WUWT Contest Winner, General Audience, 1st Place – “Is There Really a Climate Crisis?”

C.M. Compton

My discussion will be centered on two ideas. First, although global temperatures have risen since the turn of the 20th century, the current temperature regime does not represent anything unusual compared to the past. Second, despite media reports to the contrary, catastrophically rising temperatures in the coming decades are not likely to occur.

Let’s start the discussion about how our climate has changed over the years. We know the earth has had periodic ice ages that lasted up to 100,000 years or more with warmer inter-glacial periods in between. Here’s a chart from the Utah Geological Survey showing the cycle over the past 450,000 years.

That last sharp increase on the right side of the chart shows the end of the most recent glacial period called the Wisconsin Glaciation in North America. The swings in temperature from the bottoms to the tops of the cycles average about 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

Here are a few observations. First, it looks like the glacial periods are getting longer. Second, the current inter-glacial is about eight degrees cooler currently than the maximum temperature of the one preceding it. And finally, if we take closer look at the current inter-glacial, what do we see?

About five to ten thousand years ago it was about two degrees warmer than it is now. That period is known as the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

Now let’s take a closer look at the last 10,000 years. Here’s a chart presented in 2013 by ARD, Germany’s version of the BBC or our own PBS:

In this chart we see actually two Holocene Optima occurred between four thousand and eight thousand years ago. After the Holocene Optima there are cyclical fluctuations of warmer and cooler periods – including the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the current warming period that began around 1850.

Now there’s no question the earth has warmed since 1850, but that was after the Little Ice Age, so I think the warming was welcome. And from the ARD chart, it is clear that there were three comparably warm periods before our current warming period, and that the current warming period is dwarfed by the two Holocene temperature peaks.

In sum, I argue there is persuasive evidence that the current temperature regime is not unusual compared to historical norms. This is a good start but we need more information to inform policy decisions regarding climate change.

What about the warming since the turn of the 20th century? Let’s look at some passages from Meteorology Today. This textbook provides a wonderful perspective on the evolution of climatology because the first edition was published in 1982 and the most recent 13th Edition came out at the beginning of this year. This quote is from the Sixth Edition, published in 2000:

Indeed, because the interactions between the earth and its atmosphere are so complex, it is difficult to unequivocally prove that the recent warming trend has been due primarily to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. The problem is that any human-induced signal of climate change is superimposed on a background of natural climatic variations (“noise”) such as the El Niño-Southern oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. Moreover, in the temperature observations it is difficult to separate a signal from the noise of natural climate variability.

Notice the moderate stance with respect to the recent warming. Notice that the

authors of this text are not saying “The science is settled.” Far from it. Things change as the Seventh Edition was published in 2003. In the chapter on climate change the authors include the famous hockey stick chart, which turned the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into one long decline, followed by record high temperatures not seen in a thousand years:

This chart, which also appeared in the Third Annual Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, became very controversial. Indeed, in February 2005, an article published in Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union, concluded the following:

However, it has not been previously noted in print that, prior to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring networks, they carried out an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs.

Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue.

Pretty cool, right? Put in nearly random data and no matter what, it gets transformed into a hockey stick.

I am going to circle back to the Seventh Edition of Meteorology Today, the one that came out in 2003. The authors talk about many possible reasons why climate might change, like feedback mechanisms, plate tectonics, the earth’s orbit, aerosols in the atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, and variations in solar output.

They also wonder why the climate began to cool after 1940 and what caused the “exceptionally cold winters during the 14th and 19th centuries.” They also continue as they did in previous editions:

… it is important to realize that the interactions between the earth and its atmosphere are so complex that it is difficult to unequivocally prove that the warming trend during the past 100 years has been due primarily to increasing concentrations of greenhouses gases. The problem is that any human-induced signal of climate change is superimposed on a background of natural climatic variations (“noise”), such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. Moreover, in the temperature observations, it is difficult to separate a signal from the noise of natural climate variability.

However, today’s more sophisticated climate models are much better at filtering out this noise while at the same time taking into account those forcing agents that are both natural and human-induced.

It seems like the authors want to have it both ways. In the end, however, they defer to the climate models with a quote from the third IPCC report:

In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Just so you know, in the jargon of the IPCC, “likely” means greater than a 66% chance.

How can non-scientists evaluate the “complex climate models?” One way is to compare their projections to actual results. According to the Seventh Edition of Meteorology Today published in 2003, climate models were projecting temperature increases between 1.4°C and 5.8°C from 1990 to the year 2100. As it turns out, the actual global temperature rate of change through mid-2021 was slightly below the lower end of projected range.

Here’s another chart of data from NOAA that suggests the rate of change in temperature in the United States has been close to zero during the time since the 2003 edition of Meteorology Today was published:

So, what we see is little to no temperature increase in the United States over the past fifteen years, which is consistent with other unbiased regional temperature data. Moreover, the lack of a rising trend is probably not just happenstance.

Here’s an interesting chart:

Do you recall that we talked about climate models projecting global temperature increases between 1.4°C and 5.8°C in the 2003 edition of Meteorology Today?

Well, published estimates of the effect of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide have declined since then.

So, what’s a policy maker to do? Since global temperature sensitivity estimates for increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide have come down sharply in the past 15 years, and at the same time, considering that global temperatures have likely not changed substantially, and finally, since the current temperature regime

is not unusual compared to past regimes, I would argue that extreme responses to any perceived threat from our changing climate are not justifiable.

Policies proposed by the catastrophic global warming crowd will cost the United States jobs. Their solutions will not change our climate meaningfully. In short, if we follow their lead, we will be poorer, and the lower economic output will hurt the most vulnerable amongst us.

We don’t have to put people out of work in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and South

Dakota. We don’t have to curtail energy exploration in Alaska or cancel new pipelines. The reckless push towards “net-zero emissions” will only make us poorer and less secure.

What we should do is encourage research and development in the energy industry. We should continue our research in clean coal, and in cleaner ways to burn oil and natural gas. We should invest in nuclear energy, and in hydrogen as an energy source. And, yes, we should continue our research into renewables. If someone can solve the intermittency problem – that is, come up with a clean and efficient way to store energy – renewable energy like solar and wind will become much more valuable to us.

In sum, encouraging the energy industry to innovate will lead to a prosperous, clean and secure environment not only for us here in the United States but also for the world as a whole.

4.8 83 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 21, 2022 6:06 am

Nice primer on climate change.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 22, 2022 2:01 am

Not just nice, comprehensive. But it’s not enough. Until we can find some way to break the groupthink of politicians they will/would read it, dismiss it and go back to the hysteria.

They ignore the science. How can we counter such ignorance?


Reply to  Julian Flood
March 22, 2022 12:37 pm

They ignore the science. How can we counter such ignorance?

A question some of us have been asking for decades now.

My only encouragement over this time has been that they have, over the last decade or so, been running out of ‘scare’. We now, apparently, are in ‘climate emergency’. What’s next? What comes after ’emergency’? Imminent extinction?

The ‘end game’ I see is one where the nonsense simply runs out of steam.

You know it is a collective madness when the ‘Pod People’ were denouncing Hansen as a ‘denier’. All he suggested was that Nuclear was probably a big part of the answer.

Well done James, you started a cult and …

Hutches Hunches
Reply to  Julian Flood
March 22, 2022 3:28 pm

This current situation with “Climate Change: appears to be comparable to the 16th century Catholic Church banning Galileo for denying that the Earth was the center of the universe. Today’s dogma is that climate change is bad and we are responsible for it with our CO2 emissions. No matter how solid the science is to refute this claim, groupthink continues to capture the dim-wits in politics and academia in a bubble of ignorance they cannot break out of without admitting they were fooled. Hence this will not end until the economies of the free world are wrecked with idiotic climate policies, while China, India and the rest of the third world gain dominance, thumbing their noses at us. I have little doubt that it will require a crisis of monumental consequences for this to be just another historical blight on the human race.

March 21, 2022 6:21 am

Very good essay.

I really liked the quote from the 2003 Meterology Today article:

However, today’s more sophisticated climate models are much better at filtering out this noise while at the same time taking into account those forcing agents that are both natural and human-induced.

So in other words, the authors are merely asserting that their models are much better at “filtering out this noise”, which is their term for actual temperature data (whether measured or by proxy), and thus ignore the fact that prior fluctuations actually show a very strong signal of natural variation.

So by labeling the signal as “noise”, they conveniently ignore the signal that shows their models are all wrong.

See how they did that? The warmunists love to talk about “inconvenient truths”. As if. In the real world of empirical evidence, it’s called “propaganda” and “tricksterism”.

March 21, 2022 6:23 am

This was a fine pick, WUWT judges.

It doesn’t get too far into the weeds, and the charts C.M. Compton chose are some of the same charts I saw that led me to similar conclusions about CAGW, rebranded as unfalsifiable ‘Climate Change’.

The chart of past glacial and interglacial periods is one of the best to use to point out that nothing unusual is going on and that actually, if there’s any worry it should be about a cooling Earth on geological scales and not runaway global warming boiling away the oceans.

Good job, C.M. and good pick, judges.

Rick C
Reply to  H.R.
March 21, 2022 8:10 am

Agree. You could say that multiple lines of real world scientific evidence indicate that catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is bunk.

Robert Wager
Reply to  H.R.
March 21, 2022 8:29 am

I fear global cooling in the coming decades and the resulting drop in food production.

Reply to  Robert Wager
March 21, 2022 8:36 am

I fear the drop in food production this year as Russian fertilizer exports decline and the lack of Ukrainian planting.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Buckeyebob
March 21, 2022 10:39 am

We need to tap the DC sewers. We’ll get all the fertilizer we need.

Reply to  Robert Wager
March 21, 2022 4:19 pm

New indoor technology now in its infancy will revolutionize agriculture, I believe. Greater yield, better quality, year-round crops and little need for insecticides.

But dependent on energy and eventually better robotics.

Indoor Farming Technology | AgriTechTomorrow

It is an area I’m keeping a close eye on for investments.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  H.R.
March 21, 2022 9:11 am

Surprisingly, it only has a 4.8/5.0 rating by 19 people. Are the down votes our resident trolls who don’t like the message?

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 21, 2022 10:52 am

No but I suspect that putting the responsibility of R&D on the Energy Industry probably frosted some people. I submit to the writer that many gains in combustion efficiency have taken place, especially in residential HVAC.
I recall in the late 60s I worked for an Industrial Burner manufacturer that manufactured High Velocity Oil (#2) Burners that produced a BLUE flame with only 10% excess air. That is squeezing the high end efficiency with little else to gain. These burners fired our line of Industrial Test Equipment Heat Exchangers for the LNG and Aircraft Industries.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 21, 2022 12:55 pm

The message was all good until the author started waxing eloquent about how we should continue to waste our resources on “renewables” and hydrogen, which are jokes, not solutions to anything. I didn’t contribute to the rating, but gave my reaction above on the moment where the author goes off the rails.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 22, 2022 7:32 pm

I don’t disagree with you, AGW.

The first part pretty much puts paid to CAGW, rebranded as unfalsifiable ‘Climate Change’. C.M. presented simple, undisputed facts and evidence that it’s all a big nothingburger.

Part deux, what to do, is arguable. We will run out of fossil fuels eventually and have to move on to something else. That’s free-for-all-argument territory.

It would not surprise me to find that the solution will be something that’s not on anyone’s radar today, 2021.

So yeah, ding C.M. a couple of points, but the evidence he chose to put CAGW-runaway-global-warming-we’re-all-gonna-die! due to a 1.5C-rise in some nonexistent global temperature was really, really good.

I’m perfectly fine with high praise and a 4.something overall rating.

So..,. are we close to being on the same page, AGW? Feel free to argue. Smack me one and that’s good and fair. I didn’t quote anything you said.

Reply to  H.R.
March 22, 2022 7:34 pm

Hahahah!… 2021 above. It’s 2022 and so hard to let go, eh? When you’re retired, every day is Saturday.

Albert H Brand
March 21, 2022 6:40 am

Liquid batteries come to mind for storage. This is a an interesting development since according to the MIT professor who developed them they should have an almost infinite life since they completely reform every cycle and can go from 0 to 100 percent capacity. Operate at about 500 degrees however and can not be moved during operation. I believe the efficiency is 80%. First installation is in Los Vegas I believe. (250Mwh)

Reply to  Albert H Brand
March 21, 2022 6:50 am

Some promising claims, but I would bet that their life is not almost infinite. How much do they cost?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Albert H Brand
March 21, 2022 7:23 am

They are called redox flow batteries. There are several chemistries, all with significant problems. I reviewed what was available in 2014 in essay ‘California Dreaming’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.

Reply to  Albert H Brand
March 21, 2022 8:50 am

Where does the energy to keep them at 500 degrees come from?

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
March 21, 2022 9:57 am

The hot air from Capitol Hill, Westminster, Brussels and the UN building in New York.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
March 21, 2022 12:57 pm

Probably from natural gas burners underneath. LOL.

Reply to  Albert H Brand
March 21, 2022 10:50 am

Unfortunately they are still limited to storage of 2 to 10 hours of backup according to the Energy Storage Association. I believe that periods of darkness and lack of wind exceed those parameters.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Brad-DXT
March 21, 2022 12:57 pm

And how!

March 21, 2022 6:47 am

I believe it’s called “Crimate Clises”


David Dibbell
March 21, 2022 6:58 am

Well done, C.M. Compton. Not hard to follow your line of thinking.

Your reference to USCRN prompts me to pay a bit more attention to that data. Even though it is not a very long record, the siting and the equipment should enable direct trend analysis with no “adjustments.”

March 21, 2022 7:00 am

And, yes, we should continue our research into renewables. If someone can solve the intermittency problem – that is, come up with a clean and efficient way to store energy – renewable energy like solar and wind will become much more valuable to us.

Nothing wrong with rooftop solar in suitable environments as long as you don’t expect your neighbours to pay for your solar duck curve glut anymore than you pay for theirs. Use it yourself and the most economic use at present is heating a resistance storage HWS after prioritizing other household use-
Hot Water PV Diverter Comparison Table (solarquotes.com.au)

None of it needs taxpayer subsidy anymore than wind energy does if there’s a level playing field demanded for ALL tenderers of electrons to the communal grid. Namely unless you can reasonably guarantee supply 24/7/365 along with voltage and frequency (FCAS) then you can keep your fickle flaky electrons. It’s that simple but the dumbass watermelons won’t admit they overlooked the fallacy of composition and are desperately trying to disprove a fundamental axiom of engineering that you can’t make a reliable system from unreliable componentry.

Reply to  observa
March 21, 2022 7:55 am
jeffery p
Reply to  observa
March 21, 2022 8:01 am

“… we should continue our research into renewables …”

Research, yes. Deployment, no. Renewables are not ready for prime time.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  jeffery p
March 21, 2022 1:00 pm

Even research is a waste of money. Which is why every bit of the wind and solar “industries” live of government (that is to say, taxpayer) largesse.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 21, 2022 8:35 pm

We know what renewables are, research not needed.
Just batteries, storage
That should be focus of some research

March 21, 2022 7:10 am

The author nailed it by perfectly verbalizing and demonstrating the thoughts bouncing around my brain for years.

Lance Wallace
March 21, 2022 7:12 am

Excellent article. Did the original include references? For example, “Indeed, in February 2005, an article published in Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union…..”
I followed the MIchael Mann saga pretty closely but missed that article. Can the author supply?

If the essay were to have a longer life, could refs be included? Particularly needed for some of the figures.

Coach Springer
March 21, 2022 7:22 am

Pretty good work. Won’t overcome manipulation of the precautionary principle for demagogy, though.

March 21, 2022 7:35 am

Certainly an impressive and persuasive piece.

My basic point of skepticism about this whole subject though is still based upon the notion that the planet’s temperature can be distilled to one numerical construct of tens or hundredths of one degree C or F at any given time, and then we’re going to argue about whether there have been differences of less than 10% in these constructed values over periods of decades, centuries or millenia.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Mr.
March 21, 2022 9:37 am

They don’t even use temperatures, they use anomalies of a global average temperature. Which is quite ridiculous.

Reply to  Matt Kiro
March 21, 2022 12:48 pm

I’ve tried to understand the point of using temperature anomalies instead of temperature – period. Matt, can you let me know please, why anomalies are used.?

Reply to  Graham Lyons
March 21, 2022 1:14 pm

Because reporting that the world’s averaged temperature construct has increased by 0.8C (14.6 to 15.4) over 100 years doesn’t incite that much panic in anyone.

The most predictable reaction to such a revelation would be –

Reply to  Mr.
March 22, 2022 2:13 pm

Or, more realistically, increased from 300K to 300.8K. Double “meh!”

March 21, 2022 7:42 am

Excellent paper.
I’ve been “air sketching” these temperature oscillations to many. As I get to the “and now they’re trying to say it’s doing this!” as the trace zooms off the chart, wry smiles appear on their faces. Any child who has played on a swing set knows how pendulums work.

March 21, 2022 8:12 am

Very nice choice, and a worthy winner. Scientifically sound, but very accessible to the average guy who doesn’t read the fine detail.

A nice essay – well balanced, well researched, and most thoughtfully put together. Congratulations.

Robert Wager
March 21, 2022 8:27 am

I would add one graph. Put the rise in CO2 (percentage works) and UAH temperature rise since 2000. With ~10% CO2 rise and virtually zero temperature rise the jig is up.

March 21, 2022 8:40 am

Well done. Thank you.

Steve Case
March 21, 2022 8:44 am

Good essay, but this phrase set my teeth on edge:

I am going to circle back…

That’s the phrase that the Biden administration’s press secretary uses when she is stalling or has no intention of answering the question.

I am reminded of the events of September 11th when Todd Beamer on Flight 93 said “Let’s roll!” and a group of passengers rushed the hijackers and almost certainly saved the US Capitol. President Bush used the phrase “Let’s roll” and obviously wanted it to be a rallying cry. Our stinking news media turned their left wing liberal democrat noses up and studiously snubbed him on that.

Earlier this year I was on the phone with a contractor and he used the “Circle back” phrase and I told him, “You know, that’s what Biden’s press secretary says when she has no intention of answering the question.” He did call back and did the work.

And then there are the liberals who run the “Little Red Hen” restaurant that kicked Trump’s press secretary out as persona non grata in their establishment.

So, I am at odds with anyone who fawns over the current regime running the United States Government by buying into their attempts to create new buzz words and phrases.

End of rant, you can now wipe the spittle off your screens.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2022 1:46 pm

After you circle back, you promenade, then dosido, and swing your partner. Round and round you go.

Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2022 9:44 am

In terms of energy policy, I would first and foremost, bring coal back to the prominence it had before the War On Coal. We could call it the Make Coal Great Again MCGA) campaign. Never mind the “clean” nonsense. Modern coal-fired plants are clean and efficient. At the same time, bring nuclear back. Make the plants smaller, whatever has to be done so it doesn’t take a decade or more to build, and get rid of the roadblocks. Never mind the “renewables”. We don’t need to invest in unicorn farts and fairy dust. And what’s the big deal with hydrogen? It’s nonsense. There’s plenty of natural gas, and propane.

March 21, 2022 9:59 am

Suuper great post but needs some editing (large spaces halfway through paragraphs) !

Matt Dalby
March 21, 2022 10:15 am

Excellent precise summary of the science, however I disagree with some of the opinion at the end regarding future energy policy.
Firstly hydrogen is not an energy source, since it requires energy to produce it via electrolysis of water or steam reformation of natural gas. Therefore it can only ever be a form of energy storage and suffers from the fact that a lot of energy is lost in production and hydrogen is highly flammable, difficult to store due to the very small size of it’s molecules and has an energy density much lower than natural gas meaning a much greater volume needs to be stored. Therefore I don’t see how it can play any large scale part in a low cost energy system and governments shouldn’t waste money funding research into it.
Secondly even if the intermittency problem can be cheaply solved the amount of land and raw materials required for large scale deployment of renewables make them highly damaging to the natural world. I fail to see how they can have anything more than a niche role e.g. rooftop solar power in S.W. U.S.A. where strong sunlight in summer is more or less guaranteed and power can be stored for a few hours for when the sun sets but air conditioning is still needed. However this is still likely to be too expensive at least for the next decade or so governments shouldn’t waste money funding it or funding more research.
In my opinion industry will be happy to fund research into more efficient cleaner ways to burn fossil fuels, so the only area where government funding is needed is new nuclear technology including small modular reactors, thorium and nuclear fusion. Although I’m generally not in favour of too much government meddling in the free market I think energy policy is one exception given the strategic and national security issues involved if a country is highly dependent on energy imports. There’s also the long time periods involved in nuclear research and plant construction which mean that the private sector may be unwilling to invest heavily, preferring quicker returns from new fossil fuel projects despite the fact that nuclear may be a better (very) long term option.

Reply to  Matt Dalby
March 21, 2022 1:54 pm

Hydrogen is both an energy source and an energy storage mechanism. It can store electrical energy from the electrolysis of water, but it is also chemically separable from other compounds containing hydrogen without inputting electrical energy, and it can also be burned directly as in many rockets or even in just a burner mechanism.

So what if hydrogen is flammable – you think gasoline isn’t flammable? The flammability of hydrogen is actually much less of a problem than the flammability of gasoline. Gasoline fumes are much heavier than air, hence sink and concentrate to displace air in any compartment, such as the interior of a motor vehicle, whereas hydrogen gas is much lighter than air and immediately dissipates upwards and outwards when released. The Hindenberg accident is often used to disparage hydrogen vehicles as “unsafe”, but the Hindenberg was a huge hydrogen envelope at near atmospheric pressure which was ripped by an explosion, introducing just enough atmospheric oxygen to support combustion. Despite the huge fire relatively few occupants in the passenger compartment suffered fatal burns. In a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle or aircraft, the hydrogen is contained within a high pressure fuel tank that atmospheric air cannot enter until it’s empty of hydrogen … and any and all hydrogen released in a leak or breach will, as I wrote before, instantly dissipate to below its lower explosive limit outside of the hydrogen fuel tank.

March 21, 2022 10:16 am

We need better contrarians.

The Dark Lord
March 21, 2022 10:34 am

renewable energy like solar and wind” more like replaceable energy harvesting tools … which have a limited amount of resources available to build with … so they too will soon run out …

Bill Parsons
March 21, 2022 11:01 am

Thanks for the article, CM Compton. Well done.

Bill Parsons
March 21, 2022 11:03 am

Why are “Guest Bloggers” not identified by name on your home page?

March 21, 2022 11:43 am

This essay is a good articulation of the common sense arguments from climate history and attribution. A good expose of the fraudulent “ironing flat” of climate history to avoid the implications of the reality of substantial climate variability on many timescales. Especially the disgraceful hockey stick by Mann and accomplices.

Climate change is normal and not a crisis.

Peter Fraser
March 21, 2022 11:56 am

Should be part of every secondary school science syllabus

March 21, 2022 12:04 pm

Outstanding. Short, direct, no hyperbole and most important of all the average Joe can understand it. I can’t emphasize this enough, the average Joe needs to be informed/educated on this matter. Experts and professionals can engage in endless pissing matches with one another talking above our heads but none of that approaches the effectiveness of work like this. Until you show the average Joe that he/she is being bamboozled you are swimming against the stream. Convince Joe and he will tell Mann and his kind to shove it. It is what the climate alarmists have done and the only reason they have been successful. Their success damn sure hasn’t come from their work, WUWT has proved that time and again.

March 21, 2022 12:44 pm


March 21, 2022 1:51 pm

The reckless push towards “net-zero emissions” will only make us poorer and less secure.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, because I think it bears repeating.

People who want to lower your standard of living are not your friends.

Julian Flood
March 21, 2022 3:06 pm

Does anyone know the lake in the header picture? If so, why does its surface have such interesting textures?


Reply to  Julian Flood
March 21, 2022 3:47 pm

I don’t know where it is but I do water-ski and the surface “textures” are most likely to be caused by air movements above the otherwise very flat water surface.

Julian Flood
Reply to  JMarkW
March 21, 2022 11:04 pm

So it’s some area smooth and some areas rippled. Then the question becomes why does the wind engage with the surface in some areas and not in others.

Benjamin Franklin, that early great American scientist, demonstrated the reason in an experiment in the UK. Guugle Franklin, Mount Pond. He spilled a tiny amount of light oil on the pond and smoothed it all.

Our civilisation is doing Franklin’s experiment all over the world – see the outdated but all I can find data from SeaWifs which gives some idea of this.

Sometimes the textures are caused by variations in wind speed, but more often it is a molecule – thick layer of light oil or surfactant suppressing wavelet formation.

Incidentally, a smoothed water surface has a lower albedo than ruffled and evaporation, a cooling mechanism, is reduced. The body of water will warm a little faster.

I call it ALW, anthropogenic local warming.


John Hultquist
Reply to  Julian Flood
March 21, 2022 8:14 pm

The internet, never wrong, thinks it is Hallstatt lake, Austria.Lat/Lon 47.554, 13.651
Looking East from a small island

Julian Flood
Reply to  John Hultquist
March 21, 2022 11:15 pm

Thanks. Very clean place, Austria, but I’ll bet the villages on the shores are leaking oil./surfactant onto the water, and I bet no-one even notices.

The most amusing smooth I’ve seen is in an image of Broad Lake in the grounds of the UEA, one of the homes of climate hysteria. If, as I suspect, pollution smoothing causes warming it will be very amusing that the panic-mongers had an example of ALW (Anthropogenic Local Warming) on their doorstep.


March 21, 2022 3:51 pm

–In sum, encouraging the energy industry to innovate will lead to a prosperous, clean and secure environment not only for us here in the United States but also for the world as a whole.–

What US has done to encourage the energy industry, has not worked for least last two decades. US is “behind” South Korea in terms of nuclear power. [The whole world is, but it
seem all South Korea did was look at how other countries did it- so just didn’t screw up as bad, mainly]. US government [and most governments] are in the way. If encouraging means stop wrecking the energy industry- I guess, one could call that “encouraging”.

I think the best thing for US government to do, in terms of energy, is get NASA to explore the Lunar polar region for mineable water, then quickly start exploring Mars. And exploring Mars is also exploring for Mars mineable water {Mars water needs to be about 1/100th of price per kg or per million tons]. Or Lunar water is worth a lot more per kg. And Mars water will have to be hundreds of times more expense then what pay for water on Earth- but eventually it could be about as cheap as water on Earth- If there is going to be towns/cities on Mars. Or there is more than mineable Mars water to explore on Mars, to determine, if and how people can live on Mars.

March 21, 2022 5:33 pm

The watermelons are beginning to crack with the obvious cost of their unreliable prescriptions-
Johnson announces aim for UK to get 25% of energy from nuclear power (msn.com)
Following on from Macron’s push for more nukes-
France announces plans to build up to 14 nuclear reactors – CNN
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine under cover of the EU’s reliable energy vulnerability has them scrambling to fix their renewables lies and stupidity.

Janice Moore
March 21, 2022 8:01 pm

Congratulations, Mr. or Ms. Compton. Except for your plug for “renewables,” your essay was excellent, persuasively arguing one wooden-stake-to-the-heart, point with highly probative, easily grasped, evidence.

I hope (unlike the two professional winners) that you will appear here to reply to, defend against, and acknowledge the observations, criticisms (where worthy of a response), and accolades you have received.

Don’t be shy!

We are (mostly 🙂 ) your allies for truth.

Most of us really liked what you wrote!


If NONE of the 4 winners appear…… one wonders why….. I write this not to complain, but only to get the issue out there for discussion.

I realize that we cannot conclude with high certainty anything about the “why did NONE of the winners appear?” question.

Just wanted a potential “elephant in the room” talked about, instead of pretending no one is noticing it….

David Hawkins
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 22, 2022 2:50 am

I am a constant reader of Watts Up With That, but rarely post comments. I am keenly looking forward (for personal reasons) to the publication of the second place winner of the General Category. 😉 (Non-elephant)

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Hawkins
March 22, 2022 10:02 am

Hooray! Good for you, O Author of Merit 🙂

I am looking forward to it, too.

John Hultquist
March 21, 2022 8:29 pm

An edit for WordPress would be nice. As for content it is good;
although I would word some things differently, for example:
” . . . I would argue that extreme responses to any perceived threat from our changing climate are not justifiable.”
The “would” is better gone. And why have any response to a perceived threat?

The idea for the contest is worthwhile.
WUWT gets a gold star.

Janice Moore
Reply to  John Hultquist
March 21, 2022 9:35 pm

Hi, John,

Good writing style advice above. So good, in fact, that (along with many examples of fine writing and a broad knowledge of literature, my favorite example of THAT being your Milton quote in April, 2013 🙂 ), I feel quite certain that you are an expert… .


Re: The WordPress Edit Tool

When I use my laptop to comment, in the lower, right, corner of the comment box (after posting the comment) is a gray “gear”/tool symbol. It is invisible until your cursor hovers over it. Left click on the little gray “gear” to transform your comment’s box back into a writeable/editable form.

DO NOT REFRESH THE PAGE until you have proofread. Once you refresh the page, 😞 no more editing possible.

If I misunderstood you and you didn’t need all that about editing, please pardon the little teaching session.

I hope some fiddle playing is in your future. Hope all is well with you and Nancy.

Happy Spring from west of the mountains!

Yours gratefully,


Michael Elliott
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 22, 2022 3:56 am

A very good article.

The only way to make a politician think that his policy is wrong, is to make him realise that his well paid job is in danger.

It will take a major failure of the Grid to do that, something that cannot be covered up by such things as a “” Once in a hundred year” storm.

South Australia is a perfect example.
We have about 45 % renewables, & are using diesal electric generators to keep it all working.

Our politicians need a big shock to make them act. At 95 I hope that I am still around to see it happen.

Michael VK5ELL

D Boss
March 22, 2022 3:35 am

While compelling to intellectually sound and honest persons, it is useless to proffer this kind of argument. Stupid people are more dangerous than malicious or evil ones, and most who have swallowed this climate change narrative follow this model:


Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity”Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued that stupid people are more dangerous than evil ones. This is because while we can protest against or fight evil people, against stupid ones we are defenseless — reasons fall on dead ears. Bonhoeffer’s famous text, which we slightly edited for this video, serves any free society as a warning of what can happen when certain people gain too much power.”

March 22, 2022 4:00 am

There would appear to be an intellectual crisis. Carbon based organisms living on a carbon based planet trying to reduce carbon. Suicide anyone?

Reply to  VOWG
March 26, 2022 6:19 am

Sure looks like that is what the idiots are proposing for the future. I’m not a “scientist”, but even I know better that ya can’t eliminate carbon and keep existing.
Wasn’t that in an elementary school class or something? Even the smoke the “crisis” folks are attempting to blow up our backsides has to have an element of carbon in it. Right?

Verified by MonsterInsights