Open Thread

Saturday am thoughts.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 26, 2022 2:07 am

Four years from now parents will be using pics of Biden and Harris to scare their kids into being good, “Behave or we’ll bring them back.”


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
March 26, 2022 2:39 am

Four? Why not Two?

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
March 26, 2022 5:14 am

commie harris will be the prez 2 yrs from now, role model for all the little p brains

March 26, 2022 2:30 am

How do we convince the scientific illiterates that there is no climate emergency? Especially those in politics?

Coach Springer
Reply to  Sarag
March 26, 2022 5:12 am

Take away their money and power? The science is now simply a demagogic tool.

Reply to  Sarag
March 26, 2022 5:16 am

can’t be done unless you/we have enough money to bust up the msm monopoly on propaganda, and you/we don’t and won’t

Reply to  meiggs
March 26, 2022 5:29 am

MSM includes skeptical sources, like Fox News, New York Post and the Washington Examiner. Plus MSM is far from the only source of info. Skeptics dominate talk radio and the blogosphere.

Richard M
Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 9:37 am

We need to get these sources mentioning the findings of Miskolczi 2010. Not the full paper, just the part on Radiation Exchange Equilibrium (REE), Figure 3 and how this scientifically falsifies the enhanced greenhouse effect.

As far as I can tell almost no skeptical scientists understand these implications. They still except the impossible 3.7 W/m2 of downwelling radiation (1.16 C warming).

By getting this news out we could initiate the spread of the this information across social media.

Reply to  Richard M
March 27, 2022 9:53 am

Posting your laughably ridiculous pseudo-scientific clap trap here on WUWT, too, eh, Richard M. … aka “Rich the Idiotbot”? OMG LOL.

Miskolczi 2010 was “published”, if you can even legitimately call it that, in the bargain basement trash bin of the scientific literature. It was immediately ridiculed and then ignored by essentially the entire worldwide scientific community, because it was, and still is, nothing but pure nonsense.

But that’s the kind of “information” you ignorantly pretend is (ha ha ha ha ha!) “valid” while at the same time you disingenuously ignore all the *real* research published in the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.

Time to face reality, Idiotbot crackpot: you’re nothing but a joke. A total joke.

Reply to  David Wojick
March 27, 2022 8:47 am

Yes there are these sources but how many watch /read them and if they do how many of those understand the implications. WE HAVE TO GET IN THE SCHOOLS OR IN 10 OR SO YEARS NOTHING WE PROVE WILL MATTER.

Reply to  Sarag
March 26, 2022 5:25 am

Polls already find that roughly half of Americans do not accept AGW as a threat. We are half way there.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 6:39 am

The problem as you know is to get people to seek out and actually contemplate opposing view points. About one-third of people cannot be brought to reason with anything except emotion. We may be one-half way there, if by there you mean unanimity, but perhaps cannot ever get beyond half-way.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 26, 2022 11:18 am

In fact half way is enough to keep the alarmists largely at bay politically. I was kidding about half way. Climate alarmism looks like a permanent issue, like gun control, where nothing much ever happens. I am okay with that nuisance.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 27, 2022 8:50 am

We may be half now but see my reply above to David.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 27, 2022 3:44 pm

I’d argue that about 70% of the population doesn’t pay attention to much of anything discussed by politicians until there is an effect in their wallets.

If they can’t afford to heat, eat, or drive, that will command their attention. And we’re certainly getting there on all three counts.

Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 12:38 pm

The important thing is which half, David. If the half that back climate action are the ones with power and the ones who make the decisions then we’re screwed!

Rich Davis
Reply to  David Wojick
March 27, 2022 3:39 pm

I agree. Lots of low information voters just blithely accept the idea that windmills and solar panels are the solution, without having any real curiosity about whether they’re technically feasible. They hear that it’s cheaper than coal, so why not?

When their actual monthly electric bill is $500/month and yet there are blackouts, there won’t be more than 10% of the population loony enough to keep supporting ruinables. And how can that be avoided if fossil fuels are cut back (never mind eliminated)?

Pipe dreams like net zero are only politically viable while in the proposal stage. The more unreliables are relied upon, the more it will become obvious that the promises have been lies.

Reply to  Sarag
March 26, 2022 7:43 am

People are simply not curious.

Americans insist upon a FREE MEDIA, but how few bother to read what it produces?

Most authoritarian regimes go to great lengths to hide the truth from their people, but in the United States they allow the truth to exist right out in the open, relying on lack of curiosity, lack of education and emotion and distraction to do the rest.

Last edited 6 months ago by Anon
Paul S.
Reply to  Anon
March 26, 2022 10:17 am

“but in the United States they allow the truth to exist right out in the open”.
I disagree, big tech censors the truth and congress allows them to do so

Reply to  Paul S.
March 26, 2022 11:21 am

Their censorship, while vile, is not very effective. For example, here we are.

The idea that most people accept climate alarmism is simply false.

Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 1:52 pm

The idea that most people accept climate alarmism is simply false.

I’ve said it before – I think it’s more ingrained than those around here seem to believe. It’s a regular topic in magazines covering topics from construction to homesteading to woodworking. And it’s simply accepted as fact.

Reply to  TonyG
March 27, 2022 8:53 am

Yep, may adults over 40 have seen the light, but younger and ‘all ‘ students have been force fed the cool aid for 20 years.

John Power
Reply to  Sarag
March 27, 2022 5:01 pm

Sarag asks:
“How do we convince the scientific illiterates that there is no climate emergency? Especially those in politics?”
What objective, non-technical reasons do we have for believing that there is no climate emergency?
Answer this question and I think we might also have a practical answer to Sarag’s one.

March 26, 2022 2:38 am

Why isn’t the very real crisis of environmental destruction along our Southern Border caused by illegal immigration a focus of our self appointed guardians of the planet?

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
March 26, 2022 5:17 am

cuz they don’t care about that, the s border invasion is a part of their globalist agenda

March 26, 2022 2:38 am

Some Germans are in sydney, asutralia disrupting the ports and the supply chain in the name of climate change after traveling half way around the world. According to the news the government has arrested them and deport them back to Germany .If those kids are serious they should be ask to swim all the way back to Germany. Instead of showing for their cause they are simply showing their hierocracy.

March 26, 2022 2:50 am

Hi All,

I happened to reread Margaret Atwood’s “Oryx and Crake”, a novel published in 2003 which poses an incredibly dystopian future through the misuse of genetic manipulation and the division within society of a scientific elite and the “Peebs” – basically everyone else. What struck me quite strongly was how much of it’s time that novel was, and how our fears of transgenic organisms etc has diminished considerably since then. So we have a situation where the public probably quite broadly distrusted the scientists (and the corporations) engaged in this work, and now appear relatively more sanguine. How did this happen?. One area that the protagonists for genetic manipulation seem to have had some success is in the production of scientifically appropriate websites with a high standard of journalism with the Genetic Literacy Project springing to mind. The MSM also seems to have taken a more tolerant view over the last number of years.
I believe that much of the antagonism to GM foods stemmed from a distrust of large corporations, so in that sense it was something of a darling of the left.

It would be interesting to invite comments related to how this was achieved, and whether this has any relevance to the current debate between climate alarmists and climate realists.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Gordo
March 26, 2022 4:26 am

Personally I think the whole hatred of GM stemmed from the patenting of forms of life, and the consequent legal harassment of usually poor independent farmers. Monsanto were clearly an evil company at the forefront of this drive to patent life and create a monoploy of conventional seeds. Their interests in herbicides and so forth clearly were again liable to corruption and regulatory capture. But never mind, apparently that good and kind Bill Gates is now at the helm.

Reply to  Gordo
March 26, 2022 5:07 am

I can’t say for sure, but I suspect the signing of the Roberts-Stabenow Act by Obama in 2016 knocked the wind out of a lot of sails:

If one knows anything at all about DNA, it was obvious that the whole anti-GMO movement was a pile of crap, so definitely major similarities, fueled by similar or the same crackpots.

Reply to  Gordo
March 26, 2022 5:20 am

simple, gotta eat and if GM is all that is on the menu, what’s not to like?

Reply to  meiggs
March 26, 2022 6:40 am

Gordo asks a great question, but yes, it would seem that realty rules and something gives.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Gordo
March 26, 2022 10:16 am

You can go back and read Asimoz from the 1950s and find many of the same themes. His Caves of Steel, detective series with Bailey and Daneel are almost prophetic. Asimov wasn’t dystopian though, much more hopeful of the human desire for freedom . Maybe because he fled Russia. Some things never change.

March 26, 2022 2:51 am

Great Barrier Reef authority confirms unprecedented sixth mass coral bleaching event | Great Barrier Reef | The Guardian

Great Barrier Reef authority confirms unprecedented sixth mass coral bleaching event
Aerial surveys show almost no reefs across a 1,200km stretch escaping the heat, prompting scientists to call for urgent action on climate crisis

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
March 26, 2022 3:48 am

Once again, quoting garbage from the grauniad. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, Jennifer Marohasy surveys the GBR:

“Much of Pixie Reef, did look bleached from a drone at 120 metres up, which is about the altitude that Terry Hughes flies when he undertakes his surveys out the window of the airplane.

comment image

Can you see me? I’m floating above Pixie Reef looking at the most beautiful corals, just to the south of the boat – in red bathers. Much of this photograph shows what looks likes bleached corals, but that is the reef crest and those corals have been dead since sea levels started to fall a couple of thousand years ago! It is the case that sea levels were about 1.5 metres higher during a period known as the Holocene High Stand.
When you get down to Earth and under-the-water, well Pixie Reef was magnificently healthy. I am going to visit it again, soon, to check how it is this year.”

Aerial surveys or diver’s photographs.. which do YOU believe?

Jay Willis
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
March 26, 2022 4:21 am

🙂 nice one, right handed shark.

Who you gonna believe? The official narrative, or your own lying eyes?

Reply to  Jay Willis
March 26, 2022 1:59 pm

If you choose not to look, you don’t have to worry about seeing anything that contradicts the narrative.

Howard Dewhirst
Reply to  griff
March 26, 2022 4:58 am

so this confirms the UN’s threat to remove the special status of the GBR because it is dying? And hasn’t this been the coldest summer for many years? Caused by the approx 4 ppm rise in CO2 since the bush fires?
whatever has happened it is not unprecedented

Reply to  griff
March 26, 2022 5:24 am

Still quoting the Slavery Grauniad


Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
March 26, 2022 6:11 am

Can a “sixth” event be correctly called “unprecedented”? What were the other five?

Last edited 6 months ago by Joao Martins
Smart Rock
Reply to  Joao Martins
March 26, 2022 9:22 am

“Unprecedented” has been over-used for years in the annals of climate as documented by the mainstream media. It is now roughly synonymous with “exceeding anything seen since last Tuesday”.

Reply to  griff
March 26, 2022 6:29 am

Atolls are growing, you know, because of corals.
Corals are able to change their algae, in dependance of temperature…

Last edited 6 months ago by Krishna Gans
joe x
March 26, 2022 3:14 am

just when i thought there might be a shred of decency from a member of of the us senate joe manchin says he will vote to confirm brown to scotus. i wonder what sinema will do.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  joe x
March 26, 2022 10:19 am

I guess coal and pedos are okay with Manchin. For some reason I don’t think the coal miner’s think the same thing.

March 26, 2022 4:32 am

I am posing my problem to the climate fans here, as I did to Rick, on a previous thread.

Thanks very much for the reply. As far as I know, they measure the temperature of the waters about a foot beneath the surface, especially in the reports that I quoted in table 2. (Click on my name to find the relevant report, click on the result in the table to see its origin).

If you look at my table 1 of same report of mine, you will see that the amount of heat coming in (Tmax) is actually higher in the SH than in the NH. Yet Tmin is going down in the SH and it is going up in the NH. This is important information that you will find nowhere but from me.
The warming of the oceans per latitude is observed as being 0.70 (@90) , 0.53 (@58), 0.30 (@52), 0.17 (@90 to 0), 0.09 (0 to -90), 0.045 (@-90,= my estimate from the trend) in K/decade (@ degrees latitude)
Do you not see a clear trend here?

Clearly, that what is putting up Tmin in the NH is coming from its surrounding waters. Simple logic. One does not have to make the weather more complicated than what it is. Earth itself is doing some heating itself?
Logic also tells me that at least half of the heat generated from around the equator is going south, simply because of the temperature differential (The south pole is colder than the north pole)
Hence, the extra heat that we see at the north pole is coming from somewhere else than the sun or mankind…
Why is it so difficult for people to see this?
(click on my name)

Reply to  HenryP
March 26, 2022 5:01 am

So, sorry. My name was linked to a wrong report there.
This is the report I am referring to:
Who or what turned up the heat? | Bread on the water

(My apologies to Bob Tisdale, I used a phrase in my report that he has also used in the past. I hope you don’t mind?)

Reply to  HenryP
March 26, 2022 7:14 am

Lot’s of good information there to digest, HenryP.

Let’s say there is a seesaw effect between N and S, which could be due to oceanic circulation, orbital mechanics, or some other reason, this could for a period of time change the symmetry of flow of heat.

Also, PV=nRT applies but n is not constant with respect to the atmosphere mainly because of the variability of humidity, even though on an absolute scale it only varies by two or three percent.

We all know that water is the most important GHG, a fact that is mainly dismissed by the establishment. And water is the magic molecule on all scales, not CO2.

H2O makes clouds, precipitation in addition to ice (solid), which is less dense than its liquid. At the macro scale, it covers 70% of earth’s surface. If one simplefied the earth to be represented by a refrigerator, water would clearly be the refrigerant and more, ice maker input, dispenser, etc.

But the outlet from which the main power of the refrigerator is derived is still most important.

Reply to  Scissor
March 26, 2022 7:59 am

As I said:
The warming of the oceans per latitude is observed as being 0.70 (@90) , 0.53 (@58), 0.30 (@52), 0.17 (@90 to 0), 0.09 (0 to -90), 0.045 (@-90,= my estimate from the trend) in K/decade (@ degrees latitude)

Due to water/ humidity / clouds?
Due to the sun?
Due to earth?

Which of the three is the most obvious?

Reply to  HenryP
March 26, 2022 9:05 am

I don’t necessarily agree, i.e., I’m not convinced. That could be because I haven’t spent enough time trying to understand your argument.

In any case, we don’t agree with IPCC who seems to think everything cancels out except for the non-water greenhouse gases, especially CO2.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  HenryP
March 26, 2022 10:23 am

Perhaps the Earth’s position around the sun during the summer periods for the NH and SH?
That one seems to jump out at me. But there is a lot more ocean in the SH to warm too

Reply to  HenryP
March 27, 2022 12:42 am

There are long term trends in solar insolation that relate predominantly to the precession cycle.

This is a good article from NASA that gives an indication of the significance of orbital geometry:
The orbiting satellite is not directly related to Earth but it gives some dimensions to the changes in Earths solar input during its annual orbit.

It makes the point that the insolation that the satellite is exposed to ranges from 1414W/sq.m down to 1322W/sq.m resulting in peak temperature of 77C. Most people do not understand the reason for this. Some dismiss it because they know that when the solar input is highest, the orbital speed is faster so the yearly energy uptake is the same for both NH and SH. However the intensity varies dramatically and it is the intensity that counts. Earths spends 5 days less in the near sun orbit than the far sun orbit to collect the same amount of energy. The intensity has to make up for that shorter time.

Perihelion last occurred before the Austral summer solstice about 500 years ago. Since then, the SH has been getting less sunlight and the NH more. This gradual change causes climate change. These long term trends are discernable.

The idea that deep ocean warming observed over the past 60 years is related to surface radiative imbalance is the result of lazy thinking. It is literally impossibly to warm deep oceans in a matter of decades from surface heating. The only way to get more heat into deep oceans in that time is to slow net evaporation – transfer of water from oceans to land. That has been observed and is the result of land in the NH warming while oceans in the southern hemisphere are getting LESS sunshine so are WARMING up as net evaporation declines. Less water is converging to the northern land masses.

The surface temperature of global oceans is completely out of phase with their net energy uptake. That data is all detailed here:

The missing heat from some speculated radiation imbalance is not in the oceans. Ocean heat retention has increased because net evaporation is slowing down.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 4:01 am

You are one of the few that have ever mentioned a variation of insolation on the earth. This occurs not only from the earth’s orbit but because of the shape and rotation. An average just doesn’t do justice to how the radiation from the sun is distributed across the earth and how it affects temperature. Something about Simpson’s Paradox and spurious trends when doing averaging and linear trending?

Reply to  RickWill
March 27, 2022 7:41 am

Hi Rick

The problem was this:

The warming of the oceans per latitude is observed as being 0.70 (@90) , 0.53 (@58), 0.30 (@52), 0.17 (@90 to 0), 0.09 (0 to -90), 0.045 (@-90,= my own estimate from the observed trend) in K/decade (@ degrees latitude)

The question was why the trend is going down as it does, seemingly directly related to latitude. In short, Rick, what you are saying is that it is or must be due to the sun.

In the report that I have published, I also show the results of my own data set, that includes Tmax and Tmin.
Tmean (global) basically was the same result as what Spencer was getting, i.e. 0.126K/decade. Not bad for a sample of only 54 weather stations, balanced on latitude.

Although there is a difference in the Tmax between Nh and Sh in absolute terms (mostly higher in the Sh), the rate by which it falls, due to reduced solar activity, both in the Sh and the Nh, is almost exactly the same.
See fig 4 of my report:

Hence, the sun is out….

Reply to  HenryP
March 27, 2022 7:57 am

Mind you.
I thought some of you might come up with the idea of polar amplification?
How does that work and why does it not work in Antarctica?

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 26, 2022 5:18 am

A strong Arctic front is moving eastward over the Great Lakes. Temperatures (C) are dropping rapidly.comment image

Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 26, 2022 6:42 am

Models tell us, we are, in Germany, awaiting snow, frozen rain and rain around first of April, the last two weeks were sunny and warm.

Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 26, 2022 6:51 am

The front has passed my home. It turning cold with NW breeze. Only on mid-teens tomorrow.

Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 26, 2022 9:09 am

Very warm here in the Front Range of Colorado.

Supposed to be in the low 70’s today. It’s nice that at the moment its warmer outside than inside my house, so I just opened a patio door and the birds are singing gloriously.

There is that one dog of the neighbor’s who barks too often.

Richard Page
Reply to  Scissor
March 26, 2022 9:29 am

Huh. My neighbours dog is really quiet almost every day, then decides to go batshit crazy at about 2.30-3.00am several times a week. Bloody annoying.

Reply to  Richard Page
March 26, 2022 9:34 am

That’s worse. It’s quiet here all of the sudden. Quite nice.

Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 26, 2022 9:15 am

Apart from the corner near Zugspitze (Northern Alps, ~ 3,000 m), no snow predicted anywhere. Here is a prediction for a night in Germoney in the period from 26.03 till 08.04:

comment image

Models are models are models, they love to say here.

Last edited 6 months ago by Bindidon
Reply to  Bindidon
March 26, 2022 9:36 am

More important, some good beer is produced within the region represented by that map.

Reply to  Bindidon
March 26, 2022 10:12 am

As climate models, no further value 😀

Reply to  Bindidon
March 26, 2022 10:14 am
Last edited 6 months ago by Krishna Gans
Elle Webber
Reply to  Bindidon
March 26, 2022 1:20 pm

But snow is predicted in Germany by next weekend. Which is April, well past spring equinox. How about you show us your weather map again on April 2 or 3?

Reply to  Elle Webber
March 26, 2022 3:06 pm

I linked the actual model weather forecasts, what will happen, we’ll see… 😀

March 26, 2022 5:21 am

CLINTEL president calls for engineers to lead us out of the energy mess
By David Wojick

The beginning:

Professor Guus Berkhout has published a challenge to the engineering community, to step up and make the Western energy transition work. He emphasizes that reliable and affordable energy is the key to future prosperity and well-being. So, if the transition fails then the Western world will fall back into poor economies without any power and authority. His opening call is pointed and clear:

“Experienced Engineers must take the lead in the Energy Transition. Green politicians made a big mess of the energy transition and climate scientists encouraged them with their computer models. Putin and Xi JinPing must have watched the self-destruction of the Western World with utter amazement and gratitude. Experienced engineers must pick up the pieces soonest.”

Berkhout says there are actually three distinct challenges, all engineering intensive. One is developing the technology needed for adaptation to climate change, whatever the cause of this change. The second is designing and building the energy transition by making use of the unlimited human intelligence. The third is focusing on measurement technologies that are desperately needed to advance climate science.

He also addresses engineering education, saying “Today’s technical universities have a great responsibility to educate the new generation of engineers. Without them, there will be no sustainable future.”

Lots more in the article. Please share it.

Let the engineers be heard.

Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 5:53 am

Energy transition to what? It is quite clear that sun and wind won’t do it.

Reply to  DHR
March 26, 2022 9:37 am

It’s really the conversion (transfer) of wealth via words.

Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 6:17 am

Engineers are given real world problems to solve. When the objective is to build a hospital, and people are going to die if the power goes out, you can’t be fantasizing about how a windmill or solar panels could do the job. The backup batteries will be for starting the diesel generator.

Richard Page
Reply to  DMacKenzie
March 26, 2022 9:32 am

You want an Irish Engineer. Like an Irishman giving directions: “You want to get to where? Well I really wouldn’t start from here, if I was you!”

Reply to  DMacKenzie
March 27, 2022 11:53 am

Years ago a student came into the lab for a scheduled experiment in the morning looking rough. She said, no she was not sick. She had been on night shift in the NICU. The power had gone out at the Children’s and the backup generators did not start. They had 5 babies on ventilators and 6 nurses. Five pumped the babies for over 2 h while the other looked after the whole ward. They did not lose a baby. This was a freek, not bad maintenance. Imagine having to be prepared for something like this all the time.

Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 9:13 am

Engineers need money. I don’t know when this debt bomb is going to blow, but the fuse is burning away. If anything is unsustainable, it’s global debt. Something has to give.

Reply to  Scissor
March 26, 2022 10:14 am


Reply to  Derg
March 26, 2022 10:48 am

That’s easy to see and understand, but how long and how negative can real rates go? When does Weimar II occur?

Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 9:29 am

Unfortunately, terribly misguided. This has been a real frustration for me.
Before you decide I am just trolling you, allow me to explain.

Her is where the trouble begins:
Berkhout says there are actually three distinct challenges, all engineering intensive. One is developing the technology needed for adaptation to climate change

You want to jump right in with the engineering, but there is nothing for the engineers to work with. Also you have unstated assumptions that there is the science behind this, and it can, in principle, work. Both are wrong.

To illustrate, allow me to use nuclear power as an example of a new development and outline the steps which were needed to make it happen.
1) Theory: Somebody gets a bright idea, split the atom to get useful power.
2) Theoretical, or pure research: Note Einstein’s famous equation: E=MC^2. Select candidate elements, the heavier, the better.
3) Applied research: Take candidate elements, learn how to split them. Build test reactors, take measurements, collect data. Verify theory!
4) Engineering: Now is the time, build practical working power reactors.

See the problem? There is no applied research which even in theory provides a new energy source. None whatsoever.

Recent attempts:
1) Cold fusion: Nice try, did not pan out.
2) Hydrino power: Theoretically bogus. It turns out the big proponent of Hydrinos was a scam artist looking to fleece gullible investors.

“developing the technology”
The technology of what, exactly? What theory, what science, what basic principles?
The is none. None, none, none.
So what do the advocates suggest?
Just set the engineers to work on the problem, they will solve the problem.
Easy, breezy.
Sorry, things do not work that way.

Reply to  TonyL
March 26, 2022 10:13 am

There have been hundreds of Solyndra’s. They want more, not from the benefit of engineering solutions but for the mechanism to launder money.

The power, banking and insurance industries already have ample reason to address the needs of the marketplace. The government should just let them, after serious review of all lobbying efforts involved.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TonyL
March 26, 2022 12:40 pm

The engineers have their hands tied if they are told to make a transition to wind and solar. It is the unexamined assumptions that usually gets one into trouble.

Reply to  TonyL
March 27, 2022 9:26 am

Agree, the Clintel advice is classic jump in with both feet and do something. He assumes he knows the problem, he doesnt. I may not either but no one will until a group of folks with the appropriate knowledge come together to define/ create a meaningful ‘problem statement.’ Until then there can be no effective strategies or info to find and implement appropriate solutions

Smart Rock
Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 9:58 am

developing the technology needed for adaptation to climate change

The normal course of events in human history is for a new technology to be adopted after it has been developed. And if it was a hugely beneficial new technology, it often led to major societal changes, usually for the better*. Now, societal changes are being pushed by our so-called leaders (a) when the required technology is immature and cannot yet sustain the intended societal changes, (b) when the technology doesn’t even exist yet, or (c) when the technology does exist but is essentially useless for the intended purpose.

This used to be called “putting the cart before the horse”. As a strategy for human development, it doesn’t look promising. As a strategy for dismantling the industrial democracies however, it definitely has its strong points.

  • – doesn’t apply to technologies suited to killing people on industrial scales.
Reply to  Smart Rock
March 26, 2022 10:06 am

Good points.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 10:19 am

Mr. Wojick,

Your stance on that article isn’t clear, but, assuming you think “renewable” tech is something any non-corrupt engineer would suggest (for the foreseeable future), you are mistaken.

Answer to that article’s false premise:

Engineers have already come up with reliable, affordable, energy solutions (hydropower, nuclear fission, coal-fired electric plants, oil and gas tech, and, my favorite, the INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE! 😀 )

May God bless the engineers. We owe them so much….

Janice All in for Reliable, Data-driven, Energy!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Wojick
March 26, 2022 12:37 pm

Dear Professor Guus Berkhout:

“You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

Jim Gorman
Reply to  David Wojick
March 27, 2022 4:17 am

I read your article but disagree with some of it. As I said on another thread, it will be soon that engineers will be blamed for not implementing the plans of politicians and their cronies, the climate scientists who look to earn a living from government grants.

Engineers deal with the real world, not a fantasy fairy land of milk and honey. Traditional engineers need no additional training, they already have the knowledge needed to develop a proper plan that provides a smooth transition. The problem is that they have not been asked nor allowed to participate in the planning process because the climate scientists and climate activists want no cold water thrown on their fairy dust.

The real problem is the lack of an overall education of the people governing us. Most of them probably took no mathematics beyond simple algebra and are woefully unprepared to mount an adequate assessment of current technology let alone what the near future technology will be and how it will affect any transition. Ask yourself how many state and federal legislators could begin to understand reliability and capacity planning for our current grids. Then how many can comprehend what unreliable generation units with low actual generation capacity will portend.

March 26, 2022 5:26 am

It’s a lovely sunny day

If this is a crisis bring it on

Reply to  fretslider
March 26, 2022 5:53 am

A lovely sunny day? 😲 OMG! It’s worse than we thought!

Don Perry
Reply to  fretslider
March 26, 2022 5:57 am

Not here in northern Illinois. We woke this morning to a snow covering and gray skies.

Peter W
Reply to  Don Perry
March 26, 2022 9:41 am

But it is Global Warming snow!

Reply to  fretslider
March 26, 2022 6:26 am

Here in Northeastern Ohio, they are predicting 4 to 6 inches of frozen sunshine over the next 24 hours.

Last edited 6 months ago by RicDre
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  RicDre
March 26, 2022 9:16 am

Grey and 51F in Western Washington. Pretty typical.

Reply to  fretslider
March 26, 2022 9:16 am

That’s what I was just thinking.

I always liked this particularly appropriate Snoopy quote:

“Learn from yesterday,
Live for today,
Look to tomorrow,
Rest this afternoon.”

Richard Page
Reply to  fretslider
March 26, 2022 9:34 am

Here in the UK it’s a warm, sunny day – a touch on the cool side but lovely. Obviously it won’t last!

Steve Case
March 26, 2022 5:59 am

Here’s a post that deserves a re-read:

Nullius in Verba said at April 12th 2014 @ 8:59 AM:

“Alarmism has worked in one way, the 30 year endless repetition that co2 causes warming.”
Alarmism works by setting up a decoy position for you to waste your time attacking. The question is not, and never has been, whether CO2 causes warming. It has always been whether it causes enough warming to be a problem.
Alarmists like to pretend that once you accept the basic physics of the GHE, that all the disaster predictions follow as an inevitable consequence. It would be like people predicting a catastrophic asteroid impact follows from the law of gravity – there are rocks in the sky, they’re heavy, they fall down. You can’t win that argument by trying to claim that gravity doesn’t exist!

Don’t fall into the trap of assuming that just because they say that “CO2 causes warming therefore we must panic”, that this is so. Yes, CO2 causes warming. No, we don’t need to panic. If you waste your time in a fruitless attempt to prove CO2 doesn’t cause warming, and burn your own credibility in the process, they’ll be able to get away with the other, flawed part of their argument scot free.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 26, 2022 6:56 am

No, CO2 does not cause warming. The fundamental question is not valid so any follow question based on the wrong question should not be asked.

Steve Case
Reply to  mkelly
March 26, 2022 8:13 am

My sanguine advice is to make the argument that the amount of warming that has occurred for whatever reason is not a problem. The same is true for sea level rise. Except for increasing CO2, there just isn’t anything the Climate Crusaders claim that hasn’t happened in the past or hasn’t been happening right along. Plus, additional CO2 increases the greenery.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 26, 2022 8:42 am

Sorry Steve what you and some others are saying is “Believe or accept a lie and deal with the lie.”

Believing or accepting a lie is why women’s sports is in so much trouble. Won’ Do it.

Thanks for the sanguine advice though.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 26, 2022 9:37 am

So if it were generally believed that the forests were packed with unicorns killing trees, and the government was going to spend a shedload of money to try and solve the problem, you would contend that most trees die naturally and that trees killed by unicorns was an insignificant amount?

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve Case
March 27, 2022 7:45 am

Sorry Steve, you’re on bloody dodgy ground with that one. Everything we are experiencing (including CO2 increases) has already happened before, many times. There is nothing new under the sun.

Janice Moore
Reply to  mkelly
March 26, 2022 10:34 am

Ice core data says that CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle.

(Source: )

Thus, the assertion that CO2 causes warming is not only un-proven, the data says that it is unlikely.

Don’t give the solar, wind, electric vehicle, et al. scammers a beachhead — not even a small one. That is poor battle strategy. And, yes, we are in a battle for truth and liberty.


(To be clear, I am agreeing with you, M. Kelly — my caveat above is aimed at the lukewarmers who are causing truth to get mired in the mud of confusion and lack of clarity.)

Last edited 6 months ago by Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 26, 2022 4:49 pm

WUWT is a lukewarmist website. Anthony Watts, Charles Rotter, Willis Eschenbach, Andy May, Jim Kelly are all lukewarmists.

WUWT prides itself on taking a sceptical stance against climate alarmism yet at the same time it “believes” in the “science” behind the GHE and the ECS even though there is no evidence in the field or in laboratory experiments for either.

Every time I ask for evidence all I receive is ad hominem comments from the usual suspects..

WUWT gives credibility to climate alarmism that it doesn’t deserve.

At some point WUWT has got to decide whether to take a scientific stance or to continue to take a political stance against the junk science of AGW.

Janice Moore
Reply to  leitmotif
March 26, 2022 6:00 pm

Hi, Light Motif,

I feel your pain. One suggestion, however, if I may, is: focus on the lack of causation between human CO2 emissions and “climate change.”

For, while CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle at all time scales, the laboratory experiments indicating a “greenhouse effect” from CO2 (natural of course, FAR (by 2 orders of magnitude) outweighing human emissions) are likely correct at least to some degree.

That degree, nevertheless, has NOT been measured in the climate system of earth as of yet. Thus, it only creates unhelpful confusion to spend time asserting that it might be powerful enough to make “some difference.”

That is, you may find receive a more considered response to your requests for data proving causation of “climate change” by CO2 if you grant that the “greenhouse effect” is real in the laboratory (and MIGHT have some non-zero effect on climate) though, again, to date (i.e., per data, so far), that non-zero effect is highly likely to be negligible or so small as to be “not meaningful.”

To summarize:

1. Laboratory experiments indicate that CO2 can cause some warming – in a tightly controlled laboratory environment.

2. Because the earth’s climate system was not replicated in that laboratory, those findings may have no meaningful significance for conclusions about CO2 and climate.

3. There is strong evidence (ice core proxy data) indicating that warming drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.

4. REGARDLESS OF ANY POSSIBLE MINISCULE EFFECT OF CO2 (and, necessarily, the even tinier effect of human CO2), focusing the battle for truth about human CO2 on the power and effectiveness and historical data concerning natural drivers* (coupled ocean-atmosphere physics, ocean outgassing of CO2, patterns such as the AMO and the PDO, and ENSO, etc.) is the wisest strategy to preserve our liberty.

And isn’t our liberty the bottom line of all this?

Surely, we aren’t just spending time here debating for the mental gymnastics it provides. Or simply to keep the controversy alive for professional or monetary or other gain…..


*Richard Lindzen, a true “climate expert,” says with high confidence that climate fluctuations observed so far are “well within the bounds of natural variation.”

I hope that you find this helpful. At the very least, I hope you find the empathy a bit comforting.


Your ally for data-driven science,


Reply to  Janice Moore
March 27, 2022 10:09 am

Really, Janice? Blindly regurgitating that tired old, long-known-to-be-false so-called “argument” that CO2 “doesn’t cause warming” because CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data? Sorry to be so blunt, but please. Stop being so intentionally ignorant.

Yes, temperature increase seen in the ice core data does begin before CO2 increase. But then the CO2 increase creates further warming.

It’s time to face reality, sister: there are now SO many lines of evidence that CO2 causes warming, that to pretend otherwise is just about as ridiculous as pretending that oxygen “doesn’t” support combustion.

Janice Moore
Reply to  MGC
March 27, 2022 10:17 am

All you needed to do MG, was to present ANY evidence that CO2 causes meaningful warming of earth’s climate system.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 27, 2022 11:38 am

Try Harries 2001 and Chen 2007, Janice.

Harries 2001

“Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”

Chen 2007

“satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  MGC
March 27, 2022 12:14 pm

Your unsupported quotations are completely unconvincing.

Missing: data proving causation of CO2 and “climate change.”

Last edited 6 months ago by Janice Moore
Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 27, 2022 12:52 pm

Moreover, there is anti-evidence of human CO2 driving warming.


Game over.


Reply to  Janice Moore
March 27, 2022 2:17 pm

warming “not” up ?? Who vomited that anti-reality nonsense into your empty skull, sister?

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 27, 2022 2:25 pm

re: “Missing: data proving causation”

There’s no such thing as “proving” anything in science, Janice. One can only say that there is supporting causal evidence. You’ve been provided references with plenty of supporting causal evidence.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 26, 2022 7:28 am

That is a great comment. But then I’m still having a hard time comprehending how a SC Justice nominee cannot provide a definition for “woman” because she’s (the nominee) not a biologist.

I believe it was just prior to this, there was a Youtube of an English woman at the women’s NCAA swimming championships. She made the statement, “I’m not a veterinarian, but I know what a dog is.” That was a great line. Some people are seeing through this bullshit.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Scissor
March 26, 2022 10:34 am

Of course she is capable of defining what a woman is. She’s obviously not stupid. She just couldn’t bring herself to offending the 95 percent of the population who think “adult human female” or the 5 percent who think “anyone who says he is a woman”. The 5 percent being far more vocal, plus they seem to have taken over the functions of ruling our collective lives.

Instead, she comes across as a coward to 100 percent of the audience.

(For all I know, it could be 99 percent and 1 percent)

Across the pond, you can hear Rishi Sunak MP evading the question from Julia Hartley-Brewer. This one is good for a smile on this otherwise gloomy day.

Reply to  Smart Rock
March 26, 2022 10:55 am


Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Smart Rock
March 26, 2022 5:05 pm

Proper followup questions:
Are you a woman?
How do you know?

Richard M
Reply to  Steve Case
March 26, 2022 12:36 pm

The problem is the answer could be yes or no depending on how exactly the question is framed.

1) The base greenhouse effect is real. CO2 absorbs 15 micron radiation low in the atmosphere that would otherwise radiate to space.. The problem is there has always been enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb essentially all of this energy. Adding more CO2 has nothing more to work with.

2) Because of the problem with saturated absorption as mentioned in 1), the climate science community came up with what is called “the enhanced greenhouse effect”. This is supposedly caused by increases in CO2 leading to an increase in the emission height for CO2 radiation and generating a 3.7 W/m2 downward warming flux. I think this is the real question that needs to be framed. One needs to first point out the base GHE is saturated which removes the problem of being viewed as a science denier.

BTW, the answer to 2) is no. The effective emission height for CO2 exists at a fixed height based on the structure of the atmosphere. This is a direct result of Kirchhoff’s Law. The 3.7 W/m2 of downwelling IR all occurs in the atmospheric boundary layer and disappears due to thermal equilibrium feedback.

Reply to  Richard M
March 26, 2022 1:40 pm

Richard the statement by Steve was that “CO2 causes warming”.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

Richard M
Reply to  mkelly
March 27, 2022 5:55 am

Since there’s always been enough CO2 in the atmosphere to put our temperature where it is now, I would answer this question “no”.

Richard Page
Reply to  mkelly
March 27, 2022 7:54 am

The statement was made in the context of AGW and climate change, hence the inference was that “CO2 increases seen before the 1980’s cause warming seen from the 1980’s.” Arguing that if the CO2 in the atmosphere was reduced to virtually nil we could see that CO2 causes warming is ridiculous, a complete ad absurdum argument.

John Larson
Reply to  Richard Page
March 27, 2022 2:09 pm

I inferred no such thing.

If the statement was made~ “The sun causes warming of the Earth’s atmosphere”, would you disagree?

Reply to  Richard M
March 27, 2022 10:49 am

Here’s Richard M aka “Rich the Idiotbot” sadly posting the same tired old pseudo-scientific nonsense and blatant outright anti-science falsehoods (lies) yet again, just as he has done over and over and over and over and over again for years on end.

In this particular case, the Idiobot pretends (lies) that “The effective emission height for CO2 exists at a fixed height based on the structure of the atmosphere.” This is not only false, it has been proven false via direct measurement. As CO2 has increased, the effective emission height has also increased. And a higher effective emission height leads directly to surface warming.

Moreover, Rich the Idiotbot has been provided published research references, on multiple occasions, that contain the measurements of increasing effective emission height. These measurements emphatically prove that he is lying.

Yet the Idiotbot continues to babble his proven-to-be-false lies anyway, over and over and over again.

Such a shameful disgrace, and unfortunately, a not untypical example of the kind of totally dishonest “evidence” that far too many so-called “skeptics” bring to the table.

March 26, 2022 6:21 am

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that there something seriously WRONG with all these Climate Hysteria notions flying about. Consider this:- When here on Earth we all turn to WATER to COOL things if we find something a bit too warm, by sweating or putting our fingers under the tap or jumping into the sea or- I could go on; here we are being relentlessly told by the Elite, the Expurts, the Politicians, the UN and its acolytes such as the IPCC etc. etc. All well infiltrated by leftwing/marxist covert activists that it is WATER, being a Greenhouse gas that is about to COOK us all to extinction.
Both can’t be right; so which is it; Your eyes and experience or your faith in the ethical desert found in those mentioned above.?
Believe the CAGW message if you like; but please don’t drag us all down to that level of thinking in the process.
It has all gone totally POLITICAL these days so be very wary who and what you vote for; for you may well be being duped with misinformation plausibly presented.

Reply to  Alasdair
March 27, 2022 11:04 am

Sorry to be so blunt, Alasdair, but your post is such a shameful example of the “experts are all wrong” type of ignorant and non-thinking nonsense that far too many so-called “skeptics” routinely bring to the table.

What makes you think you can pompously pretend that your little two minutes of consideration allows you to (oh please) “know better” than all the world’s science experts, who have looked into this stuff for, not just two minutes, but for decades?

Anyway, consider this: why are clear sky winter nights generally the very coldest, but cloudy winter nights are warmer? How about because cloud cover (aka WATER) keeps heat from escaping into space.

March 26, 2022 6:29 am

Well, I’ll be dipped! The Warmistas at YouTube are even blocking Thomas Sowell on Climate Change:
Thomas Sowell Climate Change – YouTube


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
March 26, 2022 7:32 am

You know what they say about flak.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Scissor
March 26, 2022 9:34 am

You’re gonna get shot down?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 26, 2022 10:00 am

Eventually, we all do.

I was thinking more along the lines of Sowell being over the target.

David G Baird
March 26, 2022 6:46 am

Can corn planting impact weather patterns? I moved to Iowa in 2000 and for a number of years after, late afternoon to early evening thunderstorms would hit on an almost daily basis. Now, 22 years later these storms seem to be rare. Seeding per acre of corn across the grain belt has increased due to hybrid seeds developed by various seed producers. The Iowa State Extension published this: What is the best seeding rate for corn based on seed prices and yield level? | Integrated Crop Management ( As this trend has occurred in Nebraska as well as the other primary corn states. Can the inspiration/respiration of the per acre increase of corn affect the once common evening storms? I just wonder if it’s possible to have an effect or not. And I know that that could be one part of multiple effects of changes to the weather pattern here.

Bruce Cobb
March 26, 2022 6:58 am

Is Kyiv Putin’s Waterloo moment? I have visions of the Russian Orcs being kicked back to the hell from whence they came.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 26, 2022 8:15 am

“NEWS” reports indicate the Russians are relocating their forces away from Kyiv towards the SE to the separatist areas.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 26, 2022 11:07 am

Good question. My guess is that Putin is a pretty good chess player.

Interestingly, Napoleon’s chess set that he used on St. Helena is located at the library of Biltmore House.

michael hart
March 26, 2022 7:13 am

On the lighter side:”Black man ‘not dressed for climate’ searched by Met police”

Perhaps his main offence has been listening to the BBC too often.

willem post
March 26, 2022 7:36 am

Excerpt from

NATO And Russia – Whistling Past Each Other’s Graveyards
Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

“What we have here, is a failure to communicate.”

There are so many angles from which to view the war in Ukraine. I’ve tried my best to cover them to get a sense of why we are where we are… which is headed towards a much larger conflict.

Despite my deep cynicism, I am essentially an optimist. I tend to see opportunities for end games that result in humanity walking away from any kind of final solution. And sometimes that means having to look beyond the boundary conditions of the current conflict and see it in the grander context of what humanity is trying to achieve.

There’s a solution even if things look bleak because humanity has always recoiled from the worst of its excesses when personally confronted with them, at least for a few generations until the memories fade.

In WWII the nominal good guys, the Allies, defeated the nominal bad guys, the Axis, but mainly the Nazis. I’m not one to subscribe to that caricature of events. I know the issues are far deeper than that.

Reply to  willem post
March 26, 2022 8:42 am

In WWII, the defenders (good guys) defeated the the attackers (bad guys) who attacked the good guys for gain of land and power. So who was good and who was bad was obvious and it would take an intellectual to NOT see that difference.

In Ukraine, the Ukrainian defenders are the GOOD GUYS, and the Russian attackers are the BAD GUYS. Again, it would take an intellectual to not see that truth.

An intellectual is one who can deceive themselves that truth is falsehood, and falsehood is truth. We, in the US, are being ruled by intellectuals. Almost all of Brandon’s appointees are from academia. THAT is why we have inflation at the levels they are now and will go into a recession or a period of stagflation.

Last edited 6 months ago by Drake
Richard Page
Reply to  Drake
March 26, 2022 9:39 am

I take it that you only see the world in black and white extremes? You have absolutely no idea that most adults view the world in nuanced shades of grey with very little black or white?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Page
March 26, 2022 12:50 pm

At least 50 Shades of Grey!

Willem Post
Reply to  Drake
March 26, 2022 10:47 am

Ukraine was told behind the scenes, it would never be in NATO, but publicly it was said “it may be after some years”. Zelensky “considering ruling it out” as a “concession” to Putin is a farce, and he knows it.

The same with being in the EU; it may never happen, because it would bleed the EU for decades to raise Ukraine to EU standards

I think the impoverished, lapdog Ukrainians have been bribed down the garden path into a quagmire and their eagerness to harass Russia on the line of separation and elsewhere led to a destroyed country that will take at least $200 billion to build back better.

Last edited 6 months ago by Willem Post
willem post
Reply to  Willem Post
March 27, 2022 8:07 am


I do not approve of any wars anywhere, including in Korea, Vietnam, NATO bombing Serbia, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Libya and Ukraine

US-led Color Revolution/Coup d’Etat of Ukraine: I wrote this article, because Russia-hating, extremists in the US State Department and US Congress have been using NATO to pressure first the USSR, then Russia. 

They have been deluding impoverished, corrupt Ukraine with future membership in the EU and NATO, since 1990 
They have been weaponizing Ukraine against Russia ever since the US-instigated color revolution/coup d’etat in 2014

Here is: 

1) A 2014-transcript of the conversations between Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt, including, by Nuland: OK. He’s now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.

2) A U-tube video with viewer’s comments

There has been no real “government” in Kiev since 2014; the US ambassador is in charge, because he dispenses $billions to impoverished, aid-dependent Ukraine. 

An anti-Russia doctrine has been hatched in Washington to foment war in Europe. As part of the doctrine, the US pressured Ukraine not to implement the Minsk 2 agreements, to keep the anti-Russian pot boiling. The EU countries are arm-twisted to be aiders and abettors, because they do not want to harm their huge, profitable trade surpluses with to the US, even though it means forfeiting their profitable trade with Russia.

The US/UK-supplied defensive and offensive weapons, plus military training personnel to Ukraine, so it could “defend itself” 

At the urging of the US, Ukraine “floated” the idea of Ukraine having an “Iron Dome” similar to Israel, and reacquiring nuclear weapons.

Separatists in East Ukraine: In 2014, millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, mostly in East Ukraine, decided not to support the US-installed, puppet Kiev government.

Predicted Russian Reactions: Russia made certain demands regarding: 

1) NATO encroachments beyond East Germany starting in 1999, which took place after the US/UK/German promise to Gorbachev in 1990 not to expand beyond East Germany. 

2) The indivisibility of Russian and European security; i.e., not increase your own security at the expense of someone else’s.

The US/UK-led NATO rejected the demands, and offered, likely as a diversionary tactic, to talk about side issues, that had originally been raised by Russia, but ignored.

Russia demanded the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, and invaded Ukraine to make it happen.

Promises of the West to Russia: US Secretary of State Baker, and German Chancellor Genschler, and USSR President Gorbachev agreed East Germany would be reunited with West Germany and all of Germany would be in NATO (so it would not ever be a threat to Russia), and NATO would not expand (“not one inch”, per Baker) beyond East Germany. 
NATO did expand to Russian borders, starting in 1999 to the present, for “defensive purposes”.

Some people say: 1) the Heads of State and Secretaries of State making the promises were not “authorized”, or 2) nothing was officially written down in agreement documents, which, de facto, implies: 

1) The verbal promises of US/UK/EU/NATO-combo mean nothing 
2) “The West” would determine the security of the East Europe, etc., regardless of Russia’s security; might makes right! 

Here is an excellent history of NATO expansion by a Canadian, who thinks NATO is a problem, not a solution

Here is an excellent interview regarding the post-Cold-War order being replaced by a multi-Polar order, by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the son of a Russian Ambassador stationed in Ireland.

Reply to  Willem Post
March 27, 2022 10:26 am

Something seems rotten in the — Ukraine crisis. Conspiracy theories aside I question how this happened, makes no sense. If the West actually wanted to stop Putin, why wait so long to arm the Ukraine; what they are doing now could have been done months ago. The logic Putin is using is illogical as Spock would say. Some ones expected Russia to succeed in a few days and then negotiations would take place to ???? partition parts of Ukraine. Putin wins, some others who facilitate win, Ukraine gets lots of money to sweeten the deal and rebuild???? SOMETHING DOESNT PASS THE SMELL TEST.

Willem Post
Reply to  skiman
March 28, 2022 7:58 am

My article mentions the recent, failed, color revolutions in Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The long-term objective is to have Russia within its own borders, surrounded by NATO-allied/partner nations.

Russia to be weakened/impoverished by means of sanctions, so it cannot control the sea passage north of Siberia, and access and development of the vast fossil resources of the arctic.

Russia’s alliance with China puts a stop to that approach. China needs Russia’s resources, and Russia needs Chinese productive know how.

Reply to  Drake
March 26, 2022 11:16 am

Ironically, you are taking the side of Biden’s intellectuals on Ukraine, Drake.

March 26, 2022 7:58 am

“Trans” is not a preference. A trans can be L,G or B. Or even cis.

Last edited 6 months ago by Old.George
michael hart
Reply to  Old.George
March 26, 2022 8:17 am

Cis and Trans fell into technical chemical disuse sometime ago for not being precise enough. Replaced with E- and Z- system based on Cahn-Ingold-Prelog rules.

Reply to  michael hart
March 26, 2022 11:19 am

They are still teaching cis and trans in organic chemistry in Colorado as far as I know.

Reply to  Old.George
March 26, 2022 9:12 am

We have a mortal body, and an immortal soul. The soul may be male or female, just like the body. Occasionally Mother Nature puts a female soul into a male body. This leads to new records in swimming, but not to a menstruation 🙂

Richard Page
Reply to  Curious George
March 26, 2022 9:43 am

Oh I kinda like that but you are slightly off on your original point. We ARE immortal souls but have mortal bodies – a slight but very important distinction, I think.

Jeff Reppun
March 26, 2022 9:07 am

Challenging Government Science Bias

The major problem we have in fighting the concept of a “Climate Crisis” is the production or promotion of information by federal agencies of selected and biased information. In my opinion, this is in direct contradiction of federal law. Ultimately this biased information will be used to undermine any challenges to the multitude “Climate Crisis” regulations that will take us down the path weakened energy supply system with enormous negative economic consequences. Courts will be obliged to rely on government scientific organizations on making technical calls in court. Fighting the obvious biases during any legal challenge will likely fail.

In Section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658), Congress directed Office of Management and Budget to issue government-wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies….”

Not only do the requirements address federal agency produced products but it also requires that any referenced scientific studies referenced must also comply with these guidelines. In my opinion, the work products of the IPCC would not comply with these guidelines.

What is needed is an organized and coordinated attack utilizing each agencies Quality Assurance Plan, with support of the OMB guidelines, to challenge agencies obvious abuses of this congressional mandate. The guidelines require that Quality Assurance Plans include requirements to address challenges.

Federal Register :: Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Jeff Reppun
March 26, 2022 3:04 pm

‘The major problem we have in fighting the concept of a “Climate Crisis” is the production or promotion of information by federal agencies of selected and biased information.‘

The underlying issue is the government’s dominant role in science funding where the results of that science might favor the expansion of government power. We’ve seen this for a while in climate science, and most recently with COVID-19.

Other than getting government out of science altogether, the only way to avoid these conflicts of interest is to set up a red team to review the science, with the understanding that any attempts by the blue team to hide findings inconsistent with their results would be severely dealt with.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 27, 2022 4:37 am

If I was in control there would be a simple rule. No one in government nor any organization receiving government funding could use the term, “settled science” in any form or fashion, ever.

Jeff Reppun
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 27, 2022 8:38 am

The analogies between the government agencies behavior on COVID and climate science are striking.

Nevertheless, climate science offers far more validated scientific material to challenge what NASA, NOAA, etc. choose to present to the public debate. I get the sense now that these agencies are subtly trying to produce “science” that may better support the “attribution” lawsuit movements.

  • Presentation of Arctic ice retreat since the beginning of satellite monitoring without placing it in context with much longer history of monitoring arctic ice cycles, including a expansion phase in the decades prior to satellite monitoring.
  • Showing an increase in tornado frequency without noting the impact of doppler radar’s ability to see previously unreported minor events.
  • Listing of studies as supporting evidence by scientist that will not disclose their data or methodologies (e.g. Mann hockey stick).
  • Use of NOAA #14 satellite data, known to be out of calibration, to inflate temperature records.
  • Lack of transparency on temperature homogenization.
  • Any reference to increases in extreme weather events.

These are just a few of the areas where government agencies have failed to present information that fits the definition of “objective” as defined by OMB requirements and could be challenged by qualified experts.

It would be interesting to see how many examples readers could list.

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
March 26, 2022 10:09 am

This is a rather troubling article:

Farmers on the Brink

The tempest caused by the European energy disaster has merged with the hurricane of consequences flowing from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, forming the genesis of a generational crisis in food that will leave few unaffected.

Is now the time to plan ahead?

Jeff Reppun
Reply to  Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
March 26, 2022 11:36 am

Perhaps eliminating ethanol blending requirements can divert grain to the food supply. helping to alleviate impending food shortages.

March 26, 2022 11:32 am

For those in the UK…. There is a petition for the government to “End the ban on fracking”:
—-It seems that very people are aware of it

March 26, 2022 11:51 am

Following a new study, drought was the reason Winkings left Greenland, not the decreasing temperatures of the LIA.

Written down here

Last edited 6 months ago by Krishna Gans
March 26, 2022 12:33 pm
Geoff Sherrington
March 26, 2022 6:24 pm

As much as I love WUWT for a daily read, I do think that too many readers are not getting enough out of it. Many readers are happy to post a comment, some short and funny, sometimes quite profound.
But few seem to go to the next step, which is to contribute data. There are some matters like (for example) heatwaves that are easy to compute for your locality, as I have done for mine, Melbourne, Australia. Instead of near-endless words back and forth, make some pictures and post them.
Here is a study that took about a week of part-time work, using elementary Excel spreadsheet manual methods that require no programming skills.
Readers can see for themselves whether heatwaves are getting hotter in these 6 State capitals cities.
Here is another example, where I used the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley approach to show how long before now the latest pause in temperatures change has existed over Australia.
This clearly shows that the UAH lower troposphere temperature has slightly cooled for the past 8 years and 10 months.
The pictures speak louder than words. Why not make pictures like these for your own locations to share with us? It is often dead easy to do, but quite powerful in impact. 
Geoff S

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 27, 2022 4:45 am

You are correct. If we all do this for locations around the globe, it should become apparent as to what is warming or not and where it is doing so. UHI should also become readily shown.

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 26, 2022 10:55 pm

Unusually frigid air with lake effect over the Great Lakes. The front is moving toward the northeastern US.comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 27, 2022 12:21 am

The very high SOI index foreshadows the continuation of La Niña.comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 27, 2022 12:37 am

On the first of April, Arctic air with snowfall will flow into Western Europe.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 27, 2022 1:13 am
Ireneusz Palmowski
March 27, 2022 4:57 am

The polar vortex will remain over Siberia for the foreseeable future.comment image

tom hewitt
March 27, 2022 6:51 am

At this particular moment, in the developed countries of the world, the supply of Reliable electrical power is as important to society and human survival as the very air we breathe. We are as committed to reliable electricity as we are to drinkable water and food. In fact, reliable electricity is now necessary for both of those things.

Jeopardizing the necessities of contemporary life by compromising the availability of reliable electrical power is worse than an erroneous technological choice, it’s a crime of incredible magnitude and should be considered as such.

%d bloggers like this: