Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup # 372

The Week That Was: 2019-08-17 (August 17, 2019)

Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)

The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”—Soren Kierkegaard [H/t William Readdy]

Number of the Week: 22 Years


By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Censorship: Solar physicist Nir Shaviv reluctantly granted science journalist Doron Levin an interview, although Shaviv was skeptical that it would be published. A similar interview to a reporter for Bloomberg was reject by its editorial board. Leven assured Shaviv that Forbes would publish the interview online. It did – for a few hours. The interview was an immediate hit. Then, Forbes yanked the report with the statement:

“After review, this post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards.

“We are providing our readers the headline, author and first paragraphs in the interest of transparency.

“We regret any inconvenience.”

Shaviv strongly supports the Svensmark hypothesis and has co-authored papers with Svensmark. The key issue is that Shaviv considers that the increase in solar irradiation in the 20th century contributed one-half to two-thirds of estimated 20th century warming. These estimates are in direct contrast to the orthodox view expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters who claim that the role of the sun in climate change is minor, miniscule, compared to carbon dioxide (CO2). To his credit, the journalist involved wrote up the incident and the offending passages, which were posted on the Global Warming Policy Forum.

In demonstrating its support of the climate orthodoxy, “Forbes” substituted an article by Marshall Shepherd, past president of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). The opening paragraph states:

As a climate scientist, I hear my share of myths about what is causing climate change or why it is a ‘hoax.’ I call them ‘zombie theories’ because they just will not die. They persist in blogs, certain networks, and social media like zombies long after scientists have killed them off. I debunked 20 of them in a previous article in Forbes. The ‘sun and its variability’ is one that makes the rounds. I am pretty sure I’ve had to spray ‘climate science repellent’ on that nagging ‘mosquito’ numerous times. This week I heard of a variation of this myth involving cosmic rays. Here is a science-based debunking of the solar-cosmic ray myth.

Shaviv does not take the bait and go into a name calling contest. Instead he presents hard observational evidence supporting his views and contradicting Shepherd’s views and those of the IPCC. One of the strongest pieces of evidence is a graph of over eighty years, from about 1915 to 2005 showing the relationship between Sea Level Change Rate (mm/year) and changes in the Reconstructed Solar Constant (watts per square meter).). The sea level change rate is from stable tidal gages. As the oceans heat, they expand; as they cool, they contract. The relationship of the changes is quite dramatic.

Shaviv presents a graph showing the relationship between sea levels based on satellite altimetry (minus the linear trend) and a model which includes the solar cycle plus the El Niño Southern Oscillation. Again, the relationship is very strong. [Note: those attempting to establish that sea level rise is increasing would do well to examine these relationships, but it is doubtful that they will. Also, since sea level change cannot cause significant changes in the solar constant, this analysis does not fall into the trap Al Gore did with ice cores showing CO2 and temperatures, where he confused the timing of the changes.]

Shaviv then modifies a standard IPCC graph to show what his evidence indicates is the real solar contribution over the 20th century and the total forcing, natural and anthropogenic. He effectively dismisses the arguments that the solar effects should be instantaneous by stating that the hottest time of the day is usually after high noon, and the hottest month of the season is usually after the summer solstice.

A big issue with the IPCC and its followers dismissing the solar influence is the heat capacity of the oceans. As Shaviv states:

… “As a Professor of meteorology, Prof. Shepherd should know about the heat capacity of the oceans such that assuming that the global temperature is something times the CO2 forcing plus something else times the solar forcing is too much of a simplification.

“Instead, one can and should simulate the 20th century, and beyond, and see that when taking the sun into account, it explains about 1/2 to 2/3s of the 20th century warming, and that the best climate sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling (compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C of the IPCC). Two points to note here. First, although the best estimate of the solar radiative forcing is a bit less than the combined anthropogenic forcing, because it is spread more evenly over the 20th century, its contribution is larger than the anthropogenic contribution the bulk of which took place more recently. That’s why the best fit gives that the solar contribution is 1/2 to 2/3s of the warming. Second, the reason that the best fit requires a smaller climate sensitivity is because the total net radiative forcing is about twice larger. This implies that a smaller sensitivity is required to fit the same observed temperature increase.”

Shaviv then gives the results of a model by Ziskin and Shaviv and compares it with the global climate models used by the IPCC. He compares the IPCC version 5 models with satellite data by both UAH and RSS and reanalysis data. He demonstrates that the Ziskin and Shaviv model more closely matches atmospheric data than others, except for the one from the Institute of Numerical Mathematics in Moscow. Shaviv concludes:

“Namely, our predictions are totally consistent with the satellite (RSS / UAH, whichever you prefer) and the Reanalyses datasets. Remember, this was obtained for a model which included the real solar contribution which requires a small climate sensitivity.

“Shepherd also mentions that the link through cosmic ray flux variations has been debunked. I point the reader to a summary of why those attacks don’t hold any water, which I wrote yesterday.

“To summarize, Shepherd did not debunk the solar forcing. His arguments are defunct. Unless he comes up with a very good explanation to the first graph above, he should instead advocate taking solar forcing into account. The fact that Forbes hushes up any possibility for having a scientific debate should be considered truly bothersome by anyone who values free speech and scientific debate. Truth will prevail irrespectively.”

Shaviv gives a list of publications in respected journals that are generally ignored by the IPCC and its followers, especially by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in its Fourth National Assessment. It is clear that the IPCC and the USGCRP are political, not scientific. They do not adhere to the scientific method.

Out of the sordid action of censorship, those skeptical of the claim that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming have an excellent summary of the solar influences on climate to refer to, to the extent they are understood today. See links under Science: Is the Sun Rising? and Censorship.


Nature’s Authority: “Nature, Communications” published “Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians.” In the title one can recognize a distinct disconnect. In science, there are no authorities; there are only experts, and they do not always agree. However, there is a recognized procedure, the rigorous application of the scientific method, which is an ongoing process. Since CO2-caused global warming skeptics, contrarians, don’t recognize an authority, particularly the IPCC and its followers; there is no reason for them to adhere to their prescriptions other than for personal gain.

The foolishness of the article is well discussed by Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton, and others. It is amusing to note that a list ranked various individuals, the top 25 names include Fred Singer and the late Bob Carter; Singer was founder of SEPP and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and Carter was an editor of NIPCC reports. Also, though the late Frederick Seitz is ranked lower down, four of the six recipients of the Fredrick Seitz Memorial Award are in the top 25: Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Willie Soon.

The award is given annually to a person “For exceptional courage in the quest for knowledge.” It was created to recognize the unsung heroes who rigorously apply the scientific method. It rewards scholars for having the courage to “swim against the tide” of conventional thinking despite the financial and professional disincentives. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.


Teen Brain Needed? Time Magazine had a foolish article on “Why Your Brain Can’t Process Climate Change.” The thrust is that during a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination, certain parts of the brain respond to different stimuli. For teenagers, the prefrontal cortex, the big part of the brain that separates humans from other mammals is not well used, while the part of the brain that responds personal needs is. The author uses this and asserts:

“How we choose to value future generations will help decide what we should do now about existential risks. This is especially true for climate change, which demands action in the present to avert devastation that will largely be felt in the future, perhaps after many of us now alive are dead.”

Thus, the argument is that mature adults need to listen to teenagers when it comes to climate change or any other long-term threats.

Rather than consulting futurists and others who believe in “climate collapse” without hard evidence, the author would have done well by consulting Health Encyclopedia of the University of Rochester Medical Center on the teen brain. It reads:

“Understanding the Teen Brain

“It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.

“The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.

“In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

“In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.” [Boldface and underline added.]

It is not becoming emotionally alarmed that is important. But understanding the cause of the alarm, and what to rationally do about the cause of the alarm, that are important. See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal, and Other News that May Be of Interest.


Propaganda Props: Advertising has long used children to promote the message. It can be seen on television every day with varying degrees of success. It has long been used in politics. Lyndon Johnson’s Presidential Campaign used a young child playing in the foreground with a nuclear bomb exploding in the background to paint his opponent, Barry Goldwater, as a war monger. Many supporters found the ad deplorable.

The same may apply for CO2 alarmists using children as props to support their arguments, be it species extinction, litigation efforts, or symbolic sailing. The arguments are failing, because the evidence is weak. See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Use Children for Propaganda.


July 2019 – Hottest Since 1880: Newspaper headlines have blared that NOAA declared that July 2019 “was the hottest month measured on Earth since records began in 1880.” “Last month’s temperatures narrowly topped the previous July record, set in 2016, by 0.03 C (0.05 F).” The precision of one-hundreds of a degree is highly questionable, and not really possible before satellites – yet NOAA ignores satellite temperature records. Also interesting is where the instruments located in 1880? In Greenland?

Little was known about the interior of Greenland until the 1880s. The great Swedish explorer of the Arctic, Nordenskiold, thought the center of Greenland was a huge ice-free valley. In 1883 he tried to discover it, but failed, and only got about 73 miles in from the coast on the West. His scouts went farther but found no valley and reported the ice continued to rise to the east.

In 1888, the great Norwegian explorer, later statesman, Fridtjof Nansen and his party climbed the high mountains on the East and skied across Southern Greenland. They reached an estimated altitude of 2,700 meters (8,900 ft) above sea level and found no valley. TWTW is seeking any evidence of NOAA weather stations in the interior of Greenland in 1880, supporting the claim in the newspaper headlines. See links under Measurement Issues – Surface.


Homogenization: One of the highly questionable practices undertaken by NOAA and NASA-GISS, the practice called Homogenization. Paul Homewood posted an excellent video by Tony Heller demonstrating how this practice can greatly distort surface temperature records, making the claims of records dating back to 1880 even more questionable. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


The Greenhouse Effect – Solar: As stated above, Nir Shaviv estimates that once the influence of changing solar intensity is accounted for, his estimate of a temperature increase due to a doubling of CO2 is 1 to 1.5°C (2 to 3°F) as compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C of the IPCC (3 to 8°F). The difference is enormous when considering the purported dangers of increasing CO2.

Shaviv’s estimate is very close to the estimates of John Christy and his colleagues and William van Wijngaarden and his colleagues. Each group uses a different approach using different datasets. We can expect even more strident objections and claims from the IPCC and its followers as their exaggeration is being exposed by the use of the scientific method.

Of course, we can expect even more extravagant exaggerations from those who are profiting from damaging policies undertaken by misguided politicians. See links under Questioning Green and Energy Issues.




The voting is closed and the winner who most closely meets the qualification is being selected. No missing shards here, one hopes.


Number of the Week: 22 Years: Shaviv asserts the solar cycle is really about 22 years, not the 11 years as generally used. The sun changes polarity after every cycle, and this changes its influence on cosmic rays, thus changing cloudiness. He states:

“Cloud cover varies over the 11-year solar cycle (e.g., reference 9 below). This by itself is not proof that the link is through cosmic rays, since there are several things that change with the solar cycle. However, one particularly interesting aspect is that the cloud cover variation are asymmetrical between odd and even cycles, just as cosmic rays are, and unlike other solar related variables that are blind to the fact that the real cycle is 22 years (Polarity returns back to the same state after two switches, hence, 22 years…”

See link under Censorship


Science: Is the Sun Rising?

Against Censorship: The Climate Story Forbes Doesn’t Want You to Read

By Doron Levin, GWPF, Aug 9, 2019


Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct

By Nir Shaviv, Science Bits, Aug 11, 2019



Forbes censored an interview with me

By Nir Shaviv, Science Bits, Aug 10, 2019


Why Solar Activity And Cosmic Rays Can’t Explain Global Warming

By Marshall Shepherd, Forbes, Aug 10, 2019


Suppressing Scientific Inquiry

Climate Study Urges Blacklisting of Contrarians

Marlo Lewis, Jr., CEI, August 16, 2019


Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013


Summary: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014


Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019


Download with no charge:


Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015


Download with no charge:


Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008


Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data

By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019


Challenging the Orthodoxy

How Homogenization Destroys Climate Science

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 15, 2019


Climate Bias Leads Billions Into an Imaginary Climate Crisis

By Vijay Jayaraj, Townhall, Aug 15, 2019


Link to paper: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology

Testimony of John R. Christy, U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, Mar 29, 2017

Fraud, breach of right of privacy and libel by Nature Communications @NatureComms

By Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, WUWT, Aug 16, 2019


A Science Journalist Nails the Anthropocene

Guest “attaboy” by David Middleton, WUWT, Aug 14, 2019


Link to article: The Anthropocene Is a Joke

On geological timescales, human civilization is an event, not an epoch.

By Peter Brannen, The Atlantic, Aug 13, 2019


The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXIV

By Francis Menton, Aug 14, 2019


Challenging the Orthodoxy – ICCC#13 Conference

My video presentation at ICCC#13

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 12, 2019


Includes one by Joe Bastardi of WeatherBell Analytics

Defending the Orthodoxy

State-led climate goals — like Washington’s — will lead the way

By Jay Inslee, Hilary Franz and Mike Kreidler, The Seattle Times, Aug 12, 2019 H/t Ken Schlichte]


Climate report makes agri-business a target

By Rebecca Beitsch, The Hill, Aug 11, 2019


Improvements in the GISTEMP Uncertainty Model

By Nathan J. L. Lenssen, Gavin A. Schmidt, James E. Hansen, Matthew J. Menne, Avraham Persin, Reto Ruedy and Daniel Zyss, JGR Atmospheres, June 27, 2019


Questioning the Orthodoxy

Enlisting peer-reviewed science in the climate crusade

By Larry Kummer, Fabius Maximus website, Aug 15, 2019 [H/t WUWT]


“In July the BBC said that the climate change crusade must win in the next 18 months. I believe that might be correct, but not in the sense they intended. The current propaganda barrage cannot run much longer. Activists must either win politically – making massive changes to the economy and society – or burn out.”

Gore Says His Global Warming Predictions Have Come True? Can He Prove It?

By J. Frank Bullitt, Issues & Insights, Aug 12, 2019 [H/t WUWT]


Natural Variability Domination: Defying Models, Scientists Find LESS Extreme Precipitation In Recent Decades

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Aug 15, 2019


Farm unions accuses media of ‘inflating’ IPCC report

By Rachel Marin, AgriLand, UK, Aug 10, 2019 [H/t GWPF]


After Paris!

Nations agree landmark UN climate report after marathon talks

By Mauro Pimentel, APF, Aug 7, 2019


[SEPP Comment: It appears that for them, the science is not settled.]

Change in US Administrations

Climate expert at CDC poised to file whistleblower complaint over treatment

By Maya Earls, E&E News, Via Science, Aug 14, 2019


“Along with allegedly stifling Luber’s work, the Trump administration has also tried to use the budget process to get rid of the CDC climate program.

“In its latest budget, the White House proposed giving the NCEH a $52.4 million decrease and eliminating the Climate and Health Program.”

Here’s how Team Trump will bust Cuomo’s gas blockade

By Andrew Wheeler, New York Post, August 15, 2019 [H/t Cooler Heads]


[SEPP Comment: Andrew Wheeler is the Administrator of the EPA.]

Trump rolls back endangered species protections

By Rebecca Beitsch, The Hill, Aug 12, 2019


USA finally updates Endangered Species Act after 45 years & the decision is final

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Aug 12, 2019


Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide

New Paper: CO2 Rise + Warming Are 91% Responsible For The Earth’s Accelerated Greening Trend Since 1990

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Aug 12, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Question the precision of the calculations.]

Problems in the Orthodoxy

Africa’s tropical land emitted more CO2 than the US in 2016, satellite data shows

By Daisy Dunne, Carbon Brief, Aug 13, 2019


Seeking a Common Ground

Empiricism and Dogma: Why Left and Right Can’t Agree on Climate Change

By Patrick Brown, Quillette, July 30, 2019 [H/t Climate Etc.]


“It really is the case that the Right is more likely to deny the most well-established aspects of the science. If skeptical conservatives are to be convinced, the Left must learn to reframe the issue in a way that is more palatable to their worldview.”

[SEPP Comment: What are “the most well-established aspects of the science” supported by hard evidence, not unvalidated models?]

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

By James Clear, His Blog, Accessed Aug 16, 2019 [H/t Climate Etc.]


We Need a New Science of Progress

Humanity needs to get better at knowing how to get better.

By Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen, The Atlantic, July 30, 2019


Is Global Warming an Existential Threat? Probably Not, But Still a Serious Issue.

By Cliff Mass, Weather and Climate Blog, Aug 12, 2019


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science

Elevated Temperature and CO2 Reduce Potato Virus Y Transmission Rates

del Toro, F.J., Choi, K.S., Rakhshandehroo, F., Aguilar, E., Tenllado, F. and Canto, T. 2019. Ambient conditions of elevated temperature and CO2 levels are detrimental to the probabilities of transmission by insects of a Potato Virus Y isolate and to its stimulated prevalence in the environment. Virology 530: 1-10. Aug 16, 2019


Grassland Productivity Responses to Elevated CO2

Polley, H.W., Aspinwall, M.J., Collins, H.P., Gibson, A.E., Gill, R.A., Jackson, R.B., Jin, V.L., Khasanova, A.R., Reichmann, L.G. and Fay, P.A. 2019. CO2 enrichment and soil type additively regulate grassland productivity. New Phytologist 222: 183-192. Aug 14, 2019


“Commenting on the CO2-induced increase in ANPP, the researchers say that ‘the predominant direct effect of CO2 on ANPP is probably explained by increased photosynthetic water use efficiency (assimilation rate/transpiration rate),’ which increase ‘probably arose from increased canopy-level C assimilation rates’ observed in previous observations during the ten-year experiment. And that is wonderful news for these important ecosystems and the animals and humans that will benefit from such productivity increases in the years and decades ahead!”

The Interactive Effects of CO2, Phosphorus Supply and Cyanobacterial Inoculation on Cowpea

Dey, S.K., Chakrabarti, B., Purakayastha, T.J., Prasanna, R., Mittal, R., Singh, S.D. and Pathak, H. 2019. Interplay of phosphorus doses, cyanobacterial inoculation, and elevated carbon dioxide on yield and phosphorus dynamics in cowpea. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 191: 223, doi: 10.1007/s10661-019-7378-3. Aug 12, 2019


Models v. Observations

Rising water stress could counteract ‘global greening’, study says

By Daisy Dunn, Carbon Brief, Aug 14, 2019


Link to paper: Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth

By Wenping Yuan, et al., Science Advances, Aug 14, 2019


From abstract: “Six Earth system models have consistently projected continuous increases of VPD [Atmospheric vapor pressure deficit] throughout the current century.

[SEPP Comment: Six Earth system models have spoken: drip irrigation of roots does not work (?) Numerous studies show that under higher CO2 concentrations plants better withstand stresses, such as droughts, better. The observations may be from a lessening of water loss from more healthy plants.]

Measurement Issues — Surface

Coolest Year On Record Continues

By Tony Heller, The Deplorable Climate Science Blog


“The frequency of hot days has plummeted in the US over the last 80 years.”

‘Hottest Temps Ever’ Alarms Reveal Ignorance of History

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Aug 12, 2019


July 2019 – Hottest July Ever?

News Brief by Kip Hansen, WUWT, Aug 16, 2019


Scientists Confirm July Set New Global Heat Record

Scientists say measurements show July set a new global temperature record.

By Frank Jordans, Associated Press, US News, Aug. 15, 2019


Changing Weather

India’s Monsoon On Track

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 16, 2019


Slow Hurricane Season No Surprise As Tropical Storm Trends Defy Climate Alarmist Warnings

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Aug 14, 2019


Smoke: what a difference a year makes.

By Cliff Mass, Weather and Climate Blog, Aug 13, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Why “wildfires” are no longer the fad of the day?]

Widespread snow all over the East Coast of Australia – first time in decades

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 11, 2019


Changing Climate

China scientists warn of global cooling trick up nature’s sleeve

Research sheds light on 500-year Chinese weather cycle and suggests a cool change could be on the way

Findings leave no room for complacency or inaction

By Stephen Chen, South China Morning Post, Aug 11, 2019


Changing Seas

Great Barrier Reef Is in Much Better Shape Than Climate Alarmists Claim, Australian Environmental Minister Confirms

By Graham Lloyd, The Australian, Via GWPF, Aug 14, 2019


“The GBR Foundation has been given $444 million by the federal government and is expected to raise matching funds from private donors.”

Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Arctic Sea=ice Loss Has ‘Minimal Influence’ on Severe Cold Winter weather, Research Shows

Press Release, University of Exeter, Via GWPF, Aug 12, 2019


Link to paper: Minimal influence of reduced Arctic sea ice on coincident cold winters in mid-latitudes

By Russell Blackport., et al., Nature, Climate Change, Aug 12, 2019


Greenland’s ‘Record Temperature’ denied – the data was wrong

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 12, 2019


[SEPP Comment: The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) is to be thanked for being forthcoming about the erroneous instrument readings.]

Greenland Meltdown Hoax

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 13, 2019


Changing Earth

Largest impact crater in the US, buried for 35 million years

By Staff Writers, Tucson AZ (SPX) Aug 15, 2019


Link to Paper: (U‐Th)/He zircon dating of Chesapeake Bay distal impact ejecta from ODP site 1073

By M. B. Biren, et al. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, June 21, 2017


[SEPP Comment: The extent of the crater was revealed by oil drilling in the 1990s.]

Lowering Standards

Climate change extremists are plotting a drone attack to shut down Heathrow airport threatening chaos for more than a million travelers

By Holly Bancroft, Sunday Mail, UK, Aug 10, 2019


Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?

Global Vegetation Decreasing, As The World Gets Greener (Or Something Like That!)

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 16, 2019


Just the facts?

By Gavin (Schmit?) Real Climate, Aug 9, 2019 [H/t Climate Etc.]


Link to paper: Understanding the rhetoric of climate science debates

By Lynda Walsh, WIREs Climate Change, Dec 29, 2016


Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians

By Alexander Michael Petersen, Emmanuel M. Vincent & Anthony LeRoy Westerling, Nature Communications, Aug 13, 2019


Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.

The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Aug 14, 2019


Link to paper: Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians

By Alexander Michael Petersen, et al, Nature Communications, Aug 13, 2019


Nature Communications ‘blinks’ over slimy climate blacklist from @UCmerced authors

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 16, 2019


Time Mag — Buttering up Believers: Why deniers brains can’t process climate change

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 15, 2019


Why Your Brain Can’t Process Climate Change

By Bryan Walsh, Time, Aug 14, 2019


Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda

Goldsmiths [University] Ban Beef

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 16, 2019


Communicating Better to the Public – Use Children for Propaganda

Greta’s Transatlantic Sail Turning Into Grand Farce…Will Wind Up Causing Many More Tons Of CO2 Emissions!

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Aug 16, 2019


Questioning European Green

There’s a Big Green Backlash Coming Our Way

By Martha Gill, The Times, Via GWPF, Aug 16, 2019


“Johnson is not necessarily heading in a green direction. He will note, for one thing, that there are few political gains in trying to please the liberal left and centre, the parts of the electorate that care most about the environment. He can throw all the energy-saving lightbulbs and 5p plastic bags at them he likes, he won’t win them round to the rest of his hard-Brexit, fill-up-the-prisons offer, aimed purely at the right.”

Exclusive: Germany eyes fiscal U-turn with new debt to finance climate plan

By Michael Nienaber, Reuters, Aug 8, 2019


An expensive taste of the zero-carbon future

By Kathy Gyngell, The Conservative Woman, Aug 12, 2019


Conservative “Achievements” On The Environment

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 12, 2019


In exhorting us not to eat meat, green preachers place [their] morality over reason

By Charles Moore, The Telegraph, UK, Via GWPF, Aug 10, 2019


Revealed: The Green Energy Con – How the ‘Clean’ Power Your [sec] Buy Comes Mainly from Fossil Fuels

By Staff, The Sunday Telegraph, UK, Via GWPF, Aug 11, 2019


“Households on ‘100pc renewable’ energy tariffs may be getting as little as 3.7pc of their energy from truly green sources.”

Questioning Green Elsewhere

From The B-School: A Plan To Win The Millennials’ War On Carbon

Guest post by Timothy Nerenz, Ph.D., WUWT, Aug 17, 2019


[SEPP Comment: No matter the costs?]

Renewable Energy: Second Thoughts (Moore/Gibbs documentary in the news)

By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, Aug 14, 2019


NYT: Lawns are Symbols of Racism and Bad for Global Warming

Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Aug 16, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Lawns were once considered important to keep snakes away from the house.]

Funding Issues

Climate Hustler, Partner At ‘Beyond Meat’ Largest Investor, Al Gore Moves To Profit Big From Anti-Meat Drive

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Aug 13, 2019


The Political Games Continue

Climate Crusader Tom Steyer “Money Bombs” His Way into the Democrat Presidential Debates

Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Aug 16, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Are other candidates who were hoping for substantial contributions from Steyer and his friends disappointed by his candidacy?]

Litigation Issues

22 States, Environmental Groups Mount Legal Challenges to EPA ACE Rule

By Sonal Patel, Power Mag, Aug 15, 2019


Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

Bonanza, not: With govt manipulation carbon credits rise back to 2008 levels

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 13, 2019


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

A Tax Credit Fueled the Solar Energy Boom. Now It’s in Limbo

By Daniel Oberhaus, Wired, Aug 14, 2019


In June, Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto wrote a letter urging her fellow senators to support an extension of the solar investment tax credit. Cortez Masto highlighted its importance to supporting 240,000 solar jobs and its role in fueling the solar industry’s ongoing growth. But most importantly, she pointed out that it’s the only major federal policy supporting the deployment of renewable energy.

[SEPP Comment: Yet, the article discusses the production tax credit for wind and does not include the ethanol subsidies.]

EPA and other Regulators on the March

The EPA Grows A Pair And Takes A Stand On Glyphosate

By Josh Bloom, ACSH, Aug 13, 2019


Link to report: Glyphosate Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review

By Staff, EPA, Feb 28, 2018


Energy Issues – Non-US

Aurora’s Blackout Analysis

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 14, 2019


National grid Told to Explain Itself After Power Cut Chaos

By Billy Kenbar, The Times, Via GWPF, Aug 12, 2019


“It left Ipswich hospital without power for 15 minutes after a back-up generator did not work as expected.”

Fury at power cut that brought Britain to its knees: Government launches probe into mystery simultaneous failure of wind farm and gas-fired power station as officials insist there is ‘no evidence’ of a cyber attack

By Darren Boyle, Mail, UK, Aug 10, 2019


Lightning Strike and Wind Farm Fault Triggered UK Blackout Chaos

By Staff, The Times, Via GWPF, Aug 16, 2019


“A technical fault at the world’s largest offshore wind farm was among a series of failures that resulted in Britain’s worst blackouts in a decade, according to initial analysis by National Grid.”

Power Cuts? What Power Cuts?

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 14, 2019


“When will the media wake up and ask the obvious question? What would have happened last week if all of our coal and gas power stations had already been shut down…?”

Unexpected UK EarthHour at peak time Friday — just after Wind Power hits new high?

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 11, 2019


UK to probe world’s largest offshore wind farm’s role in blackout

Loss of power from Hornsea 1 and gas plant blamed for outage that hit swathe of nation of Friday

By Andrew Lee, Recharge Wind, Aug 12, 2019


Delingpole: Boris Johnson’s Looming Wind Disaster

By James Delingpole, Breitbart, Aug 12, 2019


Baffled by baseload? Dumbfounded by dispatchables? Here’s a glossary of the energy debate

By Ariel Liebman, The Conversation, Sep 25, 2017


The Nord Stream 2 Pipeline And The Dangers Of Moving Too Rashly Toward Renewable Energy

By Daniel Markind, Forbes, Aug 12, 2019


U.S. Efforts To Derail Russian Pipelines To Europe Have Failed Since The 1960s. Will Nord Stream 2 Be Any Different?

By Todd Prince, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Aug 13, 2019


Energy Issues – Australia

Why is the Australian energy regulator suing wind farms – and why now?

By Samantha Hepburn, The Conversation, Aug 9, 2019


Energy Issues — US

Offshore Wind Mania Grips Governors

By Paul Steidler, Real Clear Energy, Aug 12, 2019


[SEPP Comment: According to the EIA, except for New England, Alaska and Hawaii, California has the highest Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Consumers by End-Use Sector.


Venezuela’s U.S. Oil Loss Is Canada’s Gain

By Jude Clemente, Forbes, Aug 14, 2019


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

UK government authorises the resumption of fracking in Lancashire

By Jack Unwin, Power Technology, Aug 16, 2019


[SEPP Comment: A key question is the geological uniformity of the shale layers.]

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Cheap renewables will price out oil on roads

By Paul Brown, Climate News Network, Aug 16, 2019


“BNP Paribas Asset Management calculates that oil majors like Exxon, BP and Shell will have to produce petrol from oil at $10 a barrel (the current price is $58) to compete with electricity on price, while for diesel, it says, oil can cost no more than $19 a barrel.”

[SEPP Comment: Don’t bank on it!]

ERCOT calls 2nd energy emergency this week, 3rd in 5 years

By Robert Walton, Utility Dive, Aug 16, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Back to the 1970s, with different causes?]

Feds Delay Environmental Permit for Vineyard Wind Project

By Darrell Proctor, Power Mag, Aug 13, 2019


Energy & Environmental Newsletter: August 12, 2019

By John Droz, Jr. Master Resource, Aug 12, 2019


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

Trump intervention triggered EPA’s surprise biofuel waiver decision: sources

By Humeryra Pamuk, Reuters, Aug 16, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Real or rumors?

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles

Electric car charging stations may be portals for power grid cyberattacks

By Staff, NYU Tandon School of Engineering, TechXplore, Aug 15, 2019


Other Scientific News

Blue sharks use ocean eddies as fast-tracks to food

Press Release, NSF, Aug 12, 2019


Link to paper: Mesoscale eddies release pelagic sharks from thermal constraints to foraging in the ocean twilight zone

By Carmin Braun, et al., PNAS, Aug 6, 2019


“Blue sharks can’t regulate their body temperature internally to stay warmer than the ambient seawater like white sharks can,” said Braun. “We think that’s why they show a clear preference for warm-water eddies.”

Other News that May Be of Interest

New process discovered to completely degrade flame retardant in the environment

By Staff Writers¸ Amherst MA (SPX). Aug 09, 2019


Link to paper: Degradation of Tetrabromobisphenol A by Sulfidated Nanoscale Zerovalent Iron in a Dynamic Two-Step Anoxic/Oxic Process

By Jun Wu, et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. May 22, 2019


The junk science behind the anti-birth movement

Harry and Meghan’s two-child pledge is based on some seriously dodgy assumptions.

By James Woudhuysen, Spiked, Aug 12, 2019


Understanding the Teen Brain

By Staff, Health Encyclopedia, University of Rochester Medical Center, Accessed June 1, 2019



Monday Mirthiness: job posting ‘CLIMATE EMERGENCY OFFICER’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 12, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Must the applicant display the ability to hold back the tides?]

Cauliflower Shortages

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 14, 2019



1. A Kamikaze Climate Suit

Democratic states suing the EPA could hurt their own emissions cause.

Editorial, WSJ, Aug 16, 2019


SUMMARY by TWTW: The editorial opens by stating a key lawsuit may backfire. It explains:

“Twenty-two Democratic state Attorneys General and seven cities this week asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the Trump EPA’s CO2 emission rules for coal plants. The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to implement the “best system of emission reduction” for pollutants, which the agency has traditionally applied to individual power plants.

“The Obama EPA went further and required states to re-engineer their electric grids by replacing all coal and eventually natural gas with wind and solar. The Supreme Court in 2016 stopped the Obama power grab from being implemented as it likely exceeded the EPA’s legal authority and unconstitutionally commandeered the states.

“The result is that federal CO2 emission standards for power plants have been nonexistent. Last month the Trump EPA issued new regulations requiring states to implement the “best system of emission reduction” by making on-site efficiency improvements at coal plants. The rule gives states flexibility and won’t force them to prematurely close plants.

“Yet Democratic states complain in announcing their lawsuit that the “EPA’s rule rolls-back [the Obama] limits and will have virtually no impact on these emissions prolonging the nation’s reliance on polluting, expensive coal power plants and obstructing progress of states toward clean, renewable, and affordable electricity generation.” This is false in every respect.

The Trump rule will cover 600 coal-fired plants and cut emissions to 34% below 2005 levels—similar to what the Obama Clean Power Plan purported to achieve. As the Trump rule notes, ‘updated analysis shows the [Clean Power Plan] would have no effect on future CO2 emissions’ due to ‘current market trends.’

“Coal plants have struggled to compete with cheap natural gas and heavily subsidized renewables. As much coal power will be phased out during President Trump’s first three years in office as during Barack Obama ’s last three. Dozens of coal plants are slated to retire over the next few years regardless of government diktats.

“Yet some utilities and coal plant owners are currently investing in emission-control technologies to become more efficient and competitive. By giving coal a death sentence, the Obama rule would have halted these investments and coal emission reductions in the short term.

“Also note that energy-related CO2 emissions declined by 14% in the U.S. from 2005 to 2017 while increasing 21% globally. Most of the U.S. reduction was due to natural gas replacing coal. Carbon dioxide emissions fell five times more in Ohio and four times more in Pennsylvania between 2006 and 2016 than in California, which had long banished coal.

“Vacating the Trump rule wouldn’t reinstate the defunct Obama Clean Power Plan, but would instead produce a regulatory vacuum. Democrats may not have standing to sue since they won’t suffer a concrete harm from the Trump rule, and they remain free to impose climate mandates within their borders.

“Perhaps they hope the D.C. Circuit will enjoin the Trump rule and force EPA to issue more aggressive standards under the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) ruling, which required the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. But the Court’s four conservatives who dissented said states lacked standing to sue and courts could not impel EPA to regulate CO2.

“In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that ‘the very concept of global warming seems inconsistent with this particularization requirement’ of standing since ‘global warming is a phenomenon ‘harmful to humanity at large,’ and the redress petitioners seek is focused no more on them than on the public generally—it is literally to change the atmosphere around the world.’

“Even some liberals warn that suing the Trump Administration could invite the Court’s new conservative majority to revisit Massachusetts v. EPA. Democratic states may be betting that President Trump won’t be around by the time the Court could consider his EPA’s new rule. But don’t be so sure if Democrats continue their anti-fossil fuel crusade.”


2. ‘Fraud in the Lab’ Review: Experiments in Doubt

Lapses of rigor, misleading methods, outright falsification: How common are the transgressions of research scientists?

By Sally Satel, WSJ, Aug 14, 2019


SUMMARY by TWTW: The psychiatrist and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute opens her review the book by stating

“Scientific misconduct is surely as old as scientific inquiry, but in the modern era the mainstream media took little notice of it before 1974. In that year, it flagged the case of a medical researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York who used a felt-tip pen to darken patches of purportedly black skin transplanted onto white mice. Within a couple of years, separately, the British psychologist Cyril Burt was posthumously found to have invented data to support his theory that IQ was largely inherited.

“Rocked by these and other revelations, the scientific community began devising mechanisms to detect dishonest scientists and hold them accountable. Almost half a century later, there are still problems, according to Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis, a French investigative journalist and a former biomedical researcher. In ‘Fraud in the Lab,’ a compact book that is part exposé and part manifesto, he sets out to quantify what he calls an ‘epidemic’ of fraud that is international in scope, to describe its effects and to chart a path forward.

“Mr. Chevassus-au-Louis says that the most common fraud offenses fit into a category he cheekily labels ‘storytelling and beautification.’ They include a failure to report conflicting data and the use of misleading analytical methods. (‘Beautification’ can be almost literal at times: In 2012, a whistleblower in Japan revealed how ‘image retouching,’ in more than one scientific journal, had exaggerated the results in cell-biology studies.) Other maneuvers include redefining the hypothesis that guides an experiment after the results are in, a move that, retroactively, renders the experiment’s design less appropriate to what is being investigated and the results weaker than researchers may claim.

“How common are such transgressions? Most strikingly, Mr. Chevassus-au-Louis cites a 2009 review of 21 surveys asking scientists about their research conduct. A third of the respondents world-wide admitted to having committed ‘questionable research practices’ that fell somewhere between lapses of rigor and outright fraud. These integrity breaches are the broken windows of research: When ‘passively accepted in research circles,’ the author states, ‘they open the door to more serious misconduct.’

By ‘serious misconduct’ Mr. Chevassus-au-Louis means fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Any one of these sins can result in the retraction, or public invalidation, of a published paper. Having a paper ‘pulled’ for fraud, as opposed to honest error, is the ultimate scarlet letter for a researcher and a professional tragedy for his unwitting collaborators.

“The proportion of retracted articles, Mr. Chevassus-au-Louis says, jumped 11-fold between 2001 and 2010. Although less than 1% of all scientific papers were retracted in that time, he believes that the percentage should be higher. He points to that 2009 survey-review, in which 2% of the scientist-respondents admitted that they have fabricated or falsified results at least once; 14% said that they knew of colleagues who had done so.

“The research universe has been further plagued, Mr. Chevassus-au-Louis notes, by the problem of reproducibility—a matter of special attention in the social sciences. The source of the trouble in many cases is a failure by the original authors to describe research methods in sufficient detail. To its credit, a concerned group of researchers led by a professor at the University of Virginia, in 2011, was able to persuade roughly 270 colleagues to repeat 100 published psychological studies to see if they could get the same experiment-results a second time around. Less than 40% of the studies that originally reported statistically significant results did so in the attempted replications.

“The ‘hard’ sciences are not immune from this problem. In 2011, Bayer, the German pharmaceutical company, found that it could fully replicate only 21% of the studies that had inspired it to launch its own research; soon after, Amgen, the biotech company, found that it could replicate only 11%. Some biotech start-ups are so wary of initial discoveries that do not hold up that they demand ‘reproducibility certificates’ (supplied by independent labs) before investing in projects.”

The article continues to discuss that scientific literature is deeply tainted and the efforts to improve it include implementing what the book author calls “the ethos of transparency.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Broderick
August 19, 2019 3:14 am

Silly typo..
“The sea level change rate is from stable tidal gages.”(gaUges

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 19, 2019 7:45 am

Standard study in manufacturing is a gage R&R study. Yes gage is spelled “g a g e” in instances. Why? I have no idea. But, we all have typos in our work from time to time. Perhaps the typo police can repurpose themselves to find more substantive errors to complain about.

Just a suggestion.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 21, 2019 8:34 am
Mark Broderick
August 19, 2019 3:35 am

“[SEPP Comment: Six Earth system models have spoken: drip irrigation of roots does not work (?) Numerous studies show that under higher CO2 concentrations plants better withstand stresses, such as droughts, better. The observations may be from a lessening of water loss from more healthy plants.]”

Two better’s don’t make it the betterest ! lol

John Collis
August 19, 2019 3:55 am

Hypothetical question. If the sun suddenly stopped working, I.e fission stopped but the mass remained. How long would it take before it became uninhabitable? Would the GHE delay this significantly?

Reply to  John Collis
August 19, 2019 4:04 pm

Fission in the sun is already insignificant. Now if fusion stopped, within a few days most wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.

Reply to  John Collis
August 19, 2019 7:24 pm

As the earth cools and temperatures reach -79C would this cause CO2 to condense out of the atmosphere?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  John Collis
August 21, 2019 8:46 am

John Collis August 19, 2019 at 3:55 am

Hypothetical question. If the sun suddenly stopped working, I.e fission stopped but the mass remained. How long would it take before it became uninhabitable? Would the GHE delay this significantly?

An AU is the astronomical unit – the distance Earth / Sun measured in light-years.

An AU measures 8 seconds.

Says: the Earth would start to become uninhabitable after 8 seconds.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 21, 2019 9:48 am

8 minutes, not 8 seconds.
32,000,000 / 186,000 = 172

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 21, 2019 9:59 am

Sorry, distance is 92,000,000

92,000,000 / 186,000 = 494

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
August 22, 2019 4:10 am

These comments were not written by me, the original Geoff Sherrington, who has blogged under this, my real name, since early days at WUWT.

Do check your own efforts, fellow bloggers, in case your good name has been taken over by this IMPOSTER, who writes material that is alien to me and misrepresents.
Geoff S

August 19, 2019 4:13 am

It is a simple science fact, recently extracted from actual temperature records by Ludecke and Weiss, that a very close relationship is proven between three known solar cycles and the variation in the last 2,000 year temperature record, also closely correlated across the whole interglacial.

DOI: 10.2174/1874282301711010044

The overt record shows the characteristic 0.4 degrees per century change maintained over a few hundred years, up then down, in the swings of the interglacial record, most recently down to the Little ice age from 1,000 BP, then up since 1700. These are facts from direct and proxy records, not predictions from models. Also very natural and normal, as the interglacial record shows. A few degrees each way superimposed on the longer term ice age cycle. GISP is a good example, but add in the last 50 years to complete it, and make the point that this current short term solar related warming will soon end if it follows the pattern of the the many cycles science has observed. I suggest we may already have passed the turning point around 1997, and only shorter term events like El Nino produce warming compensation as the longer term and very predictable decline sets in, as the analytical rather than theoretical science predicts. As a physicist familiar with these tools, used in developing imaging machines and analytical equipment that work as advertised and can be sold as such, and hence with a preference for actual data versus and its proven variability as the basis for predictions, rather than a modeller’s guess, I would bet on this as close to the whole cause of short term interglacial change. No AGW signal was found in this analysis. It’s real fact based science, that models are a useful part of understanding, but cannot be proof of. If you don’t like tech papers, Prof Weiss presents a version at physics 101 level here.here:


I also abstracted the key graphical result showing the key cycles extracted by Fourier analysis and a backcast version, here:

comment image?dl=0

The power spectrum is simply yielded by the Fourier analysis of the actual date, no modeller’s guesses are needed. This is the same deconvolution tool used throughout physics that shows the Milankovtch cycles dominant influence in the ice age cycle. This can also recreates the past when backcast, and also predicts a future downturn to 2050 from about now. So this fact based analysis of actual temperatures versus the predictions of statistical models based on arbitrarilly amplifying the unprovable cause of CO2 by modellers assumption, will continue to be interesting. It may be we already passed reached the slow down and turning point around 1997, and only short term/short cycle events like El Nino will produce warming compensation as the longer term few hundred year cycle’s decline sets in. Reality changes very slowly, and a human lifetime or climate scientist’s career is noise in it, fractions of a cycle. And in fact nothing unusual is happening.

The Fourier power spectrum found no recent signal that would be expected if recent industrialisation, population related effect, or CO2 was a factor in the temperature variability. No AGW is seen in the power frequency spectrum. So the evidence from the actual data, since good proxy records began in the ice cores and Central European direct records, is for dominant control of the short term climate cycles that concern the climate modellers to be strongly correlated to known solar cycles, with no other know effects on these periodicities to confuse this conclusion.

More interesting for short lived humans, perhaps, is the prediction that the current warming is likely to end soon, or already has ended, saving shorter term perturbations of decades, that are insignificant noise in the natural cycles. Asa practising physicist and engineer I commend this far more simple, easy to validate and independently verifiable approach using proven science and actual data as more realistic than “modeller’s guesses” as to sensitivity or forcings of presumed effects that are unproven in any representative experiment. This approach proves change occurs at the frequencies of known effects. Perhaps this simple, accessible, established and very direct technique was not used by computer modellers, or not published if used, because they were concerned what such a deterministic approach would show, or had already shown?

What is the “Naturist” response of the “CO2 and meat eating as the dominant cause of climate change” science, determined by models that predict incorrectly on the facts “since records began” (1979 to them), to such simple physics reality? Key quotes from Lüdecke und Weiss, “All we see is cycles” “The mechanism is the ionisation of the solar wind”.

This also relates to cosmic ray effects and the work of the Svensmarks and Nir Shaviv, more solar wind = less cloud formation by cosmic rays hence less albedo hence warmer, roughly, but is not crucial. It clearly happens as analysed, the effects occur on the frequencies that can closely replicate the observed change, with the strong direct correlation CO2 has never had, because that theory is overtly wrong, in the measured fact of tropospheric temperature records, as UAH have also demonstrated from the NSA data they are responsible for anlysing and reporting the the US government. The facts are crowding in. In the end, that is all there is that works. And….

“I believe this has some significance for our problem”, as someone else said. CEng, CPhys.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Brian R Catt
August 20, 2019 5:21 pm

Bruce R. Catt:

The reality is that there are NO climatic cycles. All climate is simply the response to varying levels of dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, from either random volcanic eruptions (or the lack thereof), or, since the Industrial Revolution, also from the burning of fossil fuels.

(Unfortunately, this Post will probably be seen only by the moderator)

old white guy
August 19, 2019 4:47 am

Too much “science” and not enough reality.

Another old whitey
Reply to  old white guy
August 20, 2019 2:14 pm

But is it for the most part understandable to you?

John Collis
August 20, 2019 6:48 am

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49405023 – this is in the part of the BBC website aimed at under 18’s

Johann Wundersamer
August 21, 2019 8:24 am

“In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently.

Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part.

This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

“In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate.

That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.”



There are two amygdalae per person normally, with one amygdala on each side of the brain. They are thought to be a part of the limbic system within the brain, which is responsible for emotions, survival instincts, and memory. …

The amygdala in humans also plays a role in sexual activity and libido, or sex drive.25.10.2015

https://study.com › academy › the-a…
The Amygdala: Definition, Role & Function – Video & Lesson …

Amygdala reptile brain:


Geoff Sherrington
August 22, 2019 4:10 am

These comments were not written by me, the original Geoff Sherrington, who has blogged under this, my real name, since early days at WUWT.

Do check your own efforts, fellow bloggers, in case your good name has been taken over by this IMPOSTER, who writes material that is alien to me and misrepresents.
Geoff S

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights