Failed Climate Predictions

Guest post by Rud Istvan

I got to thinking about my now 10 years of occasionally contributed guest posts at WUWT and at Climate Etc. Lots of stuff provided over the years, ranging from NRDC Congressional deceit (my very first post here back in 2011, noted below, maise), to problems with climate models and their predictions, to the ‘fit for purpose’ of ARGO and Jason, to provable scientific misconduct (Marcott 2013, O’Leary 2013, and Seattle Times/Fabricius 2013 just to pick on that inauspicious AR5 publication year). Some but not all of these themes are also covered in eBook Blowing Smoke, with a gracious foreword from Dr. Judith Curry.

There are now a lot of newer active commenters here, a good sign for Anthony and Charles. They may not have dug deeply into the extensive WUWT archives. A way to shape their big picture dialogue is to look at some of the climate alarmist’s most fundamental failed predictions, and why they failed. Here are nine of my own BIG ones, grouped by three origins. Just reread Galois group theory.


  • There is a modeled tropical troposphere hotspot. BUT, as John Christy showed Congress in 2016, there isn’t in reality. The climate models overstate the tropical troposphere warming by about 3x. The most plausible reason is Eschenbach’s emergent phenomena hypothesis, specifically thunderstorms. These wash out humidity, but cannot be modelled, only parameterized. (Details in a long ago post, ‘The trouble with climate models’). Observationally, CMIP5 modeled about half the tropical rainfall that ARGO observes by changes in thermocline salinity. So, true.
  • Models sufficiently hindcast anomalies to match observations. Actually, this is half true, because the requisite model parameters are tuned until true. The deception is in the use of model anomalies. In reality, in absolute temperature terms, the CMIP5 models varied by ~4C in the year 2000 (early in their tuning period), from about the observed ~15.5C global average.

Almost none were close to observed reality—almost all hot. Anomalies hide this basic climate model ‘hot’ predictive defect.

  • Models reliably predict an ‘Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity’ (ECS) of about 3C. Again half true. They all do, but not ‘reliably’. Observational ECS using energy budget (and other) methods consistently show about 1.6-1.7C, about half of modeled. This is a big deal, since all the alarmist doomstering depends on a high ECS (or its close cousin TCR). At 1.6, there is no climate problem at all. At 3, there might or might not be. The model/observation discrepancy is so great that AR5 declined to produce a central estimate of ECS, an embarrassing omission.


  • Sea level rise will accelerate.  But it hasn’t, based on long record differential GPS land motion corrected tide gauges, of which there are now about 70. The reason is that we are experiencing conditions similar to the previous Eemian interglacial (the Holocene is now per paleoproxy and ice core records about 1C colder), during which the geological evidence points to a maximum Eemian sea level rise (SLR) of about 2.2mm/year—exactly what we observe now, with closure, from the long record tide gauges over the last century. There is no SLR acceleration.
  • Crop yields will fail and humans will starve. This was the subject of my first post here long ago. The dire NRDC prediction to Congress was based on two falsehoods. First, they misrepresented the ‘worst’ prediction as the norm. Second, the ‘worst’ paper they relied on for corn (maise) was itself fundamentally flawed (whether deliberate or incompetence can be debated). It was a massive statistical analysis of US corn yields over time, at the granular US county level for all the main corn producing states. It purported to show that transient temperatures over x permanently reduced corn yields by y. EXCEPT, their multivariate regression analysis left out a key covariant term, temp x water. Their omission logic was that temp and water are not meteorologically correlated. True. The flaw in their reasoning was that corn REALLY DOES care, and their y variable was corn yield. The omitted term falsifies their analysis, as (after the authors became famous among alarmists, then foolishly posted their now famous corn data in graphical form) became readily apparent from simple visual inspection and a bit of logic. No advanced statistics needed. Conclusion BOGUS.
  • Polar bears will go extinct, because Arctic summer ice will disappear somewhen (the prediction as to when varies, but Wadkins has been a lead alarmist, already proven wrong three times). As Dr. Susan Crawford has many times pointed out, the entire scientific extinction premise is wrong. Polar bears do about 80% of their caloric annual feeding intake during the spring seal welping season. In fact, too thick spring ice, not too little, is a problem for seals and then bears. They do not depend on summer ice at all for feeding. They come ashore, and then summer feed like their close relatives the brown (grizzly) bears, opportunistically on bird nest eggs, berries, carrion like washed up dead whales and walrus, maybe even an occasional unlucky caribou kid.


  • Renewables and the Green New Deal (GND). AOC and the Squad obviously know nothing about electrical engineering. The grid is supposed to be reliable. First, renewables  (wind, solar) are intermittent. Therefore they need backup at any significant penetration, a large cost not supported by always subsidized (because uneconomic) renewables. Second, the grid demands frequency stability, aka grid inertia. Renewables are asynchronous so supply none. Large rotating conventional generators powered by coal, natgas, or nuclear supply inertia automatically. There is a solution, called a synchronous condenser (essentially a large spinning but unpowered generator mass) but renewables don’t pay for those either, so none are added.
  • EVs will solve the gasoline/diesel emissions ‘carbon’ problem. They need large inputs of cobalt and lithium (hydroxide or carbonate). We haven’t enough of either, and the prospects of remedying the situation in the next few decades by new mines are about nil at the EV penetration the GND wishes. Lithium is the 33rd most abundant Earth element, and Cobalt is the 31st. Prospects are NOT good for the long run. By abundance comparison in Earth’s crust (only), aluminum is 3, iron is 4, and carbon is 17. Translation: Coke cans and airplanes, steel whatever, and ‘carbon’ fuels we got. EV batteries, not so much. Ignoring the associated rare earths China dominates because of environmental processing costs, not abundance. US has a very large deposit at the Cali-Nevada border  at Mountain Pass mine, now owned by China. The cost problem is not the ore, it is the environmental processing consequences.  China does not care. We do. Advantage China.
  • EVs will require a large investment in the grid. T&D plus generation. A rough estimate is by 2x to supplant gasoline and diesel. That is not possible in the Biden/.GND time frame, nor even close to economic. Promising Impossiblium may feel good, but always ends badly in reality.
4.9 88 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 26, 2021 6:11 am

The challenge is to confront the modelling prognosticators with their modelling absurdities.

Ridiculously cooled past to give a warming trend while producing an output consistent with the present.

The sickening aspect in all this is that the actual historical records have been cooled to match the models.

My opinion is that there is insufficient reliable evidence of actual global warming that would stand in a court of law. There are absurd claims that the Earth has warmed since 1850. How could anyone possibly know that?

Reply to  RickWill
April 26, 2021 6:17 am

A further observation from the chart, after 200 years of modelled warming the coolest model reaches the starting temperature of the warmest model – how ridiculous is that.

The reviews who produce the IPCC reports must feel stupid when they look at data like this. There needs some serious head banging going on to stop the nonsense. Their professional credibility is shot. They should be names and shamed for accepting this drivel.

Reply to  RickWill
April 26, 2021 6:44 am

What in Earth makes you think that the accuracy of the predictions is of any interest to them whatsoever?

Science wants its hypotheses to be efficacious in predicting the future. The global marketeers want their hypotheses to be efficacious in constructing the beliefs of hoi polloi.

ClimateChange™ is the most efficacious and plausible piece of political marketing since Marxism.

Take the knee to the globalists. They have succeeded in destroying the Enlightenment and heralding in a new Dark Age…

Pat Frank
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 26, 2021 10:37 am

Globalism is the endstage of the Romantic counter-Enlightenment, Leo. It has been gaining steam since the late 18th century.

Always the same people — emotions-driven collectivists. Those unfit and unable to live in individual freedom.

Reply to  Pat Frank
April 26, 2021 1:19 pm

+1,000 Frank

Except the collectivists run government and use emotions like identity politics or invisible enemies like Covid or Goobal warming to maintain power.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Derg
April 26, 2021 4:40 pm

Exactly right, Derg. Some of them believe the specious issue they tout. Those at the center are cynical.

They use any given fear/strife-causing issue opportunistically, merely to gain power, as you noted.

Once they have police power the game is over and darkness descends upon all.

Bryan A
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 27, 2021 10:36 pm

Climate predictions … 579
Climate catastrophes … 0
Predictive ability … zilch
Fodder for comics…priceless

John Tillman
Reply to  RickWill
April 26, 2021 6:19 am

General glacial retreat since 1850 is one proxy. It’s uneven but global in scope.

Reply to  John Tillman
April 26, 2021 6:46 am

1850 was the end of the little ice age. But CO2 didn’t really start to increase till 1950.
So your statement denies CO2 involvement in global warming

John Tillman
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 26, 2021 7:14 am

Glaciers have generally followed temperature. They grew during the LIA, then started retreating in the second half of the 19th century. They advanced again during the 1950-70s, despite rising CO2, since Earth cooled during those decades.

They mostly retreated again in the late 20th century and early in the 21st. At present a majority of them is still retreating, but many are staying the same and others advancing. Local conditions appear more important than whatever warming might still be occurring.

Thus, there is no strong correlation with CO2, although it naturally increased from the end of the LIA, then its rise accelerated after WWII.

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, depository of most of Earth’s fresh water, is gaining mass.

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 26, 2021 9:47 am

You said “there are absurd claims that the earth has warmed since 1850”. John was simply providing one line of evidence potentially consistent with the claimed warming – glacier melt. You did not mention CO2 in your original post so why accuse John of denying it? Yes, the observed glacier melt is consistent with ‘recovery’ from the little ice age but given you supplied the date of 1850 in your original statement, why bring it up in response as if John did not know, or was somehow discounting it? Are you just looking for an argument?

Bernd Palmer
Reply to  MJB
April 26, 2021 7:58 pm

The Swiss alpine glaciers started their retreat around 1850, coinciding with the end of the LIA.

Reply to  John Tillman
April 26, 2021 12:14 pm

So is population and food supply. The warmer it gets the more food the more people.

For those too young to have lived through the global panic over the population explosion, you might be tempted to believe panic over climate change is something new.

100+ years ago we also had a panic over the explosion in the number of morons. Phreneology and Eugenics were all the rage, until the Nazis adopted this as a policy plank and started exterminating the inferior races. After the war, everyone claimed they had never believed in eugenics. But they did believe in a population explosion. Just not of morons.

But of course the current panic over climate change is the old panic over the population explosion and the earlier panic over the explosion in the number of morons.

The only real difference being that due to the Peter Principle, the morons now lead the way. They head our governments and scientific institutions.

Reply to  Ferdberple
April 26, 2021 10:53 pm

This is quite an interesting article explaining how we got into this mess today.
Greta Thunberg And Eco-Eugenics

Arrhenius, besides being the first Peak Oiler, and Greenhounse Earther was, also, the first Alarmist.
“…Any alarmism worth its salt has an end-game (massive social change) and so must also offer solutions that will bring about this desired result. Accordingly, Arrhenius suggested that the use of oil and coal be limited, if not eliminated; that electricity replace oil as an energy source; that fuel efficiency be practiced; that bio-fuels be used; that atomic energy be developed. Arrhenius, in fact, gave modern environmentalism all of its talking points.

“…But how did his ideas [ARRHENIUS] become foundational to environmentalism today? Arrhenius was largely ignored until 1979, when the Charney Report, entitled, “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” was published. It relied heavily on Arrhenius and thus gave him instant legitimacy.
Then, in 1990, the IPCC used the Charney Report as the basis for its own report, which turned Arrhenius’s hypotheses of man-made climate change and global warming into “settled science.” Henceforth, climate could only and “correctly” be viewed through the lens of Arrhenius. Those who refused or objected would be labeled as “deniers” – i.e., heretics….”
“…Another “settled science” in which Arrhenius made much contribution was eugenics.
Thus, human reproduction was to be controlled and limited by the state, all bulwarked and justified by science. The mantra of “listen to the science” that is oft-repeated by environmentalists in itself has a very sinister history, for eugenics was nothing but “settled science” for people like Arrhenius, Margaret Sanger and Hitler.
The obvious question that arises is a simple one, then – does Arrhenius’s work on global warming stem from his eugenics? For example, in 1912, he famously concocted an experiment in which public school children were electrified, in order to make them grow taller. Apparently, it was said to have worked. Thus, where does climate science stop and eugenics begin for Arrhenius? It is a question not yet settled.”

Rick C
Reply to  RickWill
April 26, 2021 8:55 am

Rick Will: So the modelers tune their models to the historical temperature record and the record keepers adjust the record to better match the models. Kind of circular. Reminds me of this story told in a lecture on metrology.

“Once upon a time, there was a military fort whose commander, a Colonel, ordered that the fort’s cannon be fired every day at precisely 5:00 PM. The Captain assigned to this duty would listen to the local radio station every day and check his watch against the “beep” the radio station broadcast before the noon news.

Several months went by. One day, the Colonel received a phone call from a local citizen. “I have had a Rolex watch for many years and I’m sure it keeps perfect time,” the citizen said. “Lately I’ve noticed that your cannon seems to be firing at 5 minutes after 5:00. Perhaps you should check your time keeping system.”

The Colonel immediately called in the Captain who explained that he was sure there could be no such error as he “calibrated” his watch daily to the radio station’s “noon” time signal. The Colonel then called the radio station. “How do you make sure your ‘Noon’ time signal is accurate?” he asked. “Well”, said the station manager, “we used to tune into the NIST national radio time broadcast service and check our station clock every day. But lately we’ve been checking against the 5:00 PM cannon at the fort – it’s always ‘bang-on’!

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Rick C
April 26, 2021 11:31 am

Shorter Wittgenstein…

if you use a ruler to measure a table, you may also be using the table to measure the ruler.”

Reply to  Rick C
April 26, 2021 3:28 pm

The creeping consensus.

Actually this is the new “con”.

Reply to  Rick C
April 26, 2021 10:56 pm

Rick C, that is hilarious. Thanks!

John Tillman
April 26, 2021 6:12 am

Three sequelae.


Rud Istvan
Reply to  John Tillman
April 26, 2021 9:11 pm

Yup. I was never good at that sort of stuff.

April 26, 2021 6:28 am

Excellent review. Thanks for your good work, and keep posting. The more active we skeptics (as true scientists) are, the more we can convince people with open minds of the truth. We must all speak out in our communities to point out the contradictions and failures in the alarmists’ hypotheses. I hope every reader here will take some action to help make that happen.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DrEd
April 26, 2021 6:42 am

Unfortunately, all new religions are immune to logical thinking.

Jim Watson
April 26, 2021 6:34 am

I feel like we are living in a perpetual War of the World’s broadcast. The only difference is that with War of the Worlds people knew by the next morning they’d been had. The global warming hoax has been going on for 30+ years.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me for 30 years, shame on me.

Reply to  Jim Watson
April 26, 2021 7:56 am

Sounds like you’re not being fooled by the fools, but far too many people have been fooled by the constant drone of a physics defying climate catastrophe ever since the inception of the IPCC.

Skeptics as a whole should be embarrased that the IPCC’s blatant violation of COE hasn’t already caused their house of cards to implode. There’s no possible way that the next W/m^2 of forcing will contribute 4.4 W/m^2 to the surface emissions (0.8C increase) while the average W/m^2 only contributes 1.62 W/m^2 to those emissions and the last W/m^2 only resulted in increasing the temperature by about 0.3C. Energy can be neither created or destroyed and the 2.8 W/m^2 in excess of what other Joules of forcing can do is energy that’s created, literally out of thin air.

The only way their massive amplification by positive ‘feedback’ becomes viable is by violating COE! This is the result of misapplying Bode by ignoring the only 2 preconditions for using his LINEAR, ACTIVE feedback amplifier analysis. One is strict linearity and input W/m^2 are not linear to an output temperature, incrementally or otherwise. The other is an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which can not be the average power not accounted for by an incremental analysis as this average power is already completely consumed maintaining the average temperature which is also not accounted for by the incremental analysis.

Steve Z
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 26, 2021 9:44 am

One of the main problems with IPCC’s approach to “feedbacks” is the assumption of constant relative humidity. If the temperature of a volume of air increases, maintaining constant relative humidity requires and increase in absolute humidity (mole fraction water vapor). If the volume of air is in contact with a body of water, this requires heat to vaporize the additional water, which represents a negative feedback of about 50 to 70% of the heat required to warm the air.

Modelers try to claim “credit” for the additional water as a positive feedback (additional IR radiation absorbed), but neglect the heat required to vaporize it as a negative feedback.

IPCC’s concept of a climate sensitivity (change in temperature for a doubling of CO2 concentration) is fundamentally flawed. This is based on an equation proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896:

T – To = K ln (C/Co)

where T – To is temperature change above a base level To, K is a constant
(= sensitivity/ln(2)), C is CO2 concentration, and Co is some base level concentration, presumably when Arrhenius proposed his equation.

So, according to this equation, what would happen if all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere (C = 0)? The equation says that dT would go to negative infinity, although that would result in a temperature below absolute zero, which is physically impossible.

In reality, if all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would revert to the equilibrium value from IR absorption from water vapor alone, and dT should be zero if Co is zero. At high CO2 concentrations, if all the IR radiation emitted from the earth is absorbed by CO2, no more is available to be absorbed, and the temperature should level off at an upper asymptote. Arrhenius’ equation does not have an upper limit or asymptote, and predicts thermal runaway, which also violates conservation of energy.

With all the supercomputers we have now (which Arrhenius did not have), why is the IPCC still using an equation from over 120 years ago which is so easily debunked?

Reply to  Steve Z
April 26, 2021 2:14 pm

According to the specific heat values CO2 doesn’t care about IR.

Reply to  Steve Z
April 26, 2021 4:56 pm


The real problem with feedback is that the linear analysis being used doesn’t apply. The paper that introduced the concept of amplification by positive feedback was based on something Schlesinger wrote for a textbook and was never reviewed (only the diagrams were ‘edited’) before it was presented in AR1, along with an equally broken paper by Hansen, as the main theoretical rationalization for a sensitivity as high as needed to justify the formation of the iPCC.

In addition to failing to honor the only 2 prerequisites, there’s a serious math error confusing the feedback factor with the feedback fraction leading to the assumption that the open loop gain is a dimensionless 1 in one place and assuming it’s some nebulous factor that converts W/m^2 into a temperature in another. BTW, the linearity requirement means the absolute and incremental gain’s (sensitivity) must be the same, thus there’s no point in even assuming approximate linearity around the mean as an approximate starting point.

Ron Long
April 26, 2021 6:35 am

Good report, as usual, Rud. The problem is that CAGW has become an unholy alliance between a new religion and socialist control. The best Americans can do is wait for the 2022 midterms, although some hardy persons continue the fight, and thanks to them.

Steve Case
Reply to  Ron Long
April 26, 2021 7:36 am

November 3rd 2020 has taught Democrats that they can get away with stuffing ballot boxes with impunity. 2022 will no doubt be an absolute orgy of voter fraud. The means to do it was crafted for the so-called six or seven battle ground states in 2020. Considering how wildly successful that was, you can be sure that new and improved methods are being fine tuned for the 2022 midterms and beyond.

You have no need to look any further than HR-1 2021 where you will find verbiage that says:

  • excessively onerous voter identification requirements
  • burdened by voter identification
  • voter identification laws that discriminate

“If you want a vision of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a
human face – forever.” 
                          George Orwell

Reply to  Steve Case
April 26, 2021 8:00 am


Ron Long
Reply to  Steve Case
April 26, 2021 8:08 am

Upsetting but true.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 26, 2021 8:52 am

A man was standing in the town square with his bicycle reading the German Constitution out loud. There were a few people standing around at a distance listening and a few cheering at times but none close to the man. The local politzi in riot gear pull up and violently take the man down. They later claimed it was an “illegal assembly” but there was no assembly just a few local people standing around listening from a distance.

The video was up earlier this morning and I watched it. Now it is not available since YouTube terminated the account! This is where we are and it is only going to get worse. YouTube

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rah
April 26, 2021 11:01 am

I’m reminded of a photograph I saw once. It was a picture outside during World War II, with thousands of Germans lining the road as Hitler passed by in his automobile.

And the picture showed a wide shot of the crowd and everyone in the crowd had their arm thrust up in the air in the Nazi salute. Everyone but one man. Right in the middle of that crowd stood a man who was *not* lifting his arm in salute. He stood out like a sore thumb.

I can relate to that guy. His stand is a symbol for skeptics.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 26, 2021 2:34 pm

Sounds ‘armless to me. No thumbs either.

Probably got the elbow.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  leitmotif
April 27, 2021 4:34 am

He had kind of a defiant look on his face.

old engineer
Reply to  Steve Case
April 26, 2021 9:18 pm


Your first paragraph was exactly what I thought after the 2020 election. I consoled myself with a comment made here at WUWT: “it’s a good time to be old.” But since “hope springs eternal,” I decided to wait until after the 2022 elections to judge whether George Orwell was right or not.

Joseph Zorzin
April 26, 2021 6:40 am

Great summary of failed climate predictions. I only wish you could get that published in the Boston Globe- but they would never publish it of course, here in this climate emergency theocracy, the home of the Salem witch trials and of course the Puritans.

John Garrett
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 26, 2021 7:49 am

…and Ed Malarkey and Pocahontas.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 26, 2021 11:16 pm

The Puritans came to their senses when their Governor returned from England and asked them if they had not considered that the people they were persecuting were not doing the work of the Devil but it was they, the persecutors, who were doing the Devil’s work? He stopped the persecutors dead.
Of course, there was a lot of politics involved in who was chosen for persecution. Political enemies were a favorite target.
Some things never change. Wait, I take that back. I did say the Gov. stopped it cold. The witch hunters of today seem to have no sense and it seems there’s no end to this nonsense.

April 26, 2021 6:43 am

This is a great post and I will print and bookmark it. HOWEVER, even very smart people who lack the scientific background to understand it will continue to be swayed by the alarmists because that is the politically correct thing to do. And they are the ones in power.

Jeffery P
Reply to  starzmom
April 26, 2021 12:57 pm

People whose beliefs are inspired purely by emotion are immune to reason and facts.

April 26, 2021 6:48 am

EVs can shift the energy load for transportation from liquid petroleum product distribution networks owned by many different independent companies to energy generation companies operated by state and regional government coalitions as coercive monopolies. Nationalization of power generation can then take place through the distribution grid. The national government would then be the effective operator of power generation and transportation networks.
This has always been about a political power grab, the environmental concerns will disappear as the takeover is effected.

April 26, 2021 6:48 am

Thanks, Rud. It was good to see you using one of my graphs again.


PS: A link to the original post would be appreciated, either at my blog…
On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations (
…or the cross post at WUWT:
On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison – Watts Up With That?

Patrick B
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
April 26, 2021 8:33 am


I have advocated for a while that any graph showing models, should have a bright vertical line for the date on which the models were run. That allows an easy determination of what is hindcasting and what is truly forecasting. I hate the fact that these types of graphs make it look like the model has some credibility just because of hindcasting/tuning. A bright line demarcation would help correct that.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Patrick B
April 26, 2021 9:26 am

Or, only show the part of the graph that is actually forecasting.

Reply to  Patrick B
April 26, 2021 10:01 am

Nice idea, Patrick B, but I’m not going to go back and change hundreds of illustrations I created many years ago…sorry.

I prepared the graph Rud used almost 7 years ago, according to the date on the post.


April 26, 2021 6:52 am

Excellent summary. Importantly however, Rud did not even bring up the electric home heating “solution” that has its own problems and exacerbates issues with the electric system. Frankly until someone develops a climatology of wind and solar resource availability to determine the worst case I think that it is impossible to determine just how much solar, wind, and storage would be needed for the winter mutli-day doldrum which corresponds to highest energy use in the GND future grid. The more anyone digs into this the worse it gets.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
April 26, 2021 8:19 am

Here in upstate NY (Chenango County) I built a new home in ’92-’93, installing electric resistance heating with storage to avoid being directly charged many thousands of dollars for the 1/2 mile power line extension. I also installed a woodstove, which remains functional. I used wood heat heavily until frequent business travel made it inconvenient in the early 2000’s. I think it may get more use again as electricity will certainly get pricier and less reliable. Sure, I can convert to a heat pump system, but at a cost of many thousands of dollars. It is a shame that the rural areas are targeted for unsightly and intrusive wind turbine and solar farm installations when nearly all of our power regionally already comes from hydro and nuclear (as the NYISO annual “Power Trends” reports have confirmed.) Can you tell I am not pleased with NY’s plans? Grrrr. Oh, and you’re right about the extended doldrum/blizzard/ice storm scenarios. Scary to imagine.

April 26, 2021 7:03 am

FYI, the paragraph on polar bear extinction mentions Dr. Susan “Crawford”. Assuming that is supposed to be “Crockford” you may want to edit before she sees it!

Reply to  Brad
April 26, 2021 8:30 am

Is Wadkins meant to be Wadhams, also?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  leitmotif
April 26, 2021 4:55 pm

Yup, I goofed up on both Crockford and Wadhams. Was going late after dinner and fast from a now bit older but still inspired memory. Mea Culpa. Thanks for the corrections, which I do NOT have WUWT priviledges (nor want them) to edit.

Reply to  Brad
April 26, 2021 8:37 am

…. and I think you meant Wadhams not Wadkins.

April 26, 2021 7:28 am

China has industrial and technological strategy. The Biden Plan has the un-strategy of placating advocates and causing industrial and trade chaos.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 26, 2021 11:25 pm

I would say Biden’s strategy, or rather, the people behind Biden’s strategy as he has no clue what he is doing, has a very clear strategy and it includes causing industrial and trade chaos. I’m just not sure what their end game is but I have suspicians which are not pleasant to contemplate.
I do know that everything being done by the Biden adm. helps China.

Climate believer
April 26, 2021 8:04 am

Reality. “Extinction Rebellion is not about the climate.” Stuart Basden, XR Founding Member.

CET June.png
John Garrett
Reply to  Climate believer
April 26, 2021 8:22 am

You aren’t kidding— take a look at this crackpot:

— a self-described Marxist, professor at Lund University (god help us) in Sweden and author of “How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire.”

Gregory Woods
April 26, 2021 8:04 am

Modeling aside, it will be Reality that catches up with the Alarmists. Trying to implement the Greenie New Deal will prove to be very costly and in the end, impossible.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
April 26, 2021 1:31 pm

The goal is a costly solution. More skim available.

April 26, 2021 8:07 am

There are two conditions that must be satisfied before I believe CAGW is real. First, their predictions need to improve to 1%. Right now, their predictions are at 0.00%, and even that may be too high. Second, those who tell me it is a crisis first live the way they command me to live for no less than 5 straight years. If you are unwilling to change your life why should I?

Reply to  Wade
April 26, 2021 11:57 am

Plus they must accept nuclear power as part of the solution. If AGW were a problem there would be no other reasonable position.

April 26, 2021 8:39 am

Psychics stay in business by appealing to the gullible, telling them the things they want to hear. Climate change advocates do the same thing, just for larger crowds.

Bill Rocks
April 26, 2021 8:56 am

Excellent review. One correction: Dr. Susan Crockford, not Crawford.

April 26, 2021 9:01 am

There are now a lot of newer active commenters here, a good sign for Anthony and Charles. They may not have dug deeply into the extensive WUWT archives.

I, myself, have been visiting WUWT for over ten years. Those were the days when if you didn’t have a degree in…. you kept quiet. My degree is in the biological sciences, hardly qualified in the alarmists terms to have an opinion let alone an hypothesis.

I did a lot of work in quality control and assurance – chemistry, microbiology etc- in the food industry. It really pains me every time I see the patent nonsense bandied about on ocean acidification; ignoring, even appearing to rediscover things we’ve known for a very long time.

The brewing industry, for example, has plenty of expertise in water chemistry, why not consult the (UK) Institute of Brewing or similar?

I notice that I have begun to post more than I once did, I think I’m doing it just to annoy.

Reply to  fretslider
April 26, 2021 10:23 am

Please don’t underestimate them. They know the chemistry and have run the numbers. For example, the difference between today’s standard ocean pH (which is scale forming or depositing calcium carbonate) and “corrosive” or calcium carbonate dissolving ocean pH is about 0.3 pH. So what is their prediction of ocean “acidification? ” About 0.3 pH. Corrosivity is defined with respect to calcium carbonate only. The best models of calcium carbonate scale formation (necessary if you want to treat water to make it potable) are inorganic. Guess what? So are the models of ocean “acidification.” See Takahashi, et. al. 2009, IIRC.

Reply to  fretslider
April 26, 2021 2:47 pm

I remember you fret from the old Delingpole/Telegraph days with your rock persona. Always a good read. I was a Jeffery Deaver fictional detective!


Pat Frank
April 26, 2021 10:34 am

Not to worry. Sheffield University in the UK has decided that Newton and Laplace were colonialist benefactors. Their contributions should be downplayed.

The engineering curriculum is being apparently being decolonized as well, to foster equity diversity and inclusion. Their graduates will have an ever so much more equitable grasp of engineering justice.

The problems of incompetent wasteful solutions to non-existent problems will eventually go away because no one will be left with the training to see them.

Reply to  Pat Frank
April 26, 2021 8:19 pm

In Canada, engineering schools are accredited and periodically reviewed. A school that watered down its curriculum would lose its accreditation.

In the United States, every engineering graduate has to write external exams. A school that watered down its curriculum would see all its graduates flunk the exams. Plus, as far as I can tell, American engineering schools have to be accredited by ABET. So presumably the school would also lose its accreditation.

old engineer
Reply to  commieBob
April 26, 2021 9:46 pm


I always find your comments interesting. A quick search of the ABET website found this statement:

“We believe that understanding and experiencing diversity and inclusion in higher education are critical to competitiveness, innovation, and our social and economic futures. Further, we expect our accredited programs to support this vision.”

How long will it be before equity and inclusiveness are the main standard for accreditation?

Reply to  Pat Frank
April 27, 2021 1:49 am

The news from the University of Sheffield is absolutely terrifying. The engineers who graduate from there will be indoctrinated in Post-Modernist drivel, yet will be designing the UK’s bridges, highways, aircraft, cars etc.I shudder.

April 26, 2021 10:46 am

These models are fake science. Climate models are like speculation dressed up in maths. Yet the range of speculation is extremely limited: when a model can’t project a climate catastrophe it’s “denialism”. We should demand validation and falsification attempts for all model assumptions. When model authors claim to be “scientists” we should ask them to cite the experiments and observations they made to validate and/or falsify their model assumptions. If they cannot we should laugh at their “I’m a scientist” claim.

April 26, 2021 10:59 am

‘Climate Change’ is the perfect scam for the fraudsters of every trope, because it can mean anything they want it to mean. While you would think that facts, especially future predictions about the state of climate would mean anything, they spin anything and everything to obfuscate the real data and twist it to their advantage while not allowing any debate or anyone to gain a significant platform to be able to counter their narrative. Until the majority of people just turn their back on a lot of this nonsense and call them out, they will win.

Unfortunately, climate and weather are a very complex subject that the masses don’t even want to try and understand, although at some point, when it hits their wallets and they see the obvious financial fraud going on that they are paying for, will there be any possibility of taming this beast. As long as the alarmists control the narrative that there is some climate emergency going on, they will win. And it appears that facts be damned to the alarmists and gullible public/children, they proclaim a climate emergency going on, when in reality, we live in one of the most benign climates seen in almost a thousand years that has allowed modern civilization to flourish, with the assistance of fossil fuels and knowledge based science. We are heading for another dark age if this continues.

Joel O'Bryan
April 26, 2021 11:15 am

15.5 ºC?? or 14.5 ºC?

April 26, 2021 11:44 am

US has a very large deposit at the Cali-Nevada border at Mountain Pass mine, now owned by China. The cost problem is not the ore, it is the environmental processing consequences. China does not care. We do. Advantage China.”

My question is, WHY have we allowed Communist China to OWN any mines in America? WHEN did we begin selling our valuable resources to ANY country, but especially to a COMMUNIST one? Was it Bill Clinton’s idea? Or, was it Barack Hussein Obama’s idea, or, possibly George Bush’s? Something has turned out really rotten in America!

Reply to  IAMPCBOB
April 26, 2021 12:28 pm

“My question is, WHY have we allowed Communist China to OWN …”
So why not try to find out?
In fact, it is the usual haphazard fuzz from Rud. China does not own the mine. The structure is set out here. A Chinese entity, Shenghe Resources, has a 7.05% stake. And that was acquired, not in the time of Clinton, Obama or even Bush. The president was Trump.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 26, 2021 1:23 pm

Haha Trump becomes President and all things are made in China 😉

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 26, 2021 2:16 pm

Went bankrupt in 2015 under Obama, sale happened in mid 2017 as a normal business transaction.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 26, 2021 5:06 pm

of Mountain Pass ( you can look it up, I won’t bother because sure of the story) spent almost $2 billion in environmentally sound processing facilities. As soon as they had, China loosened the rare earth restrictions, RE prices crashed, and the owner went bankrupt. China then bought the mine, not the processing, out of bankruptcy.
This you could have researched.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 26, 2021 5:23 pm

“This you could have researched.”
I did, and gave the link. From it, here is the present ownership structure
comment image

Me mate Fred also linked (above) a news account of the transfer, telling the same story
comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 26, 2021 9:25 pm

And if you actually knew anything about company economics you would have some idea how this works … but like usual you are posting aboiut stuff you know nothing about.

Try the financials dropkick and the special section “{Our Relationship with Shenghe”

Shenge has them by the financial testicles and can squeeze hard.
I really love this ====> “Further, we eliminated the Shenghe sales discount and replaced it with a fixed monthly sales charge”

I got to get me some of that on my supposed competitor.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 26, 2021 8:28 pm

So you agree with the rest of Rud’s article?

Reply to  waza
April 26, 2021 9:58 pm

Yep, Nick is a minor nit-picker. !

Reply to  fred250
April 27, 2021 1:04 am

Bunny trail creator is Nick

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  IAMPCBOB
April 26, 2021 1:13 pm

Most big mining companies now are multinational companies, most with HQs outside of the US. In Arizona, one of the largest copper mining operators in Arizona is ASARCO, a subsidiary company of Grupo Mexico. Which has hq’s where? Mexico of course.

A Japanese-based company, Mitsui & Co., Ltd. has invested stakes in many copper mining projects/mines across the western US. This is good strategic positioning to ensure its core business, manufacturing automotive parts and wiring assemblies for the automotive industry in Japan, stays supplied with affordable copper and won’t get “cut-off.”

Another multinational copper producer in Arizona is HudBay. Based in Canada as the name might suggest, Hudbay has zinc production facilities in northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan and Peru, and copper mines in Arizona and Nevada.

Mining is basically multinational companies owning mines all over the world. Except for China’s companies (China Molybdenum, for example) none of these comapnies are controlled national governments.

Much of this overseas ownership HQs stems from various national tax laws and regulatory regimes that governments create for multinational corporations to try to capture revenue.

April 26, 2021 11:57 am

A rough estimate is by 2x to supplant gasoline and diesel
While thar might be true for light weight commuter vehicles, not so much for everything else.

Add in winter heating and long haul trucking, aircraft, manufacturing, distribution, etc, etc and now you are talking serious energy use along with major battery problems.

Now try and build this in 10 years and meet the environmental regulations. You are more likely to see Elon Musk fly a battery powered Tesla to the moon and back.

April 26, 2021 1:53 pm

“Models sufficiently hindcast anomalies to match observations

Real Observations, or “adjusted” observation

The models don’t hindcast the peak in temperatures in the 1940’s because that peak has been “remove” from the data

April 26, 2021 2:28 pm

Crawford? Wadkins? What would Richard Lindbergh, Ian Plimpsoll and Roy Suspenders say about this?

If only Richard Feinstein were still around.

April 26, 2021 5:37 pm

The phrase, “failed climate prediction,” has become much like saying, “rectangular square.” Redundant. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All climate predictions are failures, but not all failures are climate predictions.

I fear we are fighting a losing battle. Those who have the intellect to understand these issues have become a minority of voters. Of those who potentially could understand, many do not care. Many of those who both understand and care about the issue are the ones orchestrating the fraud, for power, money, and prestige.

That leaves frighteningly few of us. Even so, our numbers will dwindle as time takes its toll, and we are replaced by those who have been taught that more than one right answer to a basic arithmetic problem is acceptable, and the scientific method is racist.

I suggest we find a way to enjoy life while sheltering in place, and appreciate that we had the extraordinary luck to have lived at the apex of Man’s existence. That’s likely to be easier for me to do than most others, since I have no children.

Now, back to my Bourbon.

Walter Sobchak
April 26, 2021 6:20 pm

‘Models reliably predict an ‘Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity’ (ECS) of about 3C.”

Don’t worry AR6 is going to be higher. They may dial it up to 11.

April 26, 2021 10:35 pm

I have a question regarding this, “There is a solution, called a synchronous condenser (essentially a large spinning but unpowered generator mass) but renewables don’t pay for those either, so none are added.” How does one get a large, spinning but unpowered generator mass, please?
I presume there is such a thing, but it sounds like a perpetual motion maching which I don’t think we have. What in the heck is it? Thank you.

G A Keen
Reply to  KcTaz
April 27, 2021 8:17 am

A massive hydropower generator when pumped empty of water can be held spinning in air , at times absorbing power , at times generating power by inertia , constantly changing and so acting as a frequency stabiliser to a grid . Of course , it is a net power user but it is doing useful work in stabilising things . I think that is what Rud meant .

April 27, 2021 12:05 am

Concerning prediction:
The impossible happened – winter 1941/42. Eight decades ago, meteorology considered as impossible that after two of the extremes winters observed in Europe a third could follow. The chief adviser to Hitler, Franz Baur (1887-1977) did exactly this with the words: “Since in the history of the weather there have never been more than two severe winters in succession, the coming winter season of 1941/42 will be normal or mild”. The exact opposite happened. This winter was the beginning of the end of the German army in ice and snow deep in Russia. In late summer she had invaded Russia. The Baltic Sea had been made into a battle-field for the two navies, which contributed significantly to the extreme weather conditions. To cut a long story short, here is what the NYT reported already in early December 1941: “Nazis give up idea of Moscow in 1941. Winter forces abandoning big drives in the north until spring, Berlin says” (NYT, Dec. 09, 1941). Temperature and snow conditions became worse than the wildest imagination, lasting until spring. What is not known is that Hitler could only blame himself and his advisors for this enormous miscalculation. They had expected a mild winter. They had not learned anything from the previous two cold winters, and the role that naval war had played. Now the adverse had happened. The ‘great commander’, according to his own assessment, had shot himself in the foot. Thank heavens. The abandonment of the big drive in early December 1941 already marked the beginning of the end of the Third Reich, which unfortunately lasted until 1945. 
Neither Franz Bauer ever asked himself, why his prediction went so desperately wrong. This fault discredits him as serious scientists, but his colleagues as well, because the winter was man made and the general public has a right to know.  

The whole story at:

April 27, 2021 1:42 am

Thank you Anthony for the recent excellent posts by Rud and Willis.
I believe this site is heading in the right direction.
While everything climate can focus on the teaching of climate change, the recent posts by Willis and Rud have provided me with very useful ammunition for the fight against alarmists.

April 27, 2021 1:51 am

Thank you for the great information.
Your short sharp paragraphs are very helpful.
Is it possible to go one step further and develop clear indisputable sound bites for each topic.

Lars P.
April 27, 2021 3:42 am

@Rud: There are a couple of typos in the links included:

to problems with climate models and their predictions:

a) ‘fit for purpose’ of ARGO has link to :
correct link:

b) and Jason

Lars P.
April 27, 2021 3:54 am

Rud, there are small typos in the links included in the post, mostly missing the .com from the address, and a couple just missing or containing extra characters. I’ve put a couple of corrected links in a post but it stays in moderation… too many links included 🙂

April 27, 2021 4:31 am

The models are over 95% consistent in that their policy implications all converge on socialism.

April 27, 2021 4:58 pm

my 20 y.o. son introduced me to Derren Brown – I highly recommend his shows and books for entertainment and also education – I realised, after reading your column, that the CMIP is a variant of Derren’s ‘system’ for betting on the races : as pointed out in your article – the hind-casting by fitting parameters to a variable – sea temp or global temps – is exactly Derren’s method of ‘system betting’ ie a scam , where we don’t know which CMIP is the right one (none of them are) until we observe the variable – the central issue is how predictive is the particular CMIP : and the answer is not at all (for all of them), as they don’t actually predict (because they don’t model all of the variables to infinite precision and the relationships between variables are known only partially :

here is a link to a predictive debunk (pro Derren) of Derren’s system – which is very analagous to the CMIP scam

April 27, 2021 5:02 pm

re Derren Brown’s variant of the CMIP scam

here is a youtube of Derren explaining his ‘system’ which is very analogous to the CMIP method

April 27, 2021 11:39 pm

I’m trying to find a successful prediction from the Warmists. I tend to say “all their formal, substantial, measurable predictions have failed”, but I’m not sure that I am right about that. There might have been one that they got right, and if there is, I’d like to know.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights