful. Most of the folks that I generally agree with have not done that, which makes my arguments with Nick more valuable to me than praise from the folks I agree with.

Of the many wonderful things about WUWT, which make it much more useful (and much more popular) than any of the climate alarmist blogs, perhaps the most valuable of all is the fact that Anthony welcomes dissenters, if they’re reasonably polite (and not utterly insane). Nearly all of the alarmist blogs are censored to prevent dissent, which would make them unreliable sources of information even if they weren’t dedicated to promoting nonsense.

So, please, y’all, don’t try to chase Nick away.

[Thanks for filling in the breach until we had a chance to get to these comments! -mod]

Reply to  Dave Burton
June 21, 2018 11:55 am

I’ve expressed similar support for Nick, in hopes he continues to comment here, despite so many skeptics opposing his positions.

Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 1:09 pm

I agree 100%. I rarely agree with Nick’s conclusions, but he presents his arguments in a scientific manner and usually cordially. When I argue with him, I usually learn from those arguments.

Reply to  Dave Burton
June 22, 2018 6:07 am

What happens when the utterly insane is not insane, like Einstein saying that Newton was wrong? All the experts considered Einstein to be utterly wrong too. My point is that one should not use an “utterly insane label”.

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 3:24 pm

Smooches, Mod! (giggle)

[Smooches are always appreciated and will get you everywhere with us. -mod]

Gunga Din
June 20, 2018 10:01 pm

And sadly, one of the main casualties of this mad war is the reputation of climate science itself. The disreputable actions of far too many activist scientists have blackened the names of every honest climate scientist and indeed of the entire field.

We shouldn’t have to put “climate scientist” in quotes.
There are real ones out there. But they don’t have an agenda (Mann’s “The Cause”). They are just trying to understand what is going on.

Old England
Reply to  Gunga Din
June 21, 2018 12:03 am

I tend to write it thus : Climate “scientists” when referring to the host of “scientists” who produce papers which attribute some outcome as a a result of or being caused by “climate change” when they have not even the flimsiest evidential link to support their claim.

One classic example springs to mind, Edinburgh University paper (published 2018) claiming that Shags ( a marine feeding bird) had changed their diet as a result of a shortage of Sand Eels and then attributed the reduction in the sand eel population to climate change.

In doing so they ignored that sea temperatures in the area had not increased and thus, shall we say, rather difficult to find any causal effect or correlation with sand eel numbers from non-existent “warming”.

Even more determinedly ignored were two published studies, one by the UK Parliament and one by the Scottish Parliament , which found that the shortage of sand eels in the study area was a direct result of overfishing by Scandinavian fishing vessels.

Those “scientists” at Edinburgh University would certainly , in my mind, deserve the parenthesis around the word Scientist.

Reply to  Old England
June 21, 2018 12:33 am

Shags (called cormorants elsewhere) are opportunistic feeders that eat anything they can catch, manipulate and stuff down their throats. They frequently change food species depending on where they fish and what is available. You have to be careful when analysing their diets, too, as they can fly a long way, so may be eating different species to those birds fishing closer to you. As a predictor of climate change they are about as reliable as Tarot cards.

Simon Platt
June 21, 2018 4:00 am

A pedant writes:

Shag =/= cormorant.

Reply to  Simon Platt
June 21, 2018 8:17 am

Close enough for government work!

That simple dichotomy between the great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and European shag (P. aristotelis) works for Britain, but not the rest of the world. Cormorant classification is a mess, both in common usage and scientific taxonomy.

The “great cormorant” of Britain is called the “black shag” in NZ because the Antipodean variety of the species has a shag-like crest.

Richard from Brooklyn (south)
Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 1:31 pm

Shag is also a noun [verb] in New Zealand. (related to the beast with two backs) Note Christopher Isherwood saw the connection between shags and weather (not climate) in his poem.
The common cormorant (or shag)
Lays eggs inside a paper bag,
You follow the idea, no doubt?
It’s to keep the lightning out.
But what these unobservant birds
Have never thought of, is that herds
Of wandering bears might come with buns
And steal the bags to hold the crumbs

[Edited upon request. -mod]

Richard from Brooklyn (south)
Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 1:33 pm

Sorry, meant verb. (mod can you please fix!)

June 21, 2018 8:00 am

The bad thing about this is that they use the number of the Houston hottest days since 1970. Besides the heat island, 30s and 50s were hot there. I only remember the latter. They are going to flaunt their colors, will be interesting to see who does it and how they explain it. It is true that the Texas coast has not had a serious hard freeze since 1989, could have happened if not for cloud cover. I guess WU figures that a crisis a day keeps the banker away.

As to shags in the late 1970’s exploding sand eel populations coincided with reduced mackerel and herring populations. From– Sherman, K., C., et al., 1981. Congruent shifts in sand eel abundance in western and eastern North Atlantic ecosystems. Nature. 291:486-489. Similar to what happened with lobsters and codfish.

Reply to  Old England
June 21, 2018 7:23 am

Old England

Wouldn’t my brethren have been better studying Puffins, as I believe sand eels are their staple diet?

Neil Jordan
June 20, 2018 10:10 pm
John F. Hultquist
June 20, 2018 10:17 pm

. . . the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 . . .

This is not usually the case. Try mid-July or later.
There is information that this story of the event is made up.
I have commented on this (with a link) a few times and each time someone has responded that the anti-story is the bogus one. I suggest the next dozen or so readers try to figure this out. I have no way of being certain, but am skeptical (any more about most things).
Happy Solstice!

Graham Balderson
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
June 20, 2018 11:07 pm

Maybe it was statistically the hottest day of the summer session of Congress.

Reply to  Graham Balderson
June 21, 2018 12:25 am

“the hottest day of the summer session”
No, the data is here. There is nothing special about 23rd, Normal max for 24th is hotter, and increasing until mid-July. It’s true that June 23, 1988 was a record for that date, though not unequalled. But 98°F isn’t super hot (the previous day was 101°F).

The testimony must have been arranged before the daily forecast was available, and there is nothing special about the 23rd normally. It sounds like a tall tale.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2018 5:39 am

Nick, you really do miss the point. Wirth said they picked what was “historically” the hottest day of summer.

These are HIS words:
“…it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.”

It could have rained and been as chilly as it is today where I live, and his scamming (turn off the A/C, open windows, etc.) would NOT have worked. That is the reality of it, which you are ignoring. Wirth and Hansen planned a scam, and pulled it off, at the expense of taxpayers, based on a PAST METEOROLOGICAL RECORD. They lied.

They lied to get what they wanted. They scammed everyone they could find and 30 years later, we’re still paying for that scam.

When is that going to sink in with you?

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 9:35 am

“Wirth said they picked what was “historically” the hottest day of summer. ”

Except it is not “historically” the hottest day of summer. Either historically has to mean the hottest day on average or it has to refer to record breaking days and the 23rd is neither (and certainly not the 6th or 9th).

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Bellman
June 21, 2018 10:41 am

So?! You expect a politician to get that right?? Especially an underhanded twaddle pusher like Timothy “We have to ride the global warming issue, even if the science is wrong” Wirth?!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
June 21, 2018 11:16 am

You are basically raising a strawman. Whether it was the historically hottest day or not, Wirth admitted to BELIEVING that it was the hottest and picking the day of the meeting based on that. That is, it was an attempt to emotionally influence the committee on a topic of science. Wirth may have just been lucky, based on misinformation, but it was the motive that is important!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2018 12:05 pm

“…Wirth admitted to BELIEVING that it was the hottest and picking the day of the meeting based on that.”

Assuming his recollections 20 years after the event are accurate despite the fact he cannot even remember the actual date of the hearing. And even then he didn’t say he scheduled it for what he believed was the hottest day, but rather that he tried to predict based on historical records what was most likely to be the hottest.

“That is, it was an attempt to emotionally influence the committee on a topic of science.”

Do you really think anything would have been different if the hearing had been scheduled for the 24th, just after the June heatwave?

What happens if there’s a cold winter in Washington, does that “emotionally influence” politicians?

Reply to  Bellman
June 21, 2018 3:05 pm

Bellman, it is less important that it was “accurate” or ‘not accurate’.
The point is that Wirth said it, it is recorded (see comment about PBS video below) and that he admitted to a reporter that it was planned and done to get what he and Hansen wanted.

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 6:16 pm

Yes I know what Wirth said, but I don’t trust what a politician tells a reporter 20 years after the event. People tell lies, they get confused, they exaggerate their own role in an event. The fact that nothing he says about scheduling a hearing because he knew it would be hot makes any sense, leads me to suspect he is doing one or more of those things.

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 3:20 pm

“Wirth and Hansen planned a scam, and pulled it off, at the expense of taxpayers, based on a PAST METEOROLOGICAL RECORD. They lied.”
What is the lie here? That Wirth may have tried to ensure that the testimony was given on a hot day? A bit theatrical, maybe, but how is it a lie?

There is actually no evidence that Hansen was involved in any such stagecraft, or that he did anything other than turn up on the day and give his testimony.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2018 3:38 pm

There is something that I have come to believe you don’t understand. There are both lies of commission, and lies of omission. That is, if you have an extra-marital affair, and your wife suspects, and asks you directly, and you de-Nye it, that is a lie of commission. On the other hand, if your wife never suspects, and you never tell her, that is a lie of omission because you willfully allow her to believe other than the truth. So, if Senator Wirth had announced at the beginning exactly what had been done and why, then no one could accuse him of lying, only staging theatrics with full disclosure. Full disclosure about affiliations of scientists, which might constitute a conflict of interest, are always encouraged — Nay, demanded on important issues. So, while you may give him a pass on the stunt, it was less than ethical. Also, I doubt that Hansen was in the dark about the stunt. Why else would he endure the discomfort of the hot room without complaining, unless he thought it would further his goals? However, the whole episode speaks to the ethics (or lack thereof) of alarmists who behave as though the end justifies any means.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2018 3:56 pm

” Also, I doubt that Hansen was in the dark about the stunt. “
OK, so suppose he did have reason to suspect that Wirth had chosen a likely hot day for the testimony. What is he supposed to do? Tell the FBI?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2018 6:13 pm

He could have asked that the windows be closed and the AC be turned on.

Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 6:32 pm

There were senators, staff present. Any could have asked, if it really was hot (very little evidence). Why is it Hansen’s exclusive responsibility to do that?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2018 6:39 pm

Not exclusive. Others could have.

But because presumably he was in on the scheme with his partner in crime the distinguished gentleman from the great state of Colorado.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 22, 2018 6:05 pm

Clyde, you are most probably incorrect about Hansen not being in on the theatrics. Everyone that goes before a committee is briefed by committee staff and especially the staff of the legislator that invited the person to testify. The speaker is after all there for a specific reason. If the speaker and a legislator are allies on an issue it is generally well coordinated. The whole point of having committee meetings most of the time is as a political show. How anyone (obviously I can’t mention a certain commenter) can defend either Wirth or Hansen for that day calls their own ethical upbringing into question.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sara
June 22, 2018 6:47 am

I’ve pointed this out before. I grew up in the Northern VA/DC area, and August always seemed like the hottest month to me.

Though looking here There isn’t a lot of difference between June, July, and August.

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 22, 2018 1:03 pm

You’ve got it about right. Turn off the heater in April. Three days later, turn on the air conditioner. No change until September. Another three nice days, then it turns cold.

paul courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2018 12:32 pm

A tall tale, told by??? Sen. Wirth. So either he told a tall tale to the reporter about calling BOM, or maybe he just got confused. But the “open window” setup, do you think that was also a tall tale told by Wirth? Do we have to have eyewitness testimony on that one, or do you agree that the heat in the room that day was staged? Never seems to bother you that two of the founders of this movement, Wirth and Hansen, lied about 1. what they did; or 2. lied about global warming by the setup itself; or 3. both.

Reply to  paul courtney
June 21, 2018 3:24 pm

I don’t think Wirth is a founder of the “movement”, and there is nothing here to say that Hansen didn’t just turn up on the day and give his testimony (with sweaty brow). And it really was a hot day, so where is the “lie”?

“calling BOM, or maybe he just got confused”
Who’s confused?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2018 6:15 pm

See my remark above at 3:38 pm

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
June 21, 2018 12:24 pm

“There is information that this story of the event is made up.
I have commented on this (with a link) a few times and each time someone has responded that the anti-story is the bogus one. I suggest the next dozen or so readers try to figure this out. I have no way of being certain, but am skeptical (any more about most things).”

I have an old PBS frontline video (Apr 24, 2007) of him talking about it. Just watched it and he says (I’m paraphrasing) that the weather service was called to see what was the hottest day of the year for Washington. He also admits to opening all of the windows the night before.

It is NOT made up.

I am looking on youtube to see if I can find it…

Reply to  kramer
June 21, 2018 12:34 pm

Found the PBS frontline archives and its on this page (link below). It is called “Hot Politics” dated Apr 24, 2007. Scroll to about 4 min of it…

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
June 21, 2018 2:59 pm

I give you a hint and you still can’t find it. WUWT?

Setting the record straight: The real story of a pivotal climate-change hearing

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
June 21, 2018 7:04 pm

From the fact check:
“So, here’s the reality. The room may have been a bit stuffy, but that was because of television cameras, not because of any manipulation of the windows or the air conditioning. And the hearing date was not set because it the hottest period of the year; instead, that was how the timetable for the bill was determined.

It is rather remarkable that events that happened just 27 years ago could so easily get twisted and misreported, based on one overenthusiastic interview. It is a quintessential example of Washington self-puffery.”

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
June 22, 2018 1:07 pm

Why would the hottest day of Summer occur in the Spring? that doesn’t make sense to me. Doesn’t even make sense if you were down under.

June 20, 2018 10:26 pm

Tim Wirth’s whole story of their statagem for the Hansen testimony has been challenged by the Washington Post.

The most suspect part of the story is that the Weather Service would give the 3rd day of summer as the likely hottest day of summer. In fact, it turned out to be hot for early summer–the hottest 23 June on the Washington record. But that was a fluke.

Anyway, the Washington Post even got Wirth himself to recant on the part of the story about opening the windows of the hearing room:

Some myths about the hearing also have circulated over the years, including the idea that windows were left open or the air conditioning was not working. While I’ve heard that version of events in the past, and repeated it myself, I’ve since learned it didn’t happen.

Reply to  BernieL
June 21, 2018 1:10 am

“What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right?”

Senator Wirth admitted they did the trick. It did happen, and he was stupid enough to boast about it. There was no other good reason for the hotness of the room than a disabled A/C.

Then he líed because he caused damage by telling that. There is no simpler stuff in politics.

I think Trumps’ team should arrange a new hearing, with Curry as the star witness. In the same room. During winter. Heating off. Windows open.

Reply to  Hugs
June 21, 2018 12:14 pm

“There was no other good reason for the hotness of the room than a disabled A/C.”

Do you have any evidence that is was exceptionally hot in that room? It was almost 37°C outside, the room was full of TV cameras, and apparently their’s no air-conditioning and the windows are open, yet I can find no contemporary evidence that it was unbearably hot. Plenty of people mention how hot it was outside, no one says it’s just as hot inside.

Also, I don’t really understand what the point of making it hot inside would be. It could backfire massively if it resulted in the experts sweating on TV, making them look like they’re lying.

Reply to  Hugs
June 21, 2018 12:21 pm

Another thing I never understand about this disabling the A/C claim – how it possible for nobody to notice the non-functioning A/C during the morning? All it would take is for one person to notice it wasn’t working, ask a maintenance guy to fix it before the afternoon hearing, or notice the windows are open and have someone close them – problem solved.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
June 21, 2018 3:48 pm

All good questions, Bellman. One possible answer is that there was collusion among those pulling off the stunt to prevent maintenance from being called, or to close the windows.

According to Wirth, “…with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …” So, why didn’t Hansen speak up? Probably because he was willing to endure the discomfort for the “greater good.”

Reply to  Bellman
June 21, 2018 4:29 pm

Actually there is nothing in the account to suggest anything mechanically wrong with the A/C; just that it wouldn’t be effective with windows open. If the windows do open.

paul courtney
Reply to  Hugs
June 21, 2018 12:45 pm

And Glenn Kessler’s fact checking skews left. So we have another liar in the picture. Thank goodness Kessler saved the narrative by throwing Wirth under the bus. The great fact checker never bothers to connect the fact that Wirth is a serial liar, to the agenda he promoted. It was close, and Kessler probably wiped his brow a few times to avoid getting to the bottom of it all, but no video if it.

Smart Rock
Reply to  paul courtney
June 24, 2018 2:50 pm

I find it hard to get exercised about whether the windows were open or the AC was off. Who cares? What matters was that Hansen said what he said, he is a good speaker (and would be convincing if you weren’t primed to be a disbeliever by looking back at his failed predictions), he was widely reported, and he was widely believed.

I did spend about half an hour looking for actual videos of the Hansen 1988 testimony, to see how much he was perspiring. The best I could do was a few snippets in other youtube videos. But there was no visible sweating or wiping of brow. For someone wearing a suit and under the glare of TV cameras, he looked – if anything – cool.

So my inclination is to say that Senator Wirth was embellishing the story. After all, he’s a politician and his lips were moving. Have you never heard a politician embellishing past events (like being under fire in Sarajevo)?

Someone with better searching skills should be able to unearth the whole video – I mean there are videos out there of countless millions of mind-bogglingly trivial events (many of which make me consider the possibility that human intelligence is in a period of severe decline*) and I can’t believe that the whole thing isn’t out there somewhere.

There’s a challenge – find the video and post it in this thread.

* probably caused by global warming, everything else is.

Reply to  Smart Rock
June 24, 2018 3:26 pm

It is indeed strange that there are only snippets of Jim’s 1988 testimony on YouTube.


June 20, 2018 10:34 pm

Laugh we must. But is it from sadness, an understanding of the absurdity of it all, …? Hansen has the cheek to complain about the Dems turning it into a partisan issue. Most of us would neither know who Hansen is, nor what GHGE means without the partisan politics driving his global warming religion, and other anti-human, so-called environment issues.

Brooks Hurd
June 20, 2018 10:42 pm

Well done. Willis!

June 20, 2018 11:23 pm

At present, El Niño and Hurricanes in the Atlantic will not be created.
comment image
comment image

Reply to  ren
June 21, 2018 3:17 pm

Oh! Well, I hope that means Accuweather and NOAA really did get it wrong this time.
Accuweather predicted 6 to 8 Atlantic hurricanes, 3 to 5 of them to be major hurricanes.
NOAA predicted 5 to 9 Atlantic hurricanes, with 1 to 4 of them to be major hurricanes.

I hope you’re right, ren.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ren
June 22, 2018 6:50 am

And here’s one of those off-topics….

John Hardy
June 20, 2018 11:26 pm

Nice summary and generous accolades.

I’d also like to recognise the few from the other side of the fence who put their point of view honestly and politely on blogs such as this without rancour or insults

Reply to  John Hardy
June 21, 2018 7:29 am

John Hardy

What did happen to Griff?

A legend in the hallowed corridors of WUWT.


Reply to  HotScot
June 21, 2018 8:38 am

Anthony wrote a number of months back that Griff had written him to say that he (Griff) no longer considered WUWT to be worth his time.
I guess Soro’s determined that he wasn’t getting his money’s worth.

Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2018 10:08 am



What a cheek!

Reply to  HotScot
June 21, 2018 11:44 am

Why is that cheek?

Reply to  Chris
June 26, 2018 5:12 am


Because every time Griff made his daft comments he was swamped with science. Yet he considers WUWT beneath him?

Nor is a formal resignation from the site necessary. It merely emphasises his self inflated opinion of himself.

Reply to  HotScot
June 21, 2018 11:53 am


Cuz Griff’s time had no value other than what Soros paid him to troll boards.

Reply to  Felix
June 22, 2018 4:46 am

Fact-free Felix to the rescue. Gee, perhaps he found it a waste of time due to the low quality of scientific discourse here, and the constant attacks on him.

paul courtney
Reply to  Chris
June 22, 2018 9:57 am

Chris: You should visit real climate science. Beware, as heller has utterly deconstructed the so-called “settled science” so you’ll need to ignore the content of the blog to protect your fact-resistant beliefs (you’re able to do that, as we see here). Just read Griff’s comments and the replies that would likely be snipped here. You’ll quickly see the science here is at a higher level, and the comments here tame in comparison. So that will blow up your theory, but you’re used to that. Griff is part concern tr0ll, so he just told that to our host to try to guilt him. Every reason to think he’s a paid tr0ll, who was re-assigned. Don’t tell me you make yourself a fool here for free?!

paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2018 12:58 pm

MarkW: Yes, Griff was re-assigned to tony heller’s real climate science, where he gets flogged with more relish than he got here. Spends all his time basking in the overheated arctic, looking at ice melting. Horrors.

howard dewhirst
June 20, 2018 11:51 pm

It is also just over 25 years since the UN issued Agenda 21, with its call for the ‘reorienting of education towards sustainable development’. And in today’s Australia Newspaper, it was noted that almost 2/3rds of (Australian) university educated millennials are in favour of Socialism, but seem not to have heard about Mao, Stalin or Lenin. The writer of the article asks if we are ‘funding our own demise by throwing money at universities so they can preach hate for the system that lets them flourish.’ Strong words? What do you all think? Me? I don’t know.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  howard dewhirst
June 21, 2018 2:05 am

I have looked at all the ways that governments can form and without capitalism you always end up either in a monarchy, family dictatorship, or 1 party dictatorship. 100% socialism is impossible. Everywhere in the history of mankind that it has been tried ; ALWAYS resulted in a dictatorship of some sort. The reason is simple. Without private ownership of capital there is little money available to form political parties and to dissent. The government of the day either rigs the election or outspends any opponent. The leftest dreamers always ignore the lessons of history and are doomed to repeat them. Unfortunately we rightists and libertarians are also doomed(unless we skip the country) when the ship springs a leak. Furthermore there are decreasing number of places to hide away in. See this 2 minute video of Orwell’s final warning.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 2:33 am

I should add military dictatorships to that list

Reply to  howard dewhirst
June 21, 2018 6:32 am

The consequences were 100 million killed by their own governments in the 20th century after submitting to dictatorial though control and confiscation of their guns (both facism and communism). See The Black Book of Communism etc.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  howard dewhirst
June 22, 2018 9:06 am

How about Castro, Pol Pot, Chavez, and any number of ‘presidents’ in Africa. Socialism ALWAYS runs out of other people’s money!

Jim Masterson
June 21, 2018 12:03 am

Beyond them are dozens and dozens of amateur scientists, bloggers, journalists, and people from other disciplines doing or reporting on interesting original climate research . . . .

I’d like to add two more names to the list. The first is John L. Daly and his website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” ( He was like a breath of fresh air–a John-the-Baptist style of a voice crying in the wilderness. This was back when few were fighting against the Global Warming nonsense. Alas, he passed away in 2004. I’m sure he would have loved WUWT.

The second is John Brignell’s “Number Watch.” Unfortunately he’s suffering health problems and isn’t keeping his website up-to-date as he once did. His Number of the Month was always a great read, and many still link to his “A complete list of things caused by global warming” page (


Reply to  Jim Masterson
June 21, 2018 12:59 am

Agree on both those. is still a great source as is John Brignell, especially on statistics, charts and general scientific malfeasance. I have his books, “Sorry, Wrong Number” and “The Epidemiologists – Do they have Scares for You”, which contributed much to my understanding of what is thrown at us on a daily basis by the media.

June 21, 2018 12:48 am

Excellent round up and so true.

Reply to  dennisambler
June 21, 2018 5:58 am

“Following the facts.’ … I’ll drink to that!

Thx Willis for your comprehensive overview,
so true, but I’ll extend your Thirty Years War …
for it’s lo-onger, … longer even than the Hundred
Years War, being part of a lo-ong historical war
between the Open and the Closed Society, been
going on for zoncs, -since Socrates and Pericles
…Galileo ‘n on to the Enlightenment, then Karl
Popper versus, you know, Plato, father of top-
down, shaman distopias.) Plato, precursor to
Fas*ist-Diktater Final-Solutions and those Mar*ist
Gulag-Archipelago-ists – oh!

Reply to  beththeserf
June 21, 2018 4:05 pm

In the US, it has been over a century since the onset of the Progressive Era, which brought us direct election of senators, income tax and the Fed in that year of horrors 1913, and all the big government that has followed, thanks to rabid racist, anti-American Woodrow Wilson.

To be fair, “Progressive” Republican senators, like my great grandfather, also favored direct election of US senators. So that now, instead of being voting ambassadors of sovereign states, they’re just jumped up representatives.

J Murphy
June 21, 2018 12:54 am

Apart from the seemingly apocryphal story about the weather forecast, opening the windows, etc. (already challenged by others here – but a good urban myth/zombie fact never dies if constantly repeated to the right audience), I have to say that if your electricity has gone up by 50% over the last 30 years, you should be grateful! This calculator suggests the average price rise in that period, for everything, is nearer to 200%.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  J Murphy
June 21, 2018 2:18 am

““What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right?”

Senator Wirth admitted they did the trick.”

Yes that sentence quoted from the Washington Post interview proves that Wirth definitely said that, and therefore they did the nasty trick. Trying to deny he didnt say it, puts Wirth in a legal lawsuit situation with the Washington Post. HE DIDNT SUE THE POST. The Washington Post DID NOT SAY that the interview was made up. Therefore he said what he said. Denying it months or years later doesn’t clear his name. You alarmists are a bit short on logic.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 3:53 pm

“You alarmists are a bit short on logic.”

More than a “bit short!” They seem desperate to distance themselves from the braggadocio of Wirth.

steve case
Reply to  J Murphy
June 21, 2018 4:55 am

You Tube of the quote:

Reply to  J Murphy
June 21, 2018 7:36 am

J Murphy

“……but a good urban myth/zombie fact never dies if constantly repeated to the right audience”

That would be like, man made CO2 causes the planet to warm uncontrollably?

richard verney
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
June 22, 2018 7:53 am

I recall that you once posted an article which showed the correlation between the amount of renewables in the grid, and the price of electricity. The take home plot for that article might be good to post so as to illustrate the point.

Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 12:56 am

James Hansen was one of the first computer climate modellers that in 1988 predicted warming scenarios. Because he actually published 2 papers in 1981 on CO2 forcing and went to Congress twice to testify in 1987 and again in 1988 in favour of global warning you may accurately say that he James Hansen is the father of computer climate modelling . However he is the father of a scientific discipline that started with a scam as Willis has pointed out and has had to tell one lie after another just to keep the scam going. Billions have been wasted on this scam and billions more will be wasted before the scam ends.

The only consolation we skeptics have is that each one of us is contributing the hastening of that end. I ask everyone I meet “Have you seen global warming yet? I have been looking for it for 30 years and cant seem to find it. Do you know where it is? If they mention something like the Arctic or Greenland I give them statistics that I have learned in 6 months of studying this for 8 hours a day.

1 WUWT contributer said, this scam in comparison makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief. Bernie Madoff in the end caused losses 0f ~$7 billion to his investors. As least they had a choice to invest or not. The world’s poor DO NOT have a choice. They are paying for James Hansen and others’ scam every day so that the end result might be $7 trillion down the drain before it is all over.

Now for some comments about James Hansen

It boggles the mind how truly deranged this man is. He is completely unstuck mentally and a bonafide nut case, devoid of any common sense or rational thought. To think he was the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies(GISS) a division of NASA for a large % of time of the 32 years that he worked there. Before he retired in 2013, he turned that agency into an agency of global warming. He was arrested 5 times for protesting illegally for green causes.

Some of his predictions and some statements in his own words, and hallmarks of his life are as follows:

1) In 1988 he predicted that the Hudson River would overflow because of rising sea level caused by CO2 and New York would be underwater by 2008.
2) In 1986 he predicted that the earth would be 1.1C higher within 20 years and then by
3) 1999 he said that the earth had cooled and that the US hadn’t warmed in 50 years
4 He had also said that the Arctic would lose all of its ice by 2000.
5) In december 2005, Hansen argued that the earth will become “a different planet” without U.S. leadership in cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
6) He then reversed course again and said in march 2016 that the seas could rise several metres in 50 to 150 years and swamp coastal cities .
7) He also said that global warming of 2C above preindustrial times (~ 1850) would be dangerous and that mankind would be unable to adapt.
8) in 2009 Hansen called coal companies criminal enterprises and said that Obama had 4 years left to save the planet.
9) In 2012 Hansen accused skeptics of crimes against humanity and nature.
10) Hansen is involved with a 2015 lawsuit involving 21 kids that argues that their constitutional rights were interfered with by CO2
11) in 2017 he has admitted that CAGW does not happen with burning fossil fuels.
“One flaw in my book Storms of My Grandchildren is my inference you can get runaway climate change on a relatively short timescale. ”
“Do you think that’s possible on a many-millions-of-years timescale?
It can’t be done with fossil-fuel burning.”
12) Then he said “But if you’re really talking about four or five degrees, that means the tropics and the subtropics are going to be practically uninhabitable.”

He doesnt seem to know that their average temperature is 28C.
13) But then he said that climate change was running a $535 trillion debt
14) He has been quoted many times that equates climate change to all sorts of extreme weather events. No database in the world shows any more than there ever were.
15) Hansen has published way over 100 fraudulent climate studies with almost all of them using results from computer climate models that are woefully inadequate and that have never been validated except by the human modeler.

Obviously the man just doesnt know when to shut up.

richard verney
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 3:46 am

12) Then he said “But if you’re really talking about four or five degrees, that means the tropics and the subtropics are going to be practically uninhabitable.”

He doesnt seem to know that their average temperature is 28C.

The idea that the tropics would become uninhabitable is so dumb, because of the T>4 relationship. Because of the T>4 relationship, one needs a hell of a lot more energy to increase the temperature of the topics per degree C. It acts somewhat akin to an in build negative, feedback favouring stability by inhibiting change.

Further, not simply is most of the energy absorbed in, and re-radiated from the tropical zone, it is this area that acts as a heat pump, of our planet, distributing the energy polewards..

First one gets the control of the thunderstorms (a point I learnt in the 1970s but refined by Willis in his thunderstorm control theory) and the monsoon patterns and the ITCZ (which models are unable to replicate – there are many papers showing that models cannot replicate the ITCZ). Second, one gets the poleward oceanic circulations. All of which dissipate the build up of energy in the tropical regions, making the temperature in the tropics more stable.

After all there is a reason why warmists claim polar amplification. It is easier to increase the temperature of the poles (well the North Pole at any rate), and that is because of the lower temperatures, less increase in energy is required to effect change.

Reply to  richard verney
June 21, 2018 6:31 am

Yes, but the consensus ignores the T^4 dependence or else they do not accept COE which dictates that in the steady state, surface emissions must be offset with new energy arriving at the surface.

As Willis said.

” It has been a war with lots of casualties, …”

One of those causalities has been first principles physics.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 21, 2018 12:17 pm

Even physics is undergoing a crisis. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity has been busted. However the physicists who have come up with the alternative called the Electrical/Plasma theory are running up against the same wall that protects the global warming theory. The implications are enormous.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 1:12 pm

The GTR has been repeatedly confirmed by every new observation. It is the opposite of busted.

The “electric universe” is raving lunacy and errant idiocy easily shown not just false but preposterous, ludicrous, laughable and every other synonym thereof.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 1:30 pm

Sorry but you are wrong. There are as many holes in the GTR as in global warming. There have been many fake experiments over the years trying to prop up GTR. Dark Energy, Dark matter and black holes were fantasy inventions that noone has been able to prove. The idea of a big bang goes against every known physics law in the universe.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 1:27 pm

Oh yes No gravitational waves either

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 1:42 pm

Sorry, but nothing about the GTR and BBT is fake. The cosmic background radiation is real. Neutron stars are real. If the parent star is a little more massive than a neutron star, it ends life as a black hole.

This news is hot off the press:

The neutron star merger detected last year by the gravitational wave set off in the collision probably made a small black hole rather than a large neutron star.

There is no conspiracy by physicists to push a fake gravity story. Gravity is real. The CMB is real. We couldn’t have GPS satellites without the GTR.

Having promoters of the “electric universe” insanity and creationism on this site damages the reputation of all CACA skeptics.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 8:12 pm

Gravity is real but it doesnt shape the universe. Electrical plasma does. How we ever fell for such a ridiculous explanation of the BIG BANG i have yet to comprehend. The BIG BANG contradicts every known law of physics.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 8:38 pm

How you ever fell for the “electric plasma” is beyond me. You must not have experienced reality.

The Big Bang is based upon the laws of physics.

Reply to  Felix
June 22, 2018 10:52 am

There is zero evidence in support of the baseless “electrical plasma” conjecture of universe construction.

All the evidence in the universe supports the fact general relativity. With more pouring in all the time:

What feats of engineering comparable to the GPS system has been built relying upon the “electric universe” delusion?

richard verney
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 22, 2018 7:48 am

Dark energy and dark matter have yet to be found despite extensive search, but then again the universe is a big place and it is not that surprising that we are unable to account for all the theoretical matter, so it is quite conceivable that there may be no need for dark energy and dark matter.

Reported in today’s newspaper, there are claims that additional ‘ordinary’ matter has been found.

Reported in the same newspaper is yet another example of GTR being vindicated.

Obviously, we do not know everything. There is still much to know and understand, and of course, as we gain more knowledge and understanding, theories will no doubt require revisiting, with some tweaking, and some scrapping.

But whilst there are problems with physics, there is no area of science in a worst state that Climate Science.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 10:49 am

Now we just need Nick or Griff to tell us what Hansen really predicted.

June 21, 2018 12:59 am

I think we’ve turned a corner – we need to keep up the pressure, but the complete lack of global effort to fulfil Paris pledges is a measure of the doubt we’ve helped nourish by lifting the curtain on the shoddy science behind claims of imminent climate catastrophe.

Percy Jackson
June 21, 2018 1:00 am

I am curious abut the claim that the war on carbon has increased your electricity costs by 50%. In the USA
the average price in 1960 for a kilowatt hour was 14c (in inflation adjusted 2005 dollars) while in 2011 it was 10.4c according to
suggesting that if anything the war on carbon has reduced the cost of electricity.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 21, 2018 1:19 am

In Ontario Canada the consumer average price has more than doubled in 14 years. Due to subsidies on green energy that were necessary because green energy doesnt pay for itself, Ex: you need expensive new transmission lines from all the green farms. The all in price to
consumers in Ontario went from a base of 10 cents/kwHr in 2004 to 25 cents/kwHr or a 150% increase which is 2.5 times the price it was in 2004.

richard verney
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 21, 2018 2:18 am

Real term price is not the issue. Lots of things have come down in price, eg., HiFi, TVs etc.

The question is what would be the price of electricity today, but for the pursuit of the green agenda?

In Europe, the cost of electricity is at least double the cost that it would be but for the pursuit of the green agenda. That is not surprising since we are building a secondary grid running from remote locations. We now have the existing fossil fuel powered grid, and the new wind/solar grid (the latter still being expanded particularly off-shore). The new grid is not required, and it cannot even replace the old grid, since wind/solar require 100% backup by fossil fuel generation because of the intermittency/non spinning reserve issue.

The cost of supply of electricity is less than 50% of one’s electricity bill. The other 50% is made up of infrastructure charges/balancing the grid, payment to those in fuel poverty, and subsidies to the poor for boiler changes, double glazing, roof insulation, wall insulation etc.

Even of the 50% that represents the cost of supply, the cost of supply has been hiked by the carbon floor price, and the high strike price paid to wind and solar, the compensation of wind when wind is producing nothing, or needs to be taken off line because it is overloading the grid etc.

This is one reason why electricity in Europe is about twice as expensive as it is in the States. If i recall correctly, in Denmark it is about 45 cents per kilo watt hour.

Reply to  richard verney
June 21, 2018 5:53 am

I think EU electricity is way more costly per kilowatt hour than in the US. I check my ComEd bill every month for the per KWH charge. It varies from season to season, but is around $.07+++/kwh, for electricity, not counting the other charges such as transmittal.
I don’t know what it is in other areas, but when the ComEd switched to natural gas as a generating source, the per KWH charge dropped.

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 6:41 am

In California, my average cost is over $0.25 per KW hour and I’m only into Tier 2 on the rate scale. See what stupid ‘green’ policies can accomplish?

John Adams
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 21, 2018 8:18 am

Mine is $0.42 at Tier 4 unless I use it between 4 and 9 PM when it jumps to $0.65 (If I remember correctly.) Never run air conditioning until 9 at night when I usually don’t need it.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 21, 2018 6:39 am

I love the way alarmists prove, over and over again, that they can’t handle complex subjects.
IE, inflation adjusted energy costs are down since 1960. There are more renewables now than in 1960. Ergo it’s proven that renewables reduce energy costs.

Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2018 8:43 am

Very similar to the logic they use regarding CO2. Several of our current crop of trolls have been quite vocal in their belief that since both temperatures and CO2 are up over the last century, this proves that CO2 is the primary control knob in climate.

Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2018 8:48 am

I Love The Way” – by MarkW:
“over and over again” 😉

Percy Jackson
Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2018 12:23 pm

Willis made the claim that his electricity bills have risen by 50% due to the “war on carbon”. While in the USA electricity prices have fallen slightly since 1960 so there would appear to be little evidence that this “war on carbon” has raised electricity prices. Nowhere in my post did I mention renewables. The main reason for the lack of price rises has been fracking which is driving coal and nuclear out of business. Which again is why Trump is proposing to raise electricity prices by paying them artificially high prices.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 21, 2018 1:02 pm

Electricity Cost Increases at the National Level

Between 2005 and October of 2015, residential electricity prices increased by 34 percent, while natural gas prices delivered to electric utilities declined by almost 60 percent and coal prices have remained essentially flat. (See chart below.)

comment image

2005 Avg. US residential price including taxes: 9.45 ¢/kWh
2015 Avg. US residential price including taxes: 12.65 ¢/kWh
12.65/9.45 = 1.34

If natural gas prices fell and coal prices stayed flat from 2005-2015, what else could cause electricity rates to rise by 34% over the same time period? Higher taxes, higher costs for generating sources other than natural gas and coal, subsidies for generating sources other than natural gas and coal… Since there weren’t many nuke plants built from 2005-2015, it’s unlikely that was the source… Hmmm… What else could it be? Inflation only gets the price to 11.59 ¢/kWh… assuming inflation is even relevant.

Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2018 2:46 pm

Increases in supply from discovering new deposits, more efficient extraction from hydraulic fracturing, the resultant loosening of the OPEC cabal’s grip on world oil prices, all of those are FAR more likely reasons.

(While petroleum usually isn’t used directly for energy production, it’s pivotal for infrastructure, from wire insulation to turbine lubrication.)

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 21, 2018 2:57 pm


Wind and solar are so recent and minor a part of the total that their effect on average price drop since 1960 is negligible. Yet, where they’ve been required, they have raised the price. They also make for less efficient use of the power sources that matter, ie fossil fuels, nuclear and, where I live, hydro.

The main reason for the continued fall in energy prices in this century has been natural gas. So-called “renewables” just don’t contribute enough to matter nationally, but have had negative local and regional effects.

It should be obvious that wind and solar are not responsible for the price drop since 1960. Cheaper fossil fuels, more hydro and for the first part of that period, nuclear are why. But now envirowhackos have made nuclear too expensive and waged war on affordable coal. Let the deplorables freeze in the dark!

June 21, 2018 1:01 am

Contrary to appearances, high convection, which currently occurs in North America is a sign of cooling, not warming the atmosphere.

June 21, 2018 1:46 am

The 1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born.
Instead of playing incredulous, eyball rolling, read what Margaret Mead actually said. What is really incredible is educated scientists shocked to the core – a good example is the NOAA whisleblower Dr. John Bates. He brought the fraudulent data to his bosses attention.
He simply could not believe the response : only population is the problem, no matter what science says.
The reason people have not after 30 years believed is purely survival instinct. After all Mead, an anthropoligist, typical, treats us as animals to be herded, culled. This is the greatest possible insult to our species, even if most will seem to run to Mead’s condescension. Bertrand Russell before Mead layed the groundwork. If “scientists” do not challenge this, and only roll eyes, sift data, they collaborate.

Peta of Newark
June 21, 2018 1:53 am

Pure childishness, the politics of the playground.

Now see where its going:

What could a single disgruntled person could do to a global (?) fleet of similarly programmed electric cars – as per what Hansen/Wirth got up to on a tiny one-off local scale.
Just wow

Hasn’t Tesla just had some sort of brake fail issue that was ‘fixed’ via a worldwide update process, as pioneered by Microsoft to render their software (and your computer hardware) increasingly slow, dumb and useless – forcing everyone to buy new computers after 3 years or less. Nice work if you can get it.
(Of course Windows 10 bypassed all that, junk from the word go yet still perpetuates the multi gigabyte ‘update’ myth so everyone thinks they’re getting something good. Obviously a spy at work in there but who’s side is (s)he on?)

We are progressing backwards. I blame carbohydrate food & refined sugar (and booze & cannabis & opiates & caffeine & nicotine & Prozac & Viagra & Trash TV & spam)
Junk Everything creating Junk People – yes Hansen Gore Wirth Jones Mann Obama Cameron etc etc. Looking at you.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 22, 2018 5:30 pm

“We are progressing backwards. I blame carbohydrate food & refined sugar (and booze & cannabis & opiates & caffeine & nicotine & Prozac & Viagra & Trash TV & spam)
Junk Everything creating Junk People – yes Hansen Gore Wirth Jones Mann Obama Cameron etc etc. Looking at you”

You can’t post anything without bringing this up, can you.

Steve (Paris)
June 21, 2018 2:07 am

Mixed feelings. Following the climate ‘debate’ has been hugely educational for me but at the same time that the whole ‘debate’ has gone on for so long and reached such dark depths is despairing.

June 21, 2018 2:20 am

Bertrand Russell :
“I have been merely oppressed by the weariness and tedium and vanity of things lately: nothing stirs me, nothing seems worth doing or worth having done: the only thing that I strongly feel worth while would be to murder as many people as possible so as to diminish the amount of consciousness in the world. . .” Letter to Gilbert Murray, March 21, 1903.
This is what defines the 20th century. The 21st began with the biggest lie ever – Gore being a pathetic Russell wannabee.
China and Russia are not playing along with any repeat theatrics from the transatlantic. Trump neither – his voter base (like Brexit, now Italy) have had enough of the damned Bertrand Russell 20th century.

And in fact the medieval so-called 30 years war was in fact 100 years of carnage, ended with the famous win-win Treaty of Westphalia, carved on the UN entrance wall. Today China’s win-win policy against “zero-sum” , the BRI is the new Treaty to be signed up a.s.a.p.

So yes the “30” year war should be over.

Philip Clarke
June 21, 2018 3:14 am

So every scientific association on the planet is wrong because: someone turned the heat up in a meeting 30 years ago, and some bloggers.

Only, it probably never happened. Oh dear.

No wonder nobody takes you seriously now (if anyone ever did).

Roger Knights
Reply to  Philip Clarke
June 21, 2018 8:02 am

“So every scientific association on the planet is wrong because”…
… their evaluation committees were staffed by volunteers, meaning greens, and they didn’t really engage with skeptical objections. In some cases they shut out or ignored minority statements (AGU) or their own study subcommittees (APS).

Reply to  Philip Clarke
June 21, 2018 8:44 am

You mistake the opinion of the politicians who run those associations with the opinion of the members.
Then again, alarmists are famous for using bad data to form their own opinions.

Clive 08
June 21, 2018 3:41 am

Al Gore arranged for the aircon to be turned off.

June 21, 2018 4:04 am

” The disreputable actions of far too many activist scientists have blackened the names of every honest climate scientist and indeed of the entire field. ”

That was AGW ‘s intent. It is a political movement disguised as science.

June 21, 2018 4:17 am

When you start from the basis that the only way you can win is be applying ‘tricks ‘ you have admitted that your ideas cannot stand on their own strength, which should make you question the validity of your ideas
Of course religions do not work like that , ‘faith ‘ is all that is required , and the more ‘faith’ you have the less you need to consider facts .

Tom Kennedy
June 21, 2018 4:44 am

Willis when you write:

“they still haven’t convinced the core of the US population that CO2 is the double extra secret control knob that can simply be turned up and down to regulate the global temperature to the nearest degree.”

It reminds me of one of the first things I learned in engineering school (and relearned over and over throughout my career in systems engineering):

“For every complex problem there is a simple solution and it’s wrong.”

It comes from:

For Every Complex Problem, There Is an Answer That Is Clear, Simple, and Wrong. So almost said H.L. Mencken as part of a longer aphorism. The whole quote is, “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”Dec 7, 2015

Larry Geiger
June 21, 2018 4:48 am

Steve Milloy

Steve Keohane
June 21, 2018 4:54 am

Another great perspective, Thanks Willis. A typo, missing the second ‘e’ in ‘pere’, Pielkes Per et Fil.

Phil Rae
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
June 21, 2018 11:04 am


Yes! A nice article to mark the event and remind us all of the social, economic & industrial vandalism wrought by these malign, misguided people and their followers. It begs the question of what could have been done with all the money that’s been wasted on this farce. As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out many times, we could solve many real world problems with all that loot.

Also, BTW, since somebody pointed out the required “e” in Pere, you should also have an “s” in Fils (=son). Thanks!

June 21, 2018 4:56 am

+1 thank you.


June 21, 2018 5:14 am

In my view, the biggest fraud committed in all of this is when the National Weather Service (or someone! in that field) decided to name June 1st ‘the first day of meteorological summer’.

Meteorologists have decided that the 1st day of a month is easier to deal with that the real day of seasonal change, so the 1st day of meteorological whatever is what THEY say it is. Another sample of their need to control something they cannot control. I don’t know who was behind this, but it is ridiculous.

Summer starts with the Summer Solstice, which is today, June 21st. It is THE longest day of the year.

It does NOT start on a day picked by a bunch of people who had to use computer modeling to figure out that warm air twists as it rises (wind shear) and moves forward, when they could have spent some time in direct observation watching a smoke stack or in a hayfield watching hot air tossing cut hay around. Mars has dust devils, too.

The laziness involved and the need to control what people think or believe is just appalling.

Today is THE first day of Summer. Happy Summer Solstice!

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 6:02 am

Doesn’t it make more sense to have the longest day as Midsummer’s day?

Reply to  Phil.
June 21, 2018 7:19 am

Yes it does. Summer really starts about June 1st. Winter starts about November 1st. The current definitions are beyond stupid.

Reply to  Philip
June 21, 2018 9:03 am

Yes, and I did agree that using Mid-summer’s Eve is fine with me, but the meteorologists are putting the start of Winter on December 1st, not November 1st. It’s this deception which I object to.

Where I am now, snow frequently falls in October while the gees are still migrating. It isn’t moving the start of Winter backward when that happens, however.

The Winter Solstice is the shortest day of the calendar year. We all know that. I think the Romans had their Saturnalia at that time, and that started their new year.

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 9:12 am

The Roman new year was in March, until Caesar moved it to January 1.

Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 9:59 am

Thanks, Felix. Latin class was a long, long time ago.

Reply to  Phil.
June 21, 2018 8:06 am


Glad you said that rather than me.

You can take the flak from Sara.


Reply to  Phil.
June 21, 2018 8:48 am

Not that it matters in the slightest, but it’s a bit of a hassle to have to look up the astronomical charts to figure out what the first day of summer is, or any of the other seasons, since they move around from year to year.

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 6:58 am

Well, frankly, Phil, in them there Olden Times when people didn’t have calendars and clocks, and based their activities on the appearance of the Sun at specific spots on the horizon at specific times of the year, Spring and Summer were not separate seasons in our sense of the word. Spring began with horses foaling, sheep lambing and cattle calving, not based on the Roman calendar. There was also, in some cultures such as Stonehenge (lunar and solar) and Chaco Canyon, a lunar-based timing.
In the sense that the longest day of the year was and still is the Summer Solstice and there was no wall calendar to check, then yes, the label Mid-Summer’s day is applicable, but it’s a modern term – modern, meaning that even Shakespeare used it.
My objection to ‘meteorological’ season is that it appears to be an attempt to dismiss the past that is so important to keep intact.

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 8:11 am

If I say I agree with Phil, does that reduce my chances of getting one of your home-cooked meals at the eventual WUWT meet-up?


Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 8:54 am

Oh, you’d get that anyway, ripshin. I don’t care if people disagree with my viewpoint.

Since it’s raining and chilly enough to make it worth the effort, I am fixing red beans and rice with smoked sausage for supper, and cornbread. Always cornbread. Makes a great snack, too.

Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 10:25 am


Sounds good, I’ll have rip’s portion.

June 21, 2018 5:14 am

Willis: You are a model of curiosity and transparency.

Without I hope being too gloomy, I would add some caveats to your hopefulness that things are “turning around.” There is a replication crisis in many fields of science, including, surprisingly enough, NASA’s study of the size of asteroids. One would think medical research, including diet and nutrition, would be golden because it is close to home for people; we need to look after #1. Yet these fields are also marbled with bullshit. Part of the problem is that there have always been too many boomers (which is different from the Malthusian point that there are too many people); when they sought jobs in the academy, “publish or perish” created incentives to shovel out poor quality work. Government has played a huge role in the way it directs rivers of money. I think one big issue is that modern or post-modern people can’t decide what to do about nature: accept it as a standard or at least a limitation–something to live up to, or live within? Or is it something to be overcome in order to make human life as good (including as just) as possible? The latter might put an emphasis on science as our greatest hope of transforming the world, but it can also lead to utopian hopes, potentially crazy and unscientific, even cruel. If people want to reduce CO2 emissions, they should embrace nukes, but they don’t even study this possibility. There are plenty of anti-vaxxers and anti-GMOers in the academic community.

June 21, 2018 5:32 am

Bravo, Willis. Very well done.

Cheers, Bob

Lurker Pete
June 21, 2018 5:36 am

Another avid lurker here, although I read every article, I’ve only commented a hand full of times over the last 12yrs or so. I’d like to thank Anthony for providing the medium, and his tenacity in the face of oppersition. Also all the authors, mods, and commenters who have contributed to a great website, one that has changed my mindset over the years, from one originally formed by focusing on deluded greenwash and peak oil doom to something much more pragmatic.

We bought our “doomstead” 14yrs ago, back then, green friendly woodburning heating/cooking seemed the way to go, but let me tell you, sourcing, cutting, splitting, and seasoning enough wood, with enough calorific value, to heat a 2000 sq ft building is not practical! I started with hand saws and mauls, with a small car trailer, this evolved into chainsaws and hydraulic splitters on a 1965 Ford 2000 tractor and trailer I restored for the purpose. We got through 47 M3 of “free” Willow one year, free is in inverted commas because it mite be free in the field, but by the time you add in the labour required to get it into the stove it’s a long way from free!

Sanity prevailed, we’re in the process of renovating the building. I baulk at the wasted cost of all the copper pipes/cylinders we’re ripping out from the back boilers, although the £800 scrap value was nice, it’ll help pay for the modern oil fired underfloor heating system, and propane cooking range the wife always wanted, it won’t cover the ridiculous cost of the insulation we need to meet greenwashed building code regulations. We looked at open loop GSHP heating, eyewatering costs, although the actual pump and borehole was reasonable (about £14k), the regulatory costs involved were rediculous since to get the gov payments you had to use an approved contractor, who sets the price based on the RHI payments rather than actual costs, we’d have been lucky to get the system in for less then £40k! Maybe the insulation costs will be repayed in heat savings within my lifetime, though I doubt it!

Regrets, I have a few. Don’t regret getting our place, it’s in a idyllic location, no neighbours. Don’t even regret the Permacuture Design course I did, although my old Navy back injury prevents me growing our own food thesedays it has helped me design lots of things, from the building renovation to our soon to be natural swimming pool. All that wasted labour up the chimney, that’s a big regret. Not being able to offer Willis & family a (warm) space to stay on his visit to the UK, life is greatly enhanced by meeting interesting people, and Willis is still in the top 10 most interesting folks I’d like to meet, and play some guitar with.

Thanks Willis, for this post, for many others, and for being so damn interesting.

Reply to  Lurker Pete
June 21, 2018 6:22 am

Haha…growing up on a farm in Tennessee, we also heated our house with wood. Grandpa always used to call it wood that heated you twice. Once when you cut it and once when you burn it.


Reply to  Lurker Pete
June 21, 2018 8:11 am

Lurker Pete

Keep posting.

June 21, 2018 5:41 am

Some climate regimes tend to run in 30-year cycles, right?

Dennis Bird
June 21, 2018 5:58 am

Long time lurker. I am always amazed at the breadth of knowledge by the commenters on this site. I am curious why the MSM, including Fox, has been doubling down on the climate scare stories lately. Is it the upcoming midterms?

Reply to  Dennis Bird
June 21, 2018 7:06 am

Fox is doing that now? They really are nitwits. Frankly, I do not believe any TV talking head has a real clue about any of it.

It probably is the November elections. Fox should stick to gossip and stop grubbing around like CNN has been doing.

Reply to  Dennis Bird
June 21, 2018 8:14 am

Dennis Bird

Death throes.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dennis Bird
June 21, 2018 11:56 am

My impression is that the commenters are about half retired, graduate engineers and the other half geologists. Both disciplines get a very broad education. Sort of the technical equivalent of liberal arts.

Reply to  Dennis Bird
June 21, 2018 12:07 pm

Fox is up for sale. There is a bidding war between Disney and Comcast.

June 21, 2018 5:59 am

The celebration of the prophecy of the oracle of Hansen shows that one would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than disagreeing with the gospel of the Church of Climate.

June 21, 2018 6:09 am

Whenever I see an article in the paper by a big brained economist from some major Canadian bank on how the value of the Canadian dollar is sure to head up, you can be sure the correct course of action is to sell Canadian dollars and buy US.

Free advice is pretty much always worth what you paid for it. This is very much my thoughts on the advice given on how to solve global warming.

Like it or not, fossil fuels are the heart of modern urban society. The energy they provide allows us to concentrate millions of people into massive cities.

The knee jerk solution is to tax fossil fuels out of existence. Very popular with the friends of government that stand to benefit. But will it work?

About as likely as the assurance that the Canadian dollar is going to go up in value.

June 21, 2018 6:12 am

I just keep track of what the soothsayers actually predicted, not what their modern day sycophants claim they predicted. Look at the Scenario A in the link below from Popular Science 1989 and all the other ludicrous predictions.

Jacob Frank
June 21, 2018 6:17 am

On a positive note they have not only ruined the reputation of science, religion, and environmentalism but have done great damage to hysterical Marxism.

McCarthy is vindicated, they are everywhere and they are a mentally unstable threat to human life.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Jacob Frank
June 21, 2018 1:11 pm

A survey was done recently on Australian young adults . 70% believe in socialism Very scary.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 1:15 pm

Well, they’ve grown up under a socialist system, which permits them to survive by doing nothing at all.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 3:32 pm

When the chips are down and supplies on the shelf run out, how will they survive? Who will cook for them? (Not me!!!;-) )

All those sci-fi dystopian stories from Mad Max to Panem’s Hunger Games and Divergent’s dislike of individuality indicate that none of them see a real future ahead of them. That’s sad.

June 21, 2018 6:29 am

Worse than blackening the name of climate science, it has blackened the name of all science.
Look at how many people who the instant they hear the word “model”, assume that it’s a sc@m.

Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2018 6:54 am

Just look at the reaction of many towards the article on a new model for how glaciers flow from yesterday.
Automatic rejection, the assumption by many that it’s a trick designed solely to support the notion that CAGW is real.

Reply to  MarkW
June 21, 2018 4:49 pm

Yes we must resist the temptation toward becoming a cult of opposition.

June 21, 2018 6:39 am

Churchill went on “We shall never surrender . . .we will fight them on the beaches …”
“Nullius in verba” “Take no one’s word for it”.
Keep up your great effort effort to restore science to its foundations of validation of predictions against facts.

Coach Springer
June 21, 2018 6:41 am

For once I’ll follow instructions. “… after thirty years of climate science being hijacked by activists, we are now at the end of the beginning of the fight to return sanity …” Agree.

Bob Cherba
June 21, 2018 6:43 am

You left one very important person off your list w . . . Willis Eschenbach, whose writings (all of them) I thoroughly enjoy and learn from.

June 21, 2018 6:45 am

w. ==> Good title.

June 21, 2018 6:57 am

Excellent rant, Willis. There’s really not much else one can do about the situation, since the perps can’t and/or refuse to be reasoned with. So there it is.

June 21, 2018 7:29 am

For many years, several ‘’prominent organizations” have been actively involved in spending billions towards the global indoctrination of citizens, as well as strategically influencing governments’ policies.

We know about “what” and “who” – The real question addressed here should be – “why”?

Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
June 21, 2018 7:45 am

Three decades of rancorous handwavium debate over evidence for and the physics behind the Radiative Greenhouse House Effect and man-caused climate change, aka CAGW.

What a waste since none of it is real.

The earth being 33 C warmer with an atmosphere is based on the difference between two completely unrelated made up numbers: 288 K, a wild ass guess pulled straight out of WMO’s butt and 255 K, a theoretical S-B BB ideal calculation for the 240 W/m^2 Long Wave Infrared Radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere.

Furthermore, the lunar studies by Volokin/Nikolov and Kramm clearly conclude that without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon, a barren rock with the lit/hot side maybe 390 K, the dark/cold side maybe 190 K and not even colder by 33 C.

The LWIR up/down/”back” GHG energy warming loop is a theoretical S-B BB ideal baseline calculation for any surface at 288 K and likewise not real. Contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render impossible any BB emission from the surface.

No 33 C warmer + No GHG energy loop = No RGHE & No CAGW.

Am I wrong?
Always possible – for all of us.
’cause if I’m not wrong decades of research, “evidence,” publications and billions of dollars goes straight in the dumper and the entire trillion dollar global climate change industry is suddenly unemployed.

June 21, 2018 8:02 am
Bruce Cobb
June 21, 2018 8:24 am

The war crimes trials, aka “climate Nuremberg” for the likes of Hansen and Mann, and all those who subverted science to their own ends can’t begin soon enough.

June 21, 2018 8:58 am

Sadly, the only thing guaranteed to vindicate sceptics is global cooling for a convincing period.

Just what we neither want, nor need.

And according to a number of sources, it’s due to start around 2019/2020.

Not least, this:

Reply to  HotScot
June 21, 2018 3:42 pm

May have already started, Hot Scot. 35 miles south of me, daily temps are average for this time of year, but cold air from the north (Canada) is pushing warmer air out of my area. If I have to run the furnace tonight to bump up the indoor temperature, it will be the latest I’ve had to do that so far. I keep track.

Normally, it should be in the mid to upper 70s where I am, but it is consistently lower than that by 8 to 10 degrees. Not the first year that this has happened, either.

Andy Pattullo
June 21, 2018 9:01 am

Please may I add the soft spoken but inevitably honest Will Happer to the list of honors.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
June 21, 2018 11:04 am

Will “Unflappable” Happer!

Joseph Murphy
June 21, 2018 9:24 am

Thank you, Willis, for all that you have contributed over the years. Your work has been insightful and a joy to read.

“It is the willingness of the skeptics to be wrong that will sustain people’s faith in the scientific process.”


June 21, 2018 9:45 am

And sadly, one of the main casualties of this mad war is the reputation of climate science itself.

Sadly, I think it extends much further than that. It’s causing a general distrust in science.

June 21, 2018 9:46 am

Let’s not overlook all of your contributions to scientific truth. We all look to you with your marvelous skills in analyzing huge masses of data to bring clarity to complex issues. We admire your openness and willingness to adjust conclusions in the light of new data.

June 21, 2018 10:08 am

I am a Lurker here – but I used to comment, way back when. Shoot, I read Anthony’s first post from when he set this up off of, one of the first hundred or so. I use it quite a bit to keep me updated so I argue battles elsewhere. Fantastic resource. WUWT is a ‘trunk’ of the Skeptic Tree that supports us all.

Thanks for the work Willis. We appreciate it.

Christopher Chantrill
June 21, 2018 10:09 am

A few points.

Generally big wars last about 30 years, until two generations of young men have been bled to death on the battlefield. E.g., Thirty Years War of 1618-48. World Wars I and II.

The only warrant for government force is existential peril, as in: we are going to fry the Earth!. The Russians/Germans/Jews are coming! Otherwise the market can work it out.

If you mix ice cream and ordure, you get ordure. If you mix science and politics, you get politics.

And you are a wonder, Willis.

Reply to  Christopher Chantrill
June 21, 2018 11:19 am

Since the Thirty Years’ War, some prolonged conflicts have lasted less time, some more.

Wars of Louis XIV: 1667-1714.
18th Century Balance of Power Wars: 1733-63 (bit of a stretch linking smaller and bigger wars).
French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: 1792-1815.
Wars of Italian Unification: 1815-71 (or into the 20th century).
Taiping Rebellion: 1850-64 (20-30 million military and civilian dead).
Russo-Turkish Wars: 1827-1914 (some long peaceful periods).
Wars of German Unification: 1848-71 (including revolutions as war).

Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 11:45 am

Before the Thirty Years’ War:

Ottoman-Byzantine Wars: 1299-1453
Hundred Years’ War: 1337-1453
Italian Wars: 1494-1559
Eighty Years’ War: 1568-1648 (subsumed in the Thirty Years’ War)
Anglo-Spanish War: 1585-1604

Forgot above:

Anglo-Dutch Wars: 1652-1689 (with more in the 18th & 19th centuries)

June 21, 2018 10:11 am

Actually, I believe June 23 will be the 30-year anniversary of the Hansen & Wirth dog & pony show. Here’s the transcript:

June 21, 2018 10:56 am

Typo: Moncton–>Monckton

And then: What exactly is the “correct, optimal, perfect ‘temperature of the earth'” that is desperately endangered?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  robert_g
June 21, 2018 12:12 pm

I have raised this question before and no one seemed to take notice. What is the probability that, after 4.5 billion years of climate change, the Earth just happened to be at the optimum temperature for life immediately before the Industrial Revolution? It seems to me that the probability is vanishingly small! If the temperature that alarmists are attempting to maintain is not optimal for life, then what is? It seems, to me at least, that colder would not be optimal. So, what does that leave us? We may well be living in the best of all times, or approaching it. But, those of alarmist persuasion don’t try to make a case for the optimal global temperature, instead just trying to scare people into maintaining that which always is changing.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2018 12:51 pm

I may not have done a good job of highlighting this point in my write-up, but Dr. Mann and Dr. Titley both made the argument last week that humanity’s ascent into civilization is due to the climate conditions of the last 8K(ish) years…so I guess from their perspective, it’s not a coincidence, but rather due to…

(a.k.a. Brian Lindauer)

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2018 1:09 pm

While not necessarily “optimal”, we do know that the best climates anatomically modern humans have ever enjoyed were during the warm Holocene Climatic Optimum and even toastier Eemian CO. Almost as good were other hot spells during both interglacials.

We were able to penetrate the northern reaches of Eurasia (Europe and Siberia) during the relatively less frigid interstadials of the last glaciation, where we effectively wiped out the indigenous Neanderthals and Denisovans, except for the bits and pieces of genetic material we picked up from them.

Warmer is better. Two degrees above “preindustrial” would be great, but unlikely to happen, more’s the pity.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Felix
June 21, 2018 4:15 pm

Clearly, with our efficient system of sweating, we are better adapted to heat than many other animals, such as dogs, that can only cool themselves by panting. However, even large fur-covered animals like lions have adapted to very hot climes. So, there may be many animals that are more sensitive to increasing temperatures than primitive humans. My suspicion is that biological organisms are most comfortable with the climate they first evolved in. That means, because the climate is always changing, organisms either have to evolve further to survive, find adaptive strategies, migrate, or become extinct. The unanswered question is, can mammals that survive the extremes from Winter to Summer of nearly 150 deg F, be seriously threatened by a couple of degrees increase in the global average?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2018 4:19 pm

Good question. Especially since they can usually simply move north or south, uphill or down.

Humans evolved our evaporative cooling system as we became cursorial hunters. Despite losing our fur, we lived in the tropics or subtropics, so still needed another adaptation to cool off while running down prey and chasing herds at high speed.

The only other mammal known to have apocrine glands as well adapted for cooling is the horse, another champion long-distance runner. Hence “lather”.

We are adapted for endurance running, practically the opposite of modern Americans’ sedentary lifestyles, to include myself.

June 21, 2018 12:02 pm

As the old saying goes: “How do you tell when a politician is lying?” “His mouth is making noise.”

June 21, 2018 12:46 pm

Thank you for raising this issue again. I try to bring it up whenever possible that they cheated, and the anniversary of the Big Scam is probably the best time to do it. I am surprised his interview is still on the internet. You would think they’d want it to go away. I have kept a copy just in case they someday try to cover it all up. I certainly hope we are at the beginning of the end, but I think we must use caution. The alarmists are still trying to do some underhanded things behind our backs.

June 21, 2018 12:47 pm

Alarmists are mostly misguided and misinformed but many are incredibly stupid. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. World-class, A-1, top of the heap, triple whopper with cheese, supersized stupid. So stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. One-of-a-kind, global, universal, intergalactic stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularly, extraordinarily, incredibly, bewilderingly stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your life is a monument to stupidity. I am breathless that anyone or anything in our universe can really be this stupid. You are a primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of stupidity that we know. A behemoth, a leviathan, a colossus of stupidity.

Reply to  Sandyb
June 21, 2018 3:44 pm

So, you’re saying they are stupid, right? Just want to be sure that’s what you meant.

I prefer the term ‘misguided’ or the other one ‘naive and uninformed’ myself. They exhibit religious fervor in their refusal to acknowledge other possibilities than CAGW, hence ‘naive and uninformed’ is preferable, in my view.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Sara
June 21, 2018 4:19 pm

Terms like “stupid” or “uninformed” certainly don’t apply to the likes of Nick Stokes. Yet, he does exhibit the kind of logical-conclusion avoidance that one commonly sees in religious zealots who are doing their best to avoid contradictions in dogma.

June 21, 2018 12:48 pm

Thanks, Willis.

I am a very old lurker who remembers the blistering heat of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s when we had to take extreme measures to be comfortable.

It is now depressing to see temperature graphs that depict those early temperatures much cooler than today’s temps. The continuel adjusting, manipulating and changing the early temps is unscientific and yields a false impression of history. I lived it and I remember it.

The government departments, agencies, administrations and other groups who support this false history are misleading its citizenry.

Tim Crome
June 21, 2018 1:30 pm

To the next 30 where sanity will prevail! And a special thanks to Willis for his excellent work based on thorough analysis of the available data sets.

patrick j michaels
June 21, 2018 3:00 pm

The cool part about all of this is that Wirth and company so wanted to portray global warming as theater that they actually made up the fact that they had staged it. Read through the thread and you will find that they didn’t open the windows or attempt to disable the a/c, but they spread the story that they did (!).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  patrick j michaels
June 21, 2018 4:24 pm

One never knows what to believe when someone changes their story. Was the first or the second story the truth? It doesn’t sit well with juries! It is the same problem with traitors. If someone sells out their country, how can anyone trust them? If there is anything that is well to take to an extreme, it is being truthful and consistent. Those who are too stupid to realize that don’t deserve to be elected to the Senate.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 21, 2018 8:49 pm

Why would a senator make up a story like that to the Washington Post? He is essentially incriminating himself to a scam. He couldnt be that stupid. When he realized later on that what they did would be perceived as very very unethical and hurtful to the alarmist cause, he tried to deny it. The cat was let out of the bag in either case because it proves they have no ethics.

June 21, 2018 3:02 pm

HAZZAA and Oo-Rah!!

John Francis
June 22, 2018 12:17 am

Well-said Willis,
I still see no signs of understanding from my many “liberal” friends, but surely, one day, they will wake up. I really despair of the western “man in the street”.

June 22, 2018 2:09 am

Did anyone mention the late John Daly? He was a great voice of reason back at around 2005. When the Climategate emails showed fellow’s chortling and rejoicing over his death, I lost what little respect I was attempting to muster for that gang of snickering cronies.

John Daly’s website was like a breath of fresh air, back before WUWT existed.

Tom Dayton
June 22, 2018 8:27 am

RealClimate posted a detailed, concrete, specific analysis of how well Hansen’s projections have fared. Zeke Hausfather last year did the same for a large number of projections by many people over many years. Yale Climate Connections has a video of interviews with climatologistson that topic. Tamino summarized numerous indicators of warming.

Reply to  Tom Dayton
June 22, 2018 9:09 am

And from the WSJ (not SJW) today:

Tom Dayton- I’ll see your RealClimate, Zeke Hausfether and Tamino and raise you one Pat Michaels and one Ryan Maue.

Tom Dayton
Reply to  WBWilson
June 22, 2018 12:12 pm

That WSJ opinion piece is just plain wrong, factually and verifiably.

Reply to  Tom Dayton
June 22, 2018 7:31 pm

The “temperature anomalies” he uses are definitely not “facts”. They are trough-feeding, rent-seeking bureaucrat-made artifacts, ie a pack of lies for political purposes.

June 23, 2018 4:31 pm

James Hansen, The Rachel Carson of the 1980’s.

Reply to  Tim
June 23, 2018 4:47 pm

Hansen’s CACA BS has probably killed more people than did the original Thirty Years’ War.

Death toll estimates for the 1618-48 catastrophe range from four to 12 million lives. Around 450,000 people died in combat. Disease and famine took the lion’s share of the war’s victims, but so marauding bands also wreaked murder and mayhem. It’s possible that 20% of Europe’s population perished, with some areas suffering 60% losses.

comment image

Aeno Arrak
June 26, 2018 12:47 pm

Interesting discussion. . I covered the tole of Wirth & Hansen in pages 69 and 70 in my book “What Warming? in 2010. There are a few important details v that need to be added to your tale. First did you know that 1988 was not the first time that Hansen presented his theories to the Senate” 1987 was and Senator Wirth set it up for November 1987. That day was cold, nobody wanted to heat about warming and the media gave it a yawn: not even one camera in the room. Bit Wirth had planned it as an introduction to a an 18 part climate bill he had just introduced in the Senate. He was not willing to give it up up and Frontline of January 17th, 2007 describes what followed. As you mentioned, first thing he did was ask the Weather Bureau that the warmest gay in Washington was. It was June 23rd so he took things into his own hands. According to Frontline, Wirth said that “…What we did was went in the knight before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning was bot working inside the room and so when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot … So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that day, with the wonderful Hansen who was wiping hos brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …” Of course Hansen was lionized by global warming enthusiasts, the same people who were too lazy to go and see him in in the winter. And Wirth? He resigned from the Senate and became an official of the World Bank.

Aeno Arrak
Reply to  Aeno Arrak
June 26, 2018 5:13 pm

My name is not Aeno Arrak. It is Arno Arrak