It’s a race between the climate nuts and Muslims. Imagine no wine and beer production in Germany and France, not due to climate change, but rather due to the institution of Sharia law.
CO2 Has a Very Minor Global Warming Role in the Atmosphere https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
. Natural cycles drive our climate.
The current temperatures are higher than in 1900 by about 1.5 C, but less than 0.5 C of that can be attributed to CO2. The rest is due to:
1) Long-term cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
2) Earth surface changes, due to increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
3) Urban heat islands, such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
4) Fossil fuel use
5) Permafrost methane, CH4, which converts to CO2 . We need a Pro-life, Pro-CO2 Coalition
The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
MAGA and burn, baby, burn, may lead to a slightly greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere, which is an absolutely essential ingredient for creating: 1) increased green flora to support abundant fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people. What is not to like?
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to 1) increase command/control by governments, and 2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years.
More world greening due to CO2 means more termites.
Termites produce a significant amount of CO2, with estimates suggesting they emit approximately 3.54 Gigatonnes of CO2 annually, which is about one-tenth of the CO2 emissions from human activities.
While they produce CO2, their methane emissions are also notable, contributing a significant amount to the global methane budget.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
CO2 Production:
Termites produce CO2 through methano-genesis, a process that occurs in their guts with the help of symbiotic microorganisms, producing biogas containing methane and CO2. Global Emissions:
Estimates suggest termites emit around 3.54 Gigatonnes of CO2 annually. Methane Emissions:
Termites are also a significant source of methane, contributing about 20 Tg CH4 per year to the global methane budget, which is a major component of the Earth’s climate. Impact of Climate Change:
Rising temperatures and aridity are predicted to increase termite activity, leading to more wood decomposition and potentially more CO2 emissions. Importance of Termites:
While the CO2 produced by termites may seem significant, it is important to note that termites also play a vital role in the carbon cycle and nutrient cycling within ecosystems.
Hey, dont forget them pesky ruskies flying up the charts. It’s the new hip climber who’s bandwagon everyone seems to want to ride on. Although, them yellow ones are close behind.
Anyway, fear and alarm all around. It’s clear everybody needs way more borrowed money to ‘battle’ all this. All systems GO!!!
SARC:).
Analogies don’t prove anything, but they might help folks to think more critically about what is being claimed. Here’s an example.
Expecting the energy involved in the “enhanced greenhouse effect” from incremental CO2 to drive sensible heat gain in the oceans, on land, and in the lower atmosphere –
Is like adding the chocolate syrup to the blender and supposing the bottom half of the milkshake will trap more color to end up darker than the top half.
What happens to the ~4 W/m^2 computed increase in IR absorbing power for the 2XCO2 case? That energy ends up being radiated to space from the top half just like all the other energy absorbed by clouds, water vapor, and the original amount of CO2. Circulation throughout the depth of the troposphere, with energy conversion both above and below the “effective radiating level,” massively overwhelms the incremental tendency for sensible heat gain down here. Dynamic self-regulation.
Consider these time-lapse videos. Each has a “Readme” description to explain more fully.
But David, the fear of Climageddon in the masses and calculationally-challenged do-gooders….is so useful for those elites addicted to the aphrodisiac of power.
strativarius
June 8, 2025 2:17 am
Will the North Sea oil and gas industry be Labour’s next U-turn? With Nigel Farage targeting net zero, could government policy change to protect jobs, revenue and votes? … could leave Miliband in an awkward position. There have been “discussions within the Labour party for months over how to handle his potential resignation”, said an industry source.
You may recall that I predicted a U-Turn even before Labour actually won.
It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that politicians whose only true convictions are to hold on to power will do absolutely anything to hold onto power.
Net Zero is impossible, except by killing off most of the population and returning the survivors to 16th century living standards. If something is impossible, there’s no risk that it will happen. We therefore know that NetZero must fail. It only remains to be seen whether it will have been seen to have failed by 2029.
Unfortunately for my prediction (and the economic survival of my UK cousins), the Uniparty still have the ploy to say that the NetZero clock has simply been reset by that Evil of Evils Orange Man Bad. Remember that logic plays no role here.
Correct. Net zero won’t happen but many may die in the attempt and its consequences. As for the politicians, correct again. The real question is, how in a democracy of intelligent and educated people, do these politicians get elected? Answer this and the world will have turned a corner.
Maybe President Trump will issue an executive order requiring news channels to include the wind and solar input along with the temperature and the other standard items.
Rafe,
Our news media in the US, although for the most part thoroughly in thrall to the Deep State, are not formally government-owned. Trump can’t order private companies to do that, and the ones who run most of the media certainly would never undermine their cause. It’s up to the new media to carry the burden of educating the public.
CO2 ppm increase from 1979 to 2023 was 421/336 = 1.25, greening increase about 12%, per NASA. CO2 ppm increase from 1900 to 2023 was 421/296 = 1.42, greening increase about 19% . Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world flora and fauna; 3) Increases crop yields to feed 8 billion people; 4) Reduces world desert areas
Ed Zuiderwijk
June 8, 2025 2:59 am
Seen an interesting quote about peer review:
’Peer review, like every form of censorship, merely slows down truth’
The hope would have been that it avoids error to compensate for the inevitable slowdown of truth. Some would argue that in practice it has anointed lies and blocked truth. I would agree. A free debate is the best peer review.
Well actually it seems to be a political public acceptance scam using CC as the supposed reason for a “beachfront clean up tax”. Could work if it employs a bunch of trash pickers whose other career options are pickpockets and dope sellers.
Apparently “ocean life ‘diminishing before our eyes’“ according to the Prince of Wales in a speech to Blue Economy and Finance Forum in Monaco. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d4387x1d0o
if the Muslim caliphate takes over the Parliament, it will enact Sharia Law and all palaces and castles will be razed to bare soil to be replaced with Mosques.
Anyone not kneeling for Allah will be sent to Canada, or will be eliminated.
France and Germany are next.
I do not see how Hungary, Slovakia and Poland can resist the rabid hordes.
But a lot of the damage is down to things like drag trawling and plastic waste which has nothing to do with warming. True, they also go on about “coral bleaching” which has been done to death here and in other forums.
There is a nation whose crazed leader has an active weapons of mass destruction program ongoing. All the intelligence services from around the world agree this is the case. The West is determined to prevent this madman from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction.
What nation am I referring to here, Iraq in 2003, or Iran today?
Answer: Both. Intelligence Services from around the world declared that both had/have active weapons of mass destruction programs.
Tucker Carlson is trying to convince President Trump that the Mad Mullahs of Iran are NOT enriching uranium. He says this is a lie and the U.S. should not attack the Mad Mullahs.
One has to wonder how Tucker acquired this information. It appears to me that it is just wishful thinking on his part since he has no particular insight into the weapons programs of the Mad Mullahs.
Republican Isolationists like Tucker rely heavily on wishful thinking. Wishful thinking can get one killed when dealing with dishonest Dictators with weapons of mass destruction. Tucker needs to wise up, but I think it would probably take a mushroom cloud to convince him.
Apparently, Tucker believes that if Iran were so close to building a nuclear weapon, then we would already be at war with them. His premise is certainly questionable.
It is true, however, that many hawks who pushed for war with Iraq are still around pushing for war with Iran. Without a doubt, we were lied to then and we are being lied to now.
We know where the liars on both sides put their own self interests. I despise both.
I find Tucker Carlson persuasive on this topic. The Bush Administration lied to us persistently. (Not only in the blatant fabrications about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction but on other topics that I won’t divert the discussion by delving into here).
It has always seemed to me that the end goal of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan was the hope of surrounding Iran and eventually attacking the quote unquote Mad Mullahs. (Sure they hold extreme religious views that I don’t share, but does that make them formally insane? I think not).
Now clearly the original game plan of surrounding Iran with hostile forces has utterly failed at the cost of thousands of our best young men and trillions of dollars. Yet the goal remains to attack Iran by hook or by crook.
And what is our national interest in attacking Iran? There is none! If you take the point of view of Israel, clearly an urgent goal is to neutralize the threat from Iran. So it follows that our politicians are prioritizing Israel’s national interests over our own national interests. Are they doing that because somehow Israel’s well-being is in our national interest? Help me understand how that is the case.
I don’t desire the destruction of Israel but I also don’t accept that it is our responsibility to protect Israel.
Iran is an any of the West. There is no question of that.A nuclear armed terrorist regime is not something I want to face. Europe has much more to lose but they have practically already surrendered.
An enemy, I think you meant? Of course the current government of Iran is an enemy of the West. Nobody denies that or doubts it. But it’s a bit odd to think that Iran is more of a threat to the West than North Korea? If we are already under the threat of Nork nukes, how does it make sense to risk provoking World War III merely to prevent a second enemy regime from posing the same threat?
Because, unlike North Korea, Iran has proven its ability to rouse support among a sizeable proportion (perhaps 10%) of the billion or so anti-Western followers of Allah?
“But it’s a bit odd to think that Iran is more of a threat to the West than North Korea?”
Kim Jung Un has a sense of self-preservation. Starting a nuclear war would get him killed. The Mad Mullahs do not have a sense of self-preservation. The Mad Mullahs are a Death Cult who glory in dying for their “religious” beliefs.
That’s the difference. Kim Jung Un won’t use his nuclear weapons. The Mad Mullahs will use their nuclear weapons
If there even were any such convoys, I have no idea. As likely as not Russian assets that they didn’t want to fall into US hands? Or is your conspiracy theory that the Russians were supporting Iraq’s WMD program and actively helped cover it up?
You know very well that the original argument was not about chemical weapons. It was that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons. It was well established that he had used chemical weapons and that was the reason for subsequently talking about WMDs rather than just nuclear weapons, so that the claim could plausibly be made that he was in fact making WMDs.
It’s ridiculous to say that chemical weapons that any semi-competent high school chemistry teacher could produce, and certainly every government would be a legitimate justification for launching a regime change war.
Rich you said “WMD program”. If you meant only nuclear please be more exact in your language. All the dead people probably don’t care if they died via chemical or nuclear WMD.
Yes, I did say that, but I was carelessly using the language of those who attempted to obfuscate what they were claiming.
The hawks were implying nuclear bomb-making and talking about nuclear inspections but they covered themselves by referring generically to ‘weapons of mass destruction’. That included chemical weapons that there really was no reasonable doubt that Saddam had used. They were happy to say WMD and let the public hear ‘nuclear weapons’, while later emphasizing that they said WMDs not just possible nukes.
Did they ever have any evidence of an active nuclear bomb program? I don’t think so. Was it evil to use chemical weapons? Of course! Was it a US strategic interest to get involved? Not so clear to me.
Did they ever have any evidence of an active nuclear bomb program?
As I recollect, there were many barrels of Yellow Cake discovered after the war was over. Why have Yellow Cake if reactor-grade uranium oxide was available on the open market? Why have UN inspection teams if there was no concern about bomb-grade enrichment taking place?
Don’t forget that the Israelis had carried out preemptive attacks on Saddam’s nuclear facilities before the Iraq war began because they feared Saddam was developing nuclear weapons.
To make a nuclear bomb, you need very high-level machine tools to make the segments of the bomb, that implode together, so they become “critical”, and explode due to intense neutron generation.
Making a dirty bomb with radioactive waste from power reactors is easy by comparison
“The Bush Administration lied to us persistently.”
I don’t believe that for a minute. Every intelligence agency in the Western world believed Saddam Insane had an active weapons of mass destruction program. And why not? Saddam had used poison gas in the past on the Iranians and on the Kurds, and he fired missiles into Israel.
Saddam was given many, many chances over the years to come clean about his WMD programs and let UN inspectors into Iraq. But Saddam didn’t want to come clean. He wanted everyone to think he had WMD. His own generals were interrogated after the war and they all thought Saddam had WMD because that’s what Saddam wanted them to think. Saddam thought this would keep him safe from attack. Saddam was wrong.
You think General Colin Powell was deliberately lying to the world when he tried to make the case against Saddam? I say, Hell no!. Powell was not a dishonest person and what he said is what he believed. Not finding an active WMD program does not change that fact.
There was no plan to surround Iran and take them down. President G.W. Bush had them surrounded with about 450,000 American troops, yet he made no attempt to attack Iran or to even try to intimidate Iran in this situation. I was hoping he would. He missed a Golden Opportunity to oust the Mad Mullahs. Just think of all the misery and death the Mad Mullahs have caused the world since G.W. passed on deposing them. A huge mistake. And now Trump is going to have to finish the job before these madmen acquire nuclear weapons. Evil Dictators don’t just go away on their own.
“And what is our national interest in attacking Iran? There is none!”
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be blown up by a Mad Mullah nuclear weapon. That’s more than enough reason to attack Iran, as far as I’m concerned, seeing as how the Mad Mullahs constantly threaten the United States. We should have destroyed the Mad Mullahs a long time ago, long before they were on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. Past U.S. presidents just kept kicking the can down the road.
And the secret is the United States wouldn’t really have to send in many or even any U.S. troops, as once the people of Iran saw that the U.S. had their backs, they would rise up and throw off the Mad Mullahs all by themselves, after the U.S. decimated the Mad Mullah’s military capabilities, which could be done quickly and mostly from the air. Once the Mad Mullahs military is decimated, the Mad Mullahs are toast. The Iranian people hate them. The U.S. just has to give them the opportunity. That’s one reason I say the U.S. should not bomb Iran’s oil infrastructure. Save it for the people of Iran.
“I don’t desire the destruction of Israel but I also don’t accept that it is our responsibility to protect Israel.”
Israel isn’t the only target of the Mad Mullahs. The Mad Mullahs call Israel the “Little Satan” and the call the United States the “Big Satan” and they vow to destroy both.
Trump is not going to let them do it. If Biden or some other idiot Democrat were in office, the Mad Mullahs would be on their way to disrupting the whole world because they are crazy enough and fanatic enough to use nuclear weapons regardless of the consequences to themselves or others.
General Keane says he does not think the Mad Mullahs are going to agree to stop enriching uranium, even if that brings an attack, and I agree with him.
So expect the bombing of the Mad Mullah’s nuclear weapons facilities and military installations in the near future.
Get ready Iranian people. Your opportunity to depose the Mad Mullahs is just around the corner.
Tucker Carlson is trying to convince President Trump that the Mad Mullahs of Iran are NOT enriching uranium. He says this is a lie and the U.S. should not attack the Mad Mullahs.
You should correct your statement Tom. Carlson is trying to convince Trump that Iran is NOT building a nuclear weapon.
He knows that Iran is enriching uranium. He said that neocon demands that Iran stop all enrichment is a demand that neocons know Iran will not accept, that it is intended to box Trump into fighting a disastrous war with Iran.
“You should correct your statement Tom. Carlson is trying to convince Trump that Iran is NOT building a nuclear weapon.”
Yes, you are correct.
Tucker could hardly be denying the Mad Mullahs were enriching uranium when the Mad Mullahs say that is what they are doing themselves.
Tucker says they are not building a nuclear weapon, but I have to ask how he knows this? Why does he think the Mad Mullahs are enriching the uranium to weapons grade while claiming they only want the uranium to power their electric plant, which does not require weapons-grade enrichment?
What does Tucker think the Mad Mullahs are going to do with highly enriched uranium?
Like I said, Tucker depends a lot on wishful thinking in his world. He doesn’t want to face this Mad Mullah-with-nukes problem, so he pretends it is not there. He is divorced from reality.
In some cases I agree that Carlson is too open to implausible explanations. His views on UFOs and the moon landings come to mind.
You seem to be saying that the intel agencies were ‘wrong’ as opposed to they ‘lied’. Is that because you think that it would be impossible for a conspiracy to stay under wraps? That’s fair enough but isn’t it possible for well-placed individuals to have fed disinformation that caused the majority of well-meaning people to come to a wrong conclusion?
There seems to be evidence that GW Bush was not the boy scout that he tried to make us believe he was (or the born again ex-sinner if you like). The agenda of the surveillance state that Bush ushered in is hard for me to reconcile with him being well-meaning. It could well be that he acted under coercion due to being blackmailed or that he was innocently deceived. It is the same outcome in any of those scenarios. Someone lied to us.
I am convinced that Jeffrey Epstein played a huge role in the insanely poor decision-making of the past three decades. He was (or is?—there’s a conspiracy theory for you) a Mossad agent. It’s perfectly consistent with the idea that Western politicians were systematically compromised and blackmailed into acting against their own country’s interests to do Israel’s bidding.
Was your point just to ridicule me, DMac? Or is there some reason to suggest that Diddy was Mossad?
The evidence is pretty strong that Robert Maxwell, Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, was involved with Mossad and introduced Ghislaine and Jeffrey to Mossad.
Seriously? Why is it ridiculous? You’re saying that Mossad would have no reason to want to be in a position to blackmail western politicians into supporting actions that benefit Israel? Or are you saying that Mossad would never stoop to anything immoral?
Nothing that US politicians have supported in the past few decades has benefited Israel and cost the US dearly?
There is a conspiracy theory that Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, news mogul, was killed by Mossad…equally ridiculous grist for the black helicopter group.
The intelligence is adjusted to suit the deep state goals.
Israel, urged on by the deep state, tried to goad Trump.
We will bomb Iran together!
Trump said no! I want to negotiate, get a verifiable deal.
But the deep state is in the weapons business. Bomb, baby bomb!
This coming War is not up to the Deep State. The Deep State is not the entity that is refusing to give up uranium enrichment.
The Mad Mullahs of Iran are the ones refusing to give up their uranium enrichment. If any military action results, it is the fault of the Mad Mullahs, not the fault of the Deep State, unless you think the Mad Mullahs are part of the Deep State.
Dragging the Deep State into this a mistake. Not that i”m defending the Deep State, but they have no say in whether the Mad Mullahs comply or not, and that should be stated clearly.
Iran having 95+% pure Uranium, or not, would not stop Israel from bombing Iran with US bombs and US planes.
Israel, for political reasons, does not want to do it by itself.
“Tucker has veered into conspiracy nut territory.”
I agree. Tucker has done off the deep end when it comes to national security and defense.
One reason the intelligence agencies thought Saddam had an active WMD program is because Saddam promoted that idea. He did such a good job that his own generals thought he had an active WMD program. So it’s not a wonder that intelligence agencies, who, no doubt, talked to some of Saddam’s generals, believed what those generals told them, and the generals believed it, too.
The intelligence about the Mad Mullahs nuclear weapons plans are not wrong. For one thing, Israel intelligence came into possession of Iranian documents outlining the program a couple of years ago.
And logic should tell us that if the Mad Mullahs want enriched uranium, they can only want it for one purpose: To build a nuclear weapon.
So yes, the Mad Mullahs are attempting to build themselves nuclear weapons.
One nuclear weapon, even a crude one, detonated above the United States could knock out half of the U.S. electrical grid. A crazy man with a nuclear weapon, a skud-type portable missile launcher, and a tramp steamer, off the coast of the U.S., could get that job done.
There is a nation whose crazed leader has an active weapons of mass destruction program ongoing. All the intelligence services from around the world agree this is the case.
Iran could develop nuclear weapons in a (relatively) “short” period of time if they decided to “green light” such a project, but you are exaggerating the current state of affairs.
Yes, a keen eye (or two) needs to be kept on Iran, but starting yet another “forever war” in the Middle East is definitely not a good idea (see: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, …).
.
On the 31st of May the war-mongering neo-cons in Washington DC got their media puppets to enter “let’s distract the plebs by scaring the s**t out of them” mode about Iran.
BBC article, title “Iran significantly growing uranium stockpile, warns UN nuclear agency” :
The IAEA’s latest assessment, longer and more comprehensive than usual, also details troubling findings about Iran’s past nuclear work, including a secret programme carried out until the early 2000s.
CNN article, titled “IAEA report spells out past secret nuclear activities in Iran” :
The IAEA has concluded that “these three locations, and other possible related locations, were part of an undeclared structured nuclear program carried out by Iran until the early 2000s and that some activities used undeclared nuclear material,” the report said.
Politico article, titled “Iran has amassed even more near weapons-grade uranium, UN watchdog says” :
Western officials suspect that the uranium traces discovered by the IAEA could provide evidence that Iran had a secret military nuclear program until 2003.
.
The combined US intelligence agencies input their global “threat assessments” as of March this year to the ODNI, which released a “declassified” summary at this direct link.
In the “Iran” section, on page 26 of that PDF file :
We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.
NB : If Mossad believed Iran was really just “a few weeks away” from building a nuclear warhead, Israel would have attacked already … with a large fraction of their 90-300 nukes …
What “intelligence” do you have access to that Tulsi Gabbard and the current head of Mossad do not ?
Many think that several European nations will be taken over internally by the Muslim population. If so it is unnecessary for Iran to build nuclear weapons western civilization haters will have arsenals full of them.
“Iran could develop nuclear weapons in a (relatively) “short” period of time if they decided to “green light” such a project, but you are exaggerating the current state of affairs.”
Me, and President Trump. The DNI must have updated their assessment because Trump is real close to bombing the Mad Mullahs over their enrichment/nuclear weapons program.
There are no “forever wars”. That is a pejorative reluctant warriors use. The failures in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of delusional Democrats being put in charge.
The Vietnam war was won, then the Democrats came in to power and threw South Vietnam to the wolves. The Iraq war was won, then the Democrats came in and threw the Iraqis to the Iranian wolves. The Afghanistan war was under control and then the Democrats came in and screwed everything up again.
The Democrats are incapable of adequately defending the United States. They prove themselves incapable time and time again. Their fears blind them to reality. We cannot trust Democrats to defend us. They fail every time.
There is a nation whose crazed leader has an active weapons of mass destruction program ongoing.
Sorry, I was laughing, expecting to see anti-Trump sarcasm.
Any country that doesn’t follow your philosophy always has a “crazed” or “deranged” leader, and its citizens are “brutish”, “cruel”, “inhuman”, and so on. Just look at the propaganda from Britain in WW1, portraying the evil Hun – throwing babies into the air for bayonet practice, raping nurses, etc.
And so it goes.
The world changes, empires rise and fall, today’s best friend used to be your worst enemy – that’s life.
Saddam took one of his political enemies and dangled him from a crane over a pool filled with acid, and then Saddam had the man slowly lowered into the acid while Saddam sat in a lawn chair nearby, smoking a cigar and laughing as the acid slowly and painfully killed the man.
Saddam obviously took great pleasure in causing others to suffer. I think “crazed” is a good description for him.
“Why Wind And Solar Make Grids More Vulnerable to Blackouts
Renewable energy, like wind and solar, has become a larger part of the overall power supply, but the grid wasn’t designed to handle it. WSJ asks a mechanical engineer for three ways to fix this.”
Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2025
WSJ headline seems to expose wind and solar, but seems to be just a promotion for MORE wind and solar…by adding synchronous condensers and back-up batteries…and more transmission lines.WOW!
Note a well-presented, albeit misleading, perhaps fundamentally deceitful….a mechanical engineer’s view of inertia without any mention of A/C magnetic and electric fields, power factor, capacitive and inductive impedance voltages and currents, control based on zero sequence currents, and damaging harmonics. And continues the horrible comparison of average demand to nameplate capacities of solar and wind.
It misses the specific intermittancy times and degradations with wind and solar.
It misses explaining that “make-up” energy on the grid provides instant demand with ability to continue frequency within 2 cycles, and with 2 month coal reserves on site, or multiple dedicated natural gas feeds, or years of nuclear fuel available.
It misses the actual cost comparison between the “solution” and former grid costs and reserves.
Basically an advertisement for “net zero”.
Continuing a total waste of someone else’s money—eg. utility customers, taxpayers. And less money for more important things.
Sad that WSJ editorial and feature staff fight both the administration and our formerly secure, reliable, dependable, lowest cost electric service.
The IEA already say that grids around the world are struggling to keep up with the rise in power demand and renewable deployments and are also facing supply chain problems for transformers and cables. The rapid build out of AI Data Centres will only exacerbate these problems.
ME’s also may not understand that the power transfer through a transmission line is proportional to the sine of the phase difference between the terminals. Once the phase difference exceeds 90º, the power transfer goes DOWN and the system will likely lose synchronism with the ensuing blackout.
Burl, we were talking about the U.S. regional chart (shown above), and I said that any theory that tried to describe the climate had to account for the temperature trendline of the United States regional chart.
In the course of that conversation, you said that the slight warming period from 1937 to 1940, could be attributed to SO2 forcing.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it appears to me that if you are correct then you have found the point where SO2 either cools the temperatures or warms the temperatures.
Presumably, from 1937 to 1940, the SO2 amounts in the atmosphere declined enough to cause the temperatures to climb, because less SO2 equals more sunlight reaching the ground, so more warming.
Then in 1940, or thereabouts, SO2 amounts in the atmosphere increased, which reflected sunlight back into space and caused the temperatures to cool.
So, we have a narrow window we can calculate where the amount of SO2 causes the atmosphere to either warm or cool.
What were the amounts of SO2 in the atmosphere for the periods from 1937 to 1940?
Do these amounts equate to the amounts of SO2 in the late 1970’s, when the temperature changed from cooling to warming?
If these SO2 numbers for 1937 to 1940, and 1975 to 1980, are similar, then it would appear you have found the SO2 formula; The place where the amount of SO2 changes the temperatures from cooling to warming and back again..
Burl doesn’t appear to have an answer. His argument is wrong if for no other reason than he claims that SO2 is the control knob when climate is affected by myriad factors. Of course SO2 is a factor, just not the sole factor.
There really is NO SO2 formula, other than when it increases, temperatures decrease, and when it decreases, temperatures increase.
Regarding the period 1937-1940, there were no volcanic eruptions between May 1937 and Feb 1943 to put any SO2 into the atmosphere, after those from the 1937 eruption had settled out, causing temperatures to temporarily rise.
This happens EVERY time there is 2 1/2-3 years between VEI4 eruptions which, on average, inject 0.2 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. The period is somewhat longer for larger eruptions..
I neglected to add that there also was a recession, between May 1937 and June 1938, which added to the reduction in SO2 emissions at that time, because of idled factories, foundries, etc.,
Temperatures have temporarily risen for all of the 34 recessions since ~1854, except for once, when it occurred during the cooling from a volcanic eruption..
That cannot be a measurement – it’s an assumption reported in small amounts. An analogy: Assume the odometer (milage counter) on a car used 1/3rd of an inch {~0.83 cm) and took 7 decimal places. If you watched the odometer flicker you would learn nothing useful.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is now in seasonal decline. See the small inset on the image at Wiki: Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth’s_atmosphere
I’m guessing they never heard of or even tried to determine their MDL (Method Detection Limit).
Where I worked, our lab’s MDL for total suspended solids was, as I recall, 4.5mg/L even though our lab scale could and did add another 10 or so decimal points to any given sample.
(Any value less than 4.5mg/L couldn’t be trusted or reported to the Ohio EPA. A value less than that would be reported with a two letter code then our MDL of 4.5. Any additional decimal places above 4.5 were rounded down to just one.)
I wonder what the likes of Roy Spencer would make of this..
sherro01
June 9, 2025 5:00 pm
There are broadly two groups of competent, informed people with ideas about the uncertainty of temperature measurements.
One group shows, with apparent approval, time series of temperatures over the decades compiled by different researchers but moving up and down in great agreement for wriggle matching. In some major cases, like the estimated global surface temperature, the whole range covers about 2 deg C with features matching to at least 0.1 deg C. This implies an uncertainty estimates of (say) +/- 0.1 deg C.
Then, there are many competent papers that report unresolved errors of the order of +/- 0.1 deg C. See Pat Frank’s paper on the 0.2 deg C error from early mercury thermometer drift. For global temperatures, who really knows the magnitude of UHI? Who knows the validity of infilling temperatures for huge parts of the globe when no temperatures were measured prior to 1900 or whenever?
Therefore, we have a second group that promotes higher estimates of uncertainty than group one. The difference is partly philosophic, with discussion about whether individual global surface temperatures are a sample from a larger population or instead are a population. The math is different.
Group two uncertainty estimates, often with detailed comments from reader Jim Gorman for one example, are more like +/- 1 deg C. This means a question hangs over wriggle matching prowess by group one, with a plausible explanation that wishful thinking leads to false refinement through adjustment.
Progress in understanding global warming is stalled, with a breakthrough urgently needed about which group is correct. Until that happens, the whole concept of net zero carbon leading to hydrocarbon fuel constraints cannot be settled to an acceptable scientific standard. Geoff S
Beware of ‘Net Zero’ terrorists and their “Climate Cleansing’ objectives.
It’s a race between the climate nuts and Muslims. Imagine no wine and beer production in Germany and France, not due to climate change, but rather due to the institution of Sharia law.
CO2 Has a Very Minor Global Warming Role in the Atmosphere
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
.
Natural cycles drive our climate.
The current temperatures are higher than in 1900 by about 1.5 C, but less than 0.5 C of that can be attributed to CO2. The rest is due to:
1) Long-term cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
2) Earth surface changes, due to increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
3) Urban heat islands, such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
4) Fossil fuel use
5) Permafrost methane, CH4, which converts to CO2
.
We need a Pro-life, Pro-CO2 Coalition
The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
MAGA and burn, baby, burn, may lead to a slightly greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere, which is an absolutely essential ingredient for creating: 1) increased green flora to support abundant fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people. What is not to like?
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to 1) increase command/control by governments, and 2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years.
More world greening due to CO2 means more termites.
Termites produce a significant amount of CO2, with estimates suggesting they emit approximately 3.54 Gigatonnes of CO2 annually, which is about one-tenth of the CO2 emissions from human activities.
While they produce CO2, their methane emissions are also notable, contributing a significant amount to the global methane budget.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
CO2 Production:
Termites produce CO2 through methano-genesis, a process that occurs in their guts with the help of symbiotic microorganisms, producing biogas containing methane and CO2.
Global Emissions:
Estimates suggest termites emit around 3.54 Gigatonnes of CO2 annually.
Methane Emissions:
Termites are also a significant source of methane, contributing about 20 Tg CH4 per year to the global methane budget, which is a major component of the Earth’s climate.
Impact of Climate Change:
Rising temperatures and aridity are predicted to increase termite activity, leading to more wood decomposition and potentially more CO2 emissions.
Importance of Termites:
While the CO2 produced by termites may seem significant, it is important to note that termites also play a vital role in the carbon cycle and nutrient cycling within ecosystems.
Generally yes, but ‘pro life’ term is taken by opponents of a woman’s right to her own body (activists opposing abortion).
It’s a race between the climate nuts and Muslims.
____________________________________________________________
Around 90 years ago it was a race between [_____] and the [_____]
Hey, dont forget them pesky ruskies flying up the charts. It’s the new hip climber who’s bandwagon everyone seems to want to ride on. Although, them yellow ones are close behind.
Anyway, fear and alarm all around. It’s clear everybody needs way more borrowed money to ‘battle’ all this. All systems GO!!!
SARC:).
Analogies don’t prove anything, but they might help folks to think more critically about what is being claimed. Here’s an example.
Expecting the energy involved in the “enhanced greenhouse effect” from incremental CO2 to drive sensible heat gain in the oceans, on land, and in the lower atmosphere –
Is like adding the chocolate syrup to the blender and supposing the bottom half of the milkshake will trap more color to end up darker than the top half.
What happens to the ~4 W/m^2 computed increase in IR absorbing power for the 2XCO2 case? That energy ends up being radiated to space from the top half just like all the other energy absorbed by clouds, water vapor, and the original amount of CO2. Circulation throughout the depth of the troposphere, with energy conversion both above and below the “effective radiating level,” massively overwhelms the incremental tendency for sensible heat gain down here. Dynamic self-regulation.
Consider these time-lapse videos. Each has a “Readme” description to explain more fully.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8vhRIT-3uaLhuaIZq2FuQ
But David, the fear of Climageddon in the masses and calculationally-challenged do-gooders….is so useful for those elites addicted to the aphrodisiac of power.
Will the North Sea oil and gas industry be Labour’s next U-turn?
With Nigel Farage targeting net zero, could government policy change to protect jobs, revenue and votes?
…
could leave Miliband in an awkward position. There have been “discussions within the Labour party for months over how to handle his potential resignation”, said an industry source.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/08/will-north-sea-oil-and-gas-industry-be-labour-next-u-turn
Reform is setting the agenda with only 5 MPs
You may recall that I predicted a U-Turn even before Labour actually won.
It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that politicians whose only true convictions are to hold on to power will do absolutely anything to hold onto power.
Net Zero is impossible, except by killing off most of the population and returning the survivors to 16th century living standards. If something is impossible, there’s no risk that it will happen. We therefore know that NetZero must fail. It only remains to be seen whether it will have been seen to have failed by 2029.
Unfortunately for my prediction (and the economic survival of my UK cousins), the Uniparty still have the ploy to say that the NetZero clock has simply been reset by that Evil of Evils Orange Man Bad. Remember that logic plays no role here.
Correct. Net zero won’t happen but many may die in the attempt and its consequences. As for the politicians, correct again. The real question is, how in a democracy of intelligent and educated people, do these politicians get elected? Answer this and the world will have turned a corner.
“The real question is, how in a democracy of intelligent and educated people, do these politicians get elected?”
The people are not educated, they have been propagandized by the radical Left. That’s how “educated” people elect idiots to office.
in a democracy of intelligent and educated people
“Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises” – you have a bad assumption here.
Also relevant
“A PERSON is smart. People are stupid.”
(Ayn Rand and Men in Black respectively)
16th century? You are so optimistic.
More like native Americans, hunting, fishing, gathering and much inter-tribal bickering, and peace-pipe smoking
EXIT NET ZERO!
Nuclear is dandy, but coal is quicker!
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/start-planning-to-exit-net-zero
Rafe,
Our news media in the US, although for the most part thoroughly in thrall to the Deep State, are not formally government-owned. Trump can’t order private companies to do that, and the ones who run most of the media certainly would never undermine their cause. It’s up to the new media to carry the burden of educating the public.
Coal is better, because it increases CO2 ppm
CO2 ppm increase from 1979 to 2023 was 421/336 = 1.25, greening increase about 12%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increase from 1900 to 2023 was 421/296 = 1.42, greening increase about 19%
.
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world flora and fauna; 3) Increases crop yields to feed 8 billion people; 4) Reduces world desert areas
Seen an interesting quote about peer review:
’Peer review, like every form of censorship, merely slows down truth’
Peer review has a good and useful function when not used as a fig-leaf for biased editorial policy.
The hope would have been that it avoids error to compensate for the inevitable slowdown of truth. Some would argue that in practice it has anointed lies and blocked truth. I would agree. A free debate is the best peer review.
Sunday funny
England football fans chant ‘Keir Starmer is a c—’ https://sports.yahoo.com/article/england-football-fans-chant-keir-171600350.html
Not exactly a popular bunny.
Trump got a roaring welcome from the fans at the UFC fightnight yesterday.
The stupidity of democrats:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hawaiis-governor-signs-new-hotel-tax-legislation-to-help-cope-with-climate-change/
This page doesn’t exist or can’t be found.
Is there an alternative?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/03/us/hawaii-hotel-tax-climate-change
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/hawaii-s-governor-signs-new-hotel-tax-legislation-to-help-cope-with-climate-change/ar-AA1FBjVa
Well actually it seems to be a political public acceptance scam using CC as the supposed reason for a “beachfront clean up tax”. Could work if it employs a bunch of trash pickers whose other career options are pickpockets and dope sellers.
It’s just another excuse to raise taxes so the politicians will have more money to pass around.
Apparently “ocean life ‘diminishing before our eyes’“ according to the Prince of Wales in a speech to Blue Economy and Finance Forum in Monaco.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d4387x1d0o
If a caliphate takes over Britain, will the Royals convert, will they be allowed to exist?
if the Muslim caliphate takes over the Parliament, it will enact Sharia Law and all palaces and castles will be razed to bare soil to be replaced with Mosques.
Anyone not kneeling for Allah will be sent to Canada, or will be eliminated.
France and Germany are next.
I do not see how Hungary, Slovakia and Poland can resist the rabid hordes.
And because England has nuclear weapons guess what will happen next. So does France and Germany.
It happened few times in the history already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Mongol_and_Tatar_attacks_in_Europe
Should they come through, Europe would suffer same destiny as Byzantine Empire, with capital Constantinopole, ehm. Istanbul now.
Search for “Ocean damage unspeakably awful, Attenborough tells prince” and you’ll find where the Royals get their info from….
But a lot of the damage is down to things like drag trawling and plastic waste which has nothing to do with warming. True, they also go on about “coral bleaching” which has been done to death here and in other forums.
“True, they also go on about “coral bleaching” which has been done to death here and in other forums.”
And coral bleaching has nothing to do with CO2.
There is a nation whose crazed leader has an active weapons of mass destruction program ongoing. All the intelligence services from around the world agree this is the case. The West is determined to prevent this madman from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction.
What nation am I referring to here, Iraq in 2003, or Iran today?
Answer: Both. Intelligence Services from around the world declared that both had/have active weapons of mass destruction programs.
Tucker Carlson is trying to convince President Trump that the Mad Mullahs of Iran are NOT enriching uranium. He says this is a lie and the U.S. should not attack the Mad Mullahs.
One has to wonder how Tucker acquired this information. It appears to me that it is just wishful thinking on his part since he has no particular insight into the weapons programs of the Mad Mullahs.
Republican Isolationists like Tucker rely heavily on wishful thinking. Wishful thinking can get one killed when dealing with dishonest Dictators with weapons of mass destruction. Tucker needs to wise up, but I think it would probably take a mushroom cloud to convince him.
That’s a bad day, for some worse than others.
Apparently, Tucker believes that if Iran were so close to building a nuclear weapon, then we would already be at war with them. His premise is certainly questionable.
It is true, however, that many hawks who pushed for war with Iraq are still around pushing for war with Iran. Without a doubt, we were lied to then and we are being lied to now.
We know where the liars on both sides put their own self interests. I despise both.
I find Tucker Carlson persuasive on this topic. The Bush Administration lied to us persistently. (Not only in the blatant fabrications about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction but on other topics that I won’t divert the discussion by delving into here).
It has always seemed to me that the end goal of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan was the hope of surrounding Iran and eventually attacking the quote unquote Mad Mullahs. (Sure they hold extreme religious views that I don’t share, but does that make them formally insane? I think not).
Now clearly the original game plan of surrounding Iran with hostile forces has utterly failed at the cost of thousands of our best young men and trillions of dollars. Yet the goal remains to attack Iran by hook or by crook.
And what is our national interest in attacking Iran? There is none! If you take the point of view of Israel, clearly an urgent goal is to neutralize the threat from Iran. So it follows that our politicians are prioritizing Israel’s national interests over our own national interests. Are they doing that because somehow Israel’s well-being is in our national interest? Help me understand how that is the case.
I don’t desire the destruction of Israel but I also don’t accept that it is our responsibility to protect Israel.
Iran is an any of the West. There is no question of that.A nuclear armed terrorist regime is not something I want to face. Europe has much more to lose but they have practically already surrendered.
An enemy, I think you meant? Of course the current government of Iran is an enemy of the West. Nobody denies that or doubts it. But it’s a bit odd to think that Iran is more of a threat to the West than North Korea? If we are already under the threat of Nork nukes, how does it make sense to risk provoking World War III merely to prevent a second enemy regime from posing the same threat?
Because, unlike North Korea, Iran has proven its ability to rouse support among a sizeable proportion (perhaps 10%) of the billion or so anti-Western followers of Allah?
“But it’s a bit odd to think that Iran is more of a threat to the West than North Korea?”
Kim Jung Un has a sense of self-preservation. Starting a nuclear war would get him killed. The Mad Mullahs do not have a sense of self-preservation. The Mad Mullahs are a Death Cult who glory in dying for their “religious” beliefs.
That’s the difference. Kim Jung Un won’t use his nuclear weapons. The Mad Mullahs will use their nuclear weapons
You don’t think there was a plausible Wag the Dog play with Bush and Iraqi WMD?
I don’t follow you. Please expand on that.
“in the blatant fabrications about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction”
so ….. what was in those Russian truck convoys that went to Syria ??
If there even were any such convoys, I have no idea. As likely as not Russian assets that they didn’t want to fall into US hands? Or is your conspiracy theory that the Russians were supporting Iraq’s WMD program and actively helped cover it up?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq/
The dead folks in Halabja, Iraq think that WMD existed and would be used.
You know very well that the original argument was not about chemical weapons. It was that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons. It was well established that he had used chemical weapons and that was the reason for subsequently talking about WMDs rather than just nuclear weapons, so that the claim could plausibly be made that he was in fact making WMDs.
It’s ridiculous to say that chemical weapons that any semi-competent high school chemistry teacher could produce, and certainly every government would be a legitimate justification for launching a regime change war.
Rich you said “WMD program”. If you meant only nuclear please be more exact in your language. All the dead people probably don’t care if they died via chemical or nuclear WMD.
Yes, I did say that, but I was carelessly using the language of those who attempted to obfuscate what they were claiming.
The hawks were implying nuclear bomb-making and talking about nuclear inspections but they covered themselves by referring generically to ‘weapons of mass destruction’. That included chemical weapons that there really was no reasonable doubt that Saddam had used. They were happy to say WMD and let the public hear ‘nuclear weapons’, while later emphasizing that they said WMDs not just possible nukes.
Did they ever have any evidence of an active nuclear bomb program? I don’t think so. Was it evil to use chemical weapons? Of course! Was it a US strategic interest to get involved? Not so clear to me.
As I recollect, there were many barrels of Yellow Cake discovered after the war was over. Why have Yellow Cake if reactor-grade uranium oxide was available on the open market? Why have UN inspection teams if there was no concern about bomb-grade enrichment taking place?
“As I recollect, there were many barrels of Yellow Cake discovered after the war was over.”
Yes, Saddam had about 400 tons of yellow cake uranium, which was removed to Canada after the war.
Don’t forget that the Israelis had carried out preemptive attacks on Saddam’s nuclear facilities before the Iraq war began because they feared Saddam was developing nuclear weapons.
“You know very well that the original argument was not about chemical weapons. It was that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons.”
After the Gulf War, about 400 tons of yellowcake uranium was removed from Iraq. So Saddam had his fingers in all sorts of schemes.
What should people think when Saddam refuses to allow weapons inspectors into his country even under the threat of military action?
Logically, they would think Saddam had something to hide.
To make a nuclear bomb, you need very high-level machine tools to make the segments of the bomb, that implode together, so they become “critical”, and explode due to intense neutron generation.
Making a dirty bomb with radioactive waste from power reactors is easy by comparison
“The Bush Administration lied to us persistently.”
I don’t believe that for a minute. Every intelligence agency in the Western world believed Saddam Insane had an active weapons of mass destruction program. And why not? Saddam had used poison gas in the past on the Iranians and on the Kurds, and he fired missiles into Israel.
Saddam was given many, many chances over the years to come clean about his WMD programs and let UN inspectors into Iraq. But Saddam didn’t want to come clean. He wanted everyone to think he had WMD. His own generals were interrogated after the war and they all thought Saddam had WMD because that’s what Saddam wanted them to think. Saddam thought this would keep him safe from attack. Saddam was wrong.
You think General Colin Powell was deliberately lying to the world when he tried to make the case against Saddam? I say, Hell no!. Powell was not a dishonest person and what he said is what he believed. Not finding an active WMD program does not change that fact.
There was no plan to surround Iran and take them down. President G.W. Bush had them surrounded with about 450,000 American troops, yet he made no attempt to attack Iran or to even try to intimidate Iran in this situation. I was hoping he would. He missed a Golden Opportunity to oust the Mad Mullahs. Just think of all the misery and death the Mad Mullahs have caused the world since G.W. passed on deposing them. A huge mistake. And now Trump is going to have to finish the job before these madmen acquire nuclear weapons. Evil Dictators don’t just go away on their own.
“And what is our national interest in attacking Iran? There is none!”
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be blown up by a Mad Mullah nuclear weapon. That’s more than enough reason to attack Iran, as far as I’m concerned, seeing as how the Mad Mullahs constantly threaten the United States. We should have destroyed the Mad Mullahs a long time ago, long before they were on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. Past U.S. presidents just kept kicking the can down the road.
And the secret is the United States wouldn’t really have to send in many or even any U.S. troops, as once the people of Iran saw that the U.S. had their backs, they would rise up and throw off the Mad Mullahs all by themselves, after the U.S. decimated the Mad Mullah’s military capabilities, which could be done quickly and mostly from the air. Once the Mad Mullahs military is decimated, the Mad Mullahs are toast. The Iranian people hate them. The U.S. just has to give them the opportunity. That’s one reason I say the U.S. should not bomb Iran’s oil infrastructure. Save it for the people of Iran.
“I don’t desire the destruction of Israel but I also don’t accept that it is our responsibility to protect Israel.”
Israel isn’t the only target of the Mad Mullahs. The Mad Mullahs call Israel the “Little Satan” and the call the United States the “Big Satan” and they vow to destroy both.
Trump is not going to let them do it. If Biden or some other idiot Democrat were in office, the Mad Mullahs would be on their way to disrupting the whole world because they are crazy enough and fanatic enough to use nuclear weapons regardless of the consequences to themselves or others.
General Keane says he does not think the Mad Mullahs are going to agree to stop enriching uranium, even if that brings an attack, and I agree with him.
So expect the bombing of the Mad Mullah’s nuclear weapons facilities and military installations in the near future.
Get ready Iranian people. Your opportunity to depose the Mad Mullahs is just around the corner.
You should correct your statement Tom. Carlson is trying to convince Trump that Iran is NOT building a nuclear weapon.
He knows that Iran is enriching uranium. He said that neocon demands that Iran stop all enrichment is a demand that neocons know Iran will not accept, that it is intended to box Trump into fighting a disastrous war with Iran.
“You should correct your statement Tom. Carlson is trying to convince Trump that Iran is NOT building a nuclear weapon.”
Yes, you are correct.
Tucker could hardly be denying the Mad Mullahs were enriching uranium when the Mad Mullahs say that is what they are doing themselves.
Tucker says they are not building a nuclear weapon, but I have to ask how he knows this? Why does he think the Mad Mullahs are enriching the uranium to weapons grade while claiming they only want the uranium to power their electric plant, which does not require weapons-grade enrichment?
What does Tucker think the Mad Mullahs are going to do with highly enriched uranium?
Like I said, Tucker depends a lot on wishful thinking in his world. He doesn’t want to face this Mad Mullah-with-nukes problem, so he pretends it is not there. He is divorced from reality.
Tucker has veered into conspiracy nut territory. What happened to him?
Intelligence agencies were wrong about Saddam’s WMD programs. How could they be so wrong, and could they be wrong again with Iran?
The Iraq WMD fiasco proved the need for human intel sources on the inside.
In some cases I agree that Carlson is too open to implausible explanations. His views on UFOs and the moon landings come to mind.
You seem to be saying that the intel agencies were ‘wrong’ as opposed to they ‘lied’. Is that because you think that it would be impossible for a conspiracy to stay under wraps? That’s fair enough but isn’t it possible for well-placed individuals to have fed disinformation that caused the majority of well-meaning people to come to a wrong conclusion?
There seems to be evidence that GW Bush was not the boy scout that he tried to make us believe he was (or the born again ex-sinner if you like). The agenda of the surveillance state that Bush ushered in is hard for me to reconcile with him being well-meaning. It could well be that he acted under coercion due to being blackmailed or that he was innocently deceived. It is the same outcome in any of those scenarios. Someone lied to us.
I am convinced that Jeffrey Epstein played a huge role in the insanely poor decision-making of the past three decades. He was (or is?—there’s a conspiracy theory for you) a Mossad agent. It’s perfectly consistent with the idea that Western politicians were systematically compromised and blackmailed into acting against their own country’s interests to do Israel’s bidding.
Wow, Epstein and P.Diddy both Mossad ? Whoddathunkit ?
/s
Was your point just to ridicule me, DMac? Or is there some reason to suggest that Diddy was Mossad?
The evidence is pretty strong that Robert Maxwell, Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, was involved with Mossad and introduced Ghislaine and Jeffrey to Mossad.
Yes, Epstein as a Mossad agent is ridiculous.
Seriously? Why is it ridiculous? You’re saying that Mossad would have no reason to want to be in a position to blackmail western politicians into supporting actions that benefit Israel? Or are you saying that Mossad would never stoop to anything immoral?
Nothing that US politicians have supported in the past few decades has benefited Israel and cost the US dearly?
There is a conspiracy theory that Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, news mogul, was killed by Mossad…equally ridiculous grist for the black helicopter group.
“His views on UFOs and the moon landings come to mind.”
Tucker has views on those subjects, too? I didn’t know that. I haven’t kept up with Tucker much since he left Fox News.
The intelligence is adjusted to suit the deep state goals.
Israel, urged on by the deep state, tried to goad Trump.
We will bomb Iran together!
Trump said no! I want to negotiate, get a verifiable deal.
But the deep state is in the weapons business. Bomb, baby bomb!
This coming War is not up to the Deep State. The Deep State is not the entity that is refusing to give up uranium enrichment.
The Mad Mullahs of Iran are the ones refusing to give up their uranium enrichment. If any military action results, it is the fault of the Mad Mullahs, not the fault of the Deep State, unless you think the Mad Mullahs are part of the Deep State.
Dragging the Deep State into this a mistake. Not that i”m defending the Deep State, but they have no say in whether the Mad Mullahs comply or not, and that should be stated clearly.
Iran having 95+% pure Uranium, or not, would not stop Israel from bombing Iran with US bombs and US planes.
Israel, for political reasons, does not want to do it by itself.
“Tucker has veered into conspiracy nut territory.”
I agree. Tucker has done off the deep end when it comes to national security and defense.
One reason the intelligence agencies thought Saddam had an active WMD program is because Saddam promoted that idea. He did such a good job that his own generals thought he had an active WMD program. So it’s not a wonder that intelligence agencies, who, no doubt, talked to some of Saddam’s generals, believed what those generals told them, and the generals believed it, too.
The intelligence about the Mad Mullahs nuclear weapons plans are not wrong. For one thing, Israel intelligence came into possession of Iranian documents outlining the program a couple of years ago.
And logic should tell us that if the Mad Mullahs want enriched uranium, they can only want it for one purpose: To build a nuclear weapon.
So yes, the Mad Mullahs are attempting to build themselves nuclear weapons.
One nuclear weapon, even a crude one, detonated above the United States could knock out half of the U.S. electrical grid. A crazy man with a nuclear weapon, a skud-type portable missile launcher, and a tramp steamer, off the coast of the U.S., could get that job done.
Iran could develop nuclear weapons in a (relatively) “short” period of time if they decided to “green light” such a project, but you are exaggerating the current state of affairs.
Yes, a keen eye (or two) needs to be kept on Iran, but starting yet another “forever war” in the Middle East is definitely not a good idea (see: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, …).
.
On the 31st of May the war-mongering neo-cons in Washington DC got their media puppets to enter “let’s distract the plebs by scaring the s**t out of them” mode about Iran.
BBC article, title “Iran significantly growing uranium stockpile, warns UN nuclear agency” :
CNN article, titled “IAEA report spells out past secret nuclear activities in Iran” :
Politico article, titled “Iran has amassed even more near weapons-grade uranium, UN watchdog says” :
.
The combined US intelligence agencies input their global “threat assessments” as of March this year to the ODNI, which released a “declassified” summary at this direct link.
In the “Iran” section, on page 26 of that PDF file :
NB : If Mossad believed Iran was really just “a few weeks away” from building a nuclear warhead, Israel would have attacked already … with a large fraction of their 90-300 nukes …
What “intelligence” do you have access to that Tulsi Gabbard and the current head of Mossad do not ?
Thank you for this post–the war mongers and coolaid drinkers are still a powerful force that need countering with information like this.
Many think that several European nations will be taken over internally by the Muslim population. If so it is unnecessary for Iran to build nuclear weapons western civilization haters will have arsenals full of them.
“Iran could develop nuclear weapons in a (relatively) “short” period of time if they decided to “green light” such a project, but you are exaggerating the current state of affairs.”
Me, and President Trump. The DNI must have updated their assessment because Trump is real close to bombing the Mad Mullahs over their enrichment/nuclear weapons program.
There are no “forever wars”. That is a pejorative reluctant warriors use. The failures in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of delusional Democrats being put in charge.
The Vietnam war was won, then the Democrats came in to power and threw South Vietnam to the wolves. The Iraq war was won, then the Democrats came in and threw the Iraqis to the Iranian wolves. The Afghanistan war was under control and then the Democrats came in and screwed everything up again.
The Democrats are incapable of adequately defending the United States. They prove themselves incapable time and time again. Their fears blind them to reality. We cannot trust Democrats to defend us. They fail every time.
Sorry, I was laughing, expecting to see anti-Trump sarcasm.
Any country that doesn’t follow your philosophy always has a “crazed” or “deranged” leader, and its citizens are “brutish”, “cruel”, “inhuman”, and so on. Just look at the propaganda from Britain in WW1, portraying the evil Hun – throwing babies into the air for bayonet practice, raping nurses, etc.
And so it goes.
The world changes, empires rise and fall, today’s best friend used to be your worst enemy – that’s life.
I enjoy a quiet life. So far, so good.
Here’s how crazed Saddam Insane was:
Saddam took one of his political enemies and dangled him from a crane over a pool filled with acid, and then Saddam had the man slowly lowered into the acid while Saddam sat in a lawn chair nearby, smoking a cigar and laughing as the acid slowly and painfully killed the man.
Saddam obviously took great pleasure in causing others to suffer. I think “crazed” is a good description for him.
Putin said of Carlson: He is a dangerous person.
“Why Wind And Solar Make Grids More Vulnerable to Blackouts
Renewable energy, like wind and solar, has become a larger part of the overall power supply, but the grid wasn’t designed to handle it. WSJ asks a mechanical engineer for three ways to fix this.”
Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2025
WSJ headline seems to expose wind and solar, but seems to be just a promotion for MORE wind and solar…by adding synchronous condensers and back-up batteries…and more transmission lines.WOW!
Note a well-presented, albeit misleading, perhaps fundamentally deceitful….a mechanical engineer’s view of inertia without any mention of A/C magnetic and electric fields, power factor, capacitive and inductive impedance voltages and currents, control based on zero sequence currents, and damaging harmonics. And continues the horrible comparison of average demand to nameplate capacities of solar and wind.
It misses the specific intermittancy times and degradations with wind and solar.
It misses explaining that “make-up” energy on the grid provides instant demand with ability to continue frequency within 2 cycles, and with 2 month coal reserves on site, or multiple dedicated natural gas feeds, or years of nuclear fuel available.
It misses the actual cost comparison between the “solution” and former grid costs and reserves.
Basically an advertisement for “net zero”.
Continuing a total waste of someone else’s money—eg. utility customers, taxpayers. And less money for more important things.
Sad that WSJ editorial and feature staff fight both the administration and our formerly secure, reliable, dependable, lowest cost electric service.
The IEA already say that grids around the world are struggling to keep up with the rise in power demand and renewable deployments and are also facing supply chain problems for transformers and cables. The rapid build out of AI Data Centres will only exacerbate these problems.
IEA ‘World Energy Investment’ (June 2025)
ME’s also may not understand that the power transfer through a transmission line is proportional to the sine of the phase difference between the terminals. Once the phase difference exceeds 90º, the power transfer goes DOWN and the system will likely lose synchronism with the ensuing blackout.
A question for Burl Henry:
Burl, we were talking about the U.S. regional chart (shown above), and I said that any theory that tried to describe the climate had to account for the temperature trendline of the United States regional chart.
In the course of that conversation, you said that the slight warming period from 1937 to 1940, could be attributed to SO2 forcing.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but it appears to me that if you are correct then you have found the point where SO2 either cools the temperatures or warms the temperatures.
Presumably, from 1937 to 1940, the SO2 amounts in the atmosphere declined enough to cause the temperatures to climb, because less SO2 equals more sunlight reaching the ground, so more warming.
Then in 1940, or thereabouts, SO2 amounts in the atmosphere increased, which reflected sunlight back into space and caused the temperatures to cool.
So, we have a narrow window we can calculate where the amount of SO2 causes the atmosphere to either warm or cool.
What were the amounts of SO2 in the atmosphere for the periods from 1937 to 1940?
Do these amounts equate to the amounts of SO2 in the late 1970’s, when the temperature changed from cooling to warming?
If these SO2 numbers for 1937 to 1940, and 1975 to 1980, are similar, then it would appear you have found the SO2 formula; The place where the amount of SO2 changes the temperatures from cooling to warming and back again..
Have you found the SO2 formula?
Burl doesn’t appear to have an answer. His argument is wrong if for no other reason than he claims that SO2 is the control knob when climate is affected by myriad factors. Of course SO2 is a factor, just not the sole factor.
I would love to see what Burl has to say about it
Tom Abbott:
There really is NO SO2 formula, other than when it increases, temperatures decrease, and when it decreases, temperatures increase.
Regarding the period 1937-1940, there were no volcanic eruptions between May 1937 and Feb 1943 to put any SO2 into the atmosphere, after those from the 1937 eruption had settled out, causing temperatures to temporarily rise.
This happens EVERY time there is 2 1/2-3 years between VEI4 eruptions which, on average, inject 0.2 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. The period is somewhat longer for larger eruptions..
Tom Abbott:
I neglected to add that there also was a recession, between May 1937 and June 1938, which added to the reduction in SO2 emissions at that time, because of idled factories, foundries, etc.,
Temperatures have temporarily risen for all of the 34 recessions since ~1854, except for once, when it occurred during the cooling from a volcanic eruption..
Such precise BS.
https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/global-warming/CO2-concentration
7 decimal points? Give me a break!
That cannot be a measurement – it’s an assumption reported in small amounts. An analogy: Assume the odometer (milage counter) on a car used 1/3rd of an inch {~0.83 cm) and took 7 decimal places. If you watched the odometer flicker you would learn nothing useful.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is now in seasonal decline. See the small inset on the image at Wiki: Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth’s_atmosphere
“7 decimal points? Give me a break!”
I’m guessing they never heard of or even tried to determine their MDL (Method Detection Limit).
Where I worked, our lab’s MDL for total suspended solids was, as I recall, 4.5mg/L even though our lab scale could and did add another 10 or so decimal points to any given sample.
(Any value less than 4.5mg/L couldn’t be trusted or reported to the Ohio EPA. A value less than that would be reported with a two letter code then our MDL of 4.5. Any additional decimal places above 4.5 were rounded down to just one.)
Actually it is TEN digits…
What a load of horse puckey.
https://youtu.be/QRzAV8PVUws?si=LYpRod3q_z38hcy3
I thought this recent video on Tom’s channel was interesting.
Taking down the whole concept of Mean Global Temperature.
I wonder what the likes of Roy Spencer would make of this..
There are broadly two groups of competent, informed people with ideas about the uncertainty of temperature measurements.
One group shows, with apparent approval, time series of temperatures over the decades compiled by different researchers but moving up and down in great agreement for wriggle matching. In some major cases, like the estimated global surface temperature, the whole range covers about 2 deg C with features matching to at least 0.1 deg C. This implies an uncertainty estimates of (say) +/- 0.1 deg C.
Then, there are many competent papers that report unresolved errors of the order of +/- 0.1 deg C. See Pat Frank’s paper on the 0.2 deg C error from early mercury thermometer drift. For global temperatures, who really knows the magnitude of UHI? Who knows the validity of infilling temperatures for huge parts of the globe when no temperatures were measured prior to 1900 or whenever?
Therefore, we have a second group that promotes higher estimates of uncertainty than group one. The difference is partly philosophic, with discussion about whether individual global surface temperatures are a sample from a larger population or instead are a population. The math is different.
Group two uncertainty estimates, often with detailed comments from reader Jim Gorman for one example, are more like +/- 1 deg C. This means a question hangs over wriggle matching prowess by group one, with a plausible explanation that wishful thinking leads to false refinement through adjustment.
Progress in understanding global warming is stalled, with a breakthrough urgently needed about which group is correct. Until that happens, the whole concept of net zero carbon leading to hydrocarbon fuel constraints cannot be settled to an acceptable scientific standard. Geoff S
Story tip
(maybe)
Petition against Jeff Bezos funding of cow fart genetics through the American Angus Assoc.
https://www.change.org/p/urgent-call-to-return-the-4-85-million-grant-from-the-bezos-earth-fund
Hotter than in 1948:
Seattle’s sizzling Sunday breaks heat record set in 1948 | The Seattle Times
(I’ve been in Seattle when temperature went above 80F, felt humid.)