The minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O, etc., is massively overwhelmed by dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation.
That is how skeptics of climate alarm can explain, from fundamental physical principles, why there is no risk of harmful influence on the climate system from past or future emissions of CO2 and other IR-active trace gases. The computed radiative effect itself need not be in dispute to make this point, as that claimed effect does not determine the end result in any case, because the atmosphere operates dynamically as the compressible working fluid of its own circulation.
This is straightforward, and the modelers know it. Let’s hope the EPA acts SOON to finalize the withdrawal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
This was obvious more than a quarter century ago, when Thatcher started this scare.
It was known from the off, even before it became well known. It’s why the original paper by Arrhenius was not a sensation.
The science has never justified the fear.
As a scientific hypothesis, AGW was always plausible. But it was never plausible that AGW could have a newsworthy impact.
AGW should be studied as a social and political movement, not a scientific hypothesis.
“This was obvious more than a quarter century ago…” For example, it was obvious to Simpson and Brunt in 1938 that Callendar’s attribution of a warming trend to rising concentrations of CO2 made little sense physically. Their comments remain valid as modern numerical modeling now shows us.
Also this known by us biologists doing proper homework.
Moberg, E. G., D. M. Greenberg, R. Revelle, and E. C. Allen. 1934. The buffer mechanism of sea water. Bull. Scripps Inst. Ocean. 3(11):231-278.
strativarius
January 25, 2026 2:42 am
Start the day with a laugh.
Shakespeare Was a Black Jewish Woman – Claims Feminist Historian
Not related to this comment, but last week you pointed me to a video by Paul Burgess. Many thanks for that. It is a useful resource to get credulous or fretful friends to think a little more sceptically about AI.
The ‘Shakespeare was African’ hypothesis dates back to at least the 19th century and is mainly based on a (slightly racist) interpretation of his name.
It is true that writing a play with a black lead character was very progressive for the time.
In 2025, the EU took an enormous step forward towards a clean power system backed by wind and solar. For the first time, wind and solar produced more electricity than fossil fuels in the EU. Homegrown renewables remained nearly half of EU power, as record-breaking solar worked in tandem with wind.
…
The stakes of the EU continuing to make progress on energy transition remain starkly clear. For the EU, risks of energy blackmail from fossil fuel exporters loomed large in 2025. Investing in homegrown renewables is a key strategy to lower that risk, as geopolitics continue to destabilise.
And de-industrialising. Outsourcing all their manufacturing to China. Similar to what they did by outsourcing gas and oil to Russia – did not turn out well as Trump predicted a decade ago. At least Merz has pivoted back to nuclear after recognising the future folly of shutting down working nuclear plants.
Australia is well down the track to de-industrialisation as well. The place runs off rooftop solar and clapped out coal plants most around 50 years old.
In the mid-1990’s, Germany had 21 GW of nuclear power which supplied 30% of that nation’s electricity. All it’s nuclear plants are now shuttered and are not recoverable.
It’s worse than that. The German nuclear expertise which built its nuclear plants is either retired or is in the graveyards. Much of the generalized industrial base Germany had thirty-five years ago, upon which the nuclear industrial base floats, is now going or is already gone.
New-build nuclear will not be playing much of a future role in Germany simply for the fact that the industrial base needed to achieve a restoration of nuclear power in that country has been discarded by the German greens, along with discarding the legacy nuclear reactors themselves.
Germany has made its bed and must now lie in it. IMHO, their situation is unrecoverable in the near to mid-term future. Another three decades of hard work will be necessary to put Germany back where it was industrially at the beginning of the 1990’s.
“…their situation is unrecoverable in the near to mid-term future.”
That’s a shame. When I was preparing for a degree in Engineering back in the late ’50s my father suggested I study German since Germany had developed the best engineers and engineering documentation.
It is Sunday after all, so why not a sermon from WUWTs very own green pastor?
It’s as well you don’t include the UK in that, or do you subconsciously? Anyway, we have our own unique Gaian febrile – Ed Miliband. Even the Politburo (Commission) isn’t as crazy as he is.
So wind and solar made ~30% of electricity production versus ~29% from fossil fuels. And electricity is only about a fifth of total EU energy consumption which is still dominated by fossil fuel. And all that green electricity at what economic and ecological cost? And the horrific industrialization of the land and seascape.
I would say – and username can respond – that he is of the school that holds to the principle that the village must be burned in order to save the village.
Over the past four years, Germany’s industrial workforce has been decimated, with hundreds of thousands of jobs vanishing amid rising energy prices and policy-driven inefficiencies. A study revealed that the industrial sector shed nearly 250,000 jobs since 2019, representing a 4.3% contraction in the workforce. The automotive industry, a cornerstone of German manufacturing, lost 51,500 jobs in just one year, equating to a 7% drop in employment. Broader manufacturing saw 120,000 positions disappear in 2024 alone, bringing the total to around 6.67 million workers by early 2025. These losses are closely tied to net zero policies, which have accelerated the transition to renewables while phasing out fossil fuels and nuclear power. Critics argue that the Energiewende—Germany’s ambitious energy transition—has inflated electricity costs, making it uncompetitive for energy-intensive industries like chemicals and steel. For instance, companies such as BASF and Volkswagen have announced mass layoffs, citing the need to adapt to a changing landscape that prioritizes sustainability over economic viability.
The best way to avoid scarcity is to stop production. There can be no scarcity of that which is not produced. Marxists have proven this over and over.
Productive people cause scarcity. When they are eliminated utopia is accomplished.
Warren Buffett, not noted for stupidity, bought windmills. He did so because US subsidies make them profitable and without the subsidies, they make no sense.
Are you implying that anything Trump says is brilliant and true? many articles on this forum deride the ‘argumenr from authority” tactic used to justify climate panic: ‘science says” is no different from “Trump says”.
I don’t know if you know this Tom but Trump says a lot of things that make no sense at all.
And while I am not a gloater… can I just say (modestly) that it seems I was bang on the money, 100% right, the winner….. when I said Trump would fold on Greenland. After all the fuss and damage done to a treaty that protected the planet from war, he has walked away with nothing he couldn’t have got by just asking.i.e some more bases on Greenland.
“Trump got everything and more than he wanted, especially access to minerals.”
Got a reference for that?
As I recall he was going to settle for nothing less than getting the whole of Greenland, so your statement, once again (eye roll) is wrong.
The Danes know of no deal so maybe send them the reference too.
“You don’t have a clue how Trump operates, do you. !!” I know he is a con man who talks big. That about covers him. Still waiting for your reference???? Till then you are just blowing smoke.
Well perhaps you know what Trump has secured in this exceptional deal? If so let’s see it?
On another note I see The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a recent study indicates 96% of the tariffs are paid by the American people. https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/americans-are-the-ones-paying-for-tariffs-study-finds-e254ed2e
See this is what I meant by con man. The crazy thing is some swallowed it. The truth….Tariffs are a sales tax on foreign goods paid by the US consumer.
Inflation is down to around. 2.5 percent, so if Americans are paying the tariffs, they aren’t paying much.
All the Leftwing economic pundits claim tariffs will increase inflation but there is no evidence that is happening. Inflation is actually going down, not up.
When you are dealing with a used car salesman, only a fool believes everything the salesman says. Trump is unconventional, but he is effective at what he does. I’m glad he is on our side.
I think you are being kind to Trump comparing him to a used car salesman. But are you really glad to have a man like him on your side? A man so tackless he thinks it’s ok to insult friendly countries whose soldiers died for a common cause. Here we have a draft dodger lecturing allied nations that their soldiers were not brave enough. I literally have no words to describe what sort of human being does that, let alone a leader. Let’s reverse that and for a second and imagine the British prime minister had done that to Americas brave fallen soldiers? How does that feel?
Many people aren’t informed at all about the military tactic called a “feint”, which as Sun Tzu explains in his time-proven masterpiece “The Art Of War”, involvesperforming credible moves quite openly that have your gullible enemy preparing for the course of action you have openly signaled (i.e. your “feint”).
When you then proceed with a course of action that is what the enemy thought you should be taking at the outset, they are then left wondering if this latest position is the the real one you’re going to prosecute, or are you actually preparing to proceed with the tactic you signaled originally.
And so your enemy has to prepare for either or both avenues of your advance, thereby dividing and confusing your enemy as to how they should prepare to deploy their forces.
Trump’s strategists seem to be using the feint tactics in most of their dealings on many issues both domestically and internationally with America’s ‘adversaries’ these days –
announce a particular line of engagement, then withdraw and do something different (or the same).
Sun Tzu advises that you must always keep your enemy guessing and unsettled about how you might (or might not) proceed.
My impressions from afar are that the Trump administration is rendering many ‘adversaries’ confused and impotent as to how they counter the dismantling of their organizations.
Mind games in military strategy. Sun Tzu recognizes that warfare is not just about physical confrontation, but also about outsmarting the enemy. Deception plays a crucial role in gaining advantage without direct conflict. Key aspects of deceptive tactics:
Appearing weak when strong, and strong when weak
Feigning disorder to lure the enemy into a trap
Using false information to mislead the opponent
Creating illusions of activity or inactivity to confuse enemy intelligence
Implementing deception:
Develop a comprehensive understanding of the enemy’s expectations
Create believable false narratives and actions
Maintain consistency in deceptive measures
Use multiple layers of deception to prevent easy discovery
By mastering the art of deception, a commander can manipulate the enemy’s perceptions and actions, leading them to make mistakes that can be exploited for victory.
You beat me to it with the remark about the essence of warfare.
My favorite example is that when a general that was being pursued by his enemy had run out of arrows, with the enemy encamped on the other side of a river, waiting for dawn to attack, he gave out orders for his soldiers to gather grass and bundle it into bales placed around their boats on the river shore, which the enemy was aware of. Once all the bales were in place, he had torches lit and the war drums banged as though they were attacking at night. The enemy general than had his archers send volley after volley of arrows towards the drums and torches. All that the archers had to do replenish their quivers was to pluck the arrows out of the bales. Thus, the enemy general obligingly and quickly re-stocked the smarter general with all the arrows his archers needed, while depleting the supplies of the enemy.
It is the Simple Simons of the world who are most easily deluded and manipulated.
“We don’t know all the details of the deal as yet so claiming Trump got nothing is pure speculation.”
Fair enough but his responses to the questions on the deal would indicate he is not getting Greenland which he said was his bottom line.
“I thought Trump blackmailing European allies was not a good look.”
What about the comments re Nato forces hanging back? You would not have liked that one I’m picking either Tom.
I will give Trump credit where it is due though. He seems to have worked out the ICE thing in Minneapolis is not working and is going to pull them. Hopefully this last death was not in vain.
Well, Europe and the UK will always have their tourist industries- except of course where they covered the landscape with hideous wind and solar “farms”. Wealthy America and Chinese tourists will enjoy taking photos of the European peasants sitting on their stoops wearing rags.
Here’s Germany’s reward for leading the transition:
As of January 2026, Germany faces a precarious natural gas supply situation with low storage levels (~40%) following a cold winter, raising risks of industrial curtailments and potential rationing, particularly affecting energy-intensive sectors. While the country successfully reduced reliance on Russian gas since 2022 by diversifying with LNG and increasing storage, current supplies remain tight.
Key details on Germany’s gas situation:
Current Outlook (2026): Storage levels have dropped below 57% early in the 2026 heating season, which is 23 percentage points lower than the previous year, causing concern about supply security.Potential Impact: A severe shortage could necessitate government intervention, potentially forcing industrial shutdowns or rationing for industries like chemicals and metals.Funny. No mention of unreliables coming to the rescue. Perhaps a few new coal power plants are needed.
I’m French, and truly glad we have an efficient nuclear power plant fleet (thanks to General de Gaulle), even if environmentalists want to dismantle it and replace it with wind turbines and solar panels. I hope you’re writing this from somewhere with reliable and cheap energy, otherwise the next “wind crunch” that lasts a little longer than usual will have you shivering.
There are still quite a few active nuclear power plants in France. I sincerely hope that environmentalists don’t come to power to realize their renewable energy fantasies. The Fessenheim power plant (in Alsace) was closed a few years ago. It could have operated for quite some time longer, and it was profitable.
Given that Denmark is backtracking on nuclear power, we can hope that wind turbines and solar panels will be less prevalent in the plains and on rooftops in the coming years, and that Europe (France, in particular) will resume serious work on power plant projects that were extremely promising but were abandoned, much to the delight of the Greens.
My house has very low carbon emissions: me breathing; propane for cooking, furnace, and hot water; a couple hundred gasoline miles a month, and the occasional fire.
My little town of 100 people has similarly low carbon emissions.
But gosh, you know what? We have outsourced 99% of our carbon emissions to larger communities far away. We manufacture nothing. We import all our electricity. Package delivery is based elsewhere.
And hey, Europe is moving to that model too! Driving industry away, importing electricity, natural gas, oil. So yeah, great they’ve reduced their carbon emissions. Sucks to be the rest of the world, who now emit more carbon on their behalf than they used to emit by and for themselves.
As mentioned before, wind and solar are the most environmentally and economically destructive forms of part-time electricity there is..
Clean… they are NOT.
Ron Long
January 25, 2026 4:49 am
The majority of people are reactive, scientists are analytical. This is playing out now in the political arena, where reactive persons are rabidly against Trump. The same division existed in the CAGW/Net Zero nonsense, but a lot of progress is being achieved with analytical themes. I wonder if TDS will ever become analytical? Don’t wait for it.
In this paradigm I don’t believe that statement to be true. Where climate scientist [activist] people are concerned, they are entirely dogmatic. Religious. Conform or be cast out.
You are conflating those who are dogmatic, religious conformists, with scientists? Just because a group calls themselves scientists doesn’t mean they are.
The question becomes, even if someone wears a lab coat at work and calls themselves a “scientist,” are they actually a scientist if they are not analytical? What I see frequently is someone with a PhD who behaves like a technician. It is more likely that someone calls themselves a scientist because there is nothing else about them that would suggest that they are a ‘disinterested’ observer that reflexively responds to an unanticipated event by thinking, “That is interesting! I wonder why that happened?” And then proceeds to try to figure it out.
Incoming VA governor Spanberger ran in part on a promise to deal with the affordability crisis, did she not? And she had a solid win based in part on that promise.
She and the VA legislature are now quickly undoing anything and everything Glenn Youngkin did while he was governor. As it concerns energy, the only thing that stands in her way in strongly pushing Net Zero is Trump’s all-of-the-above energy policy, including a continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Sooner or later, the Democrats will be back in full control of the Federal Government. It’s the way politics works in America. And when that day comes, every energy and economic policy Donald Trump implemented while he was president will be quickly and totally reversed.
It will then be back to Net Zero Business As Usual (NZ-BAU) in this country. And with renewed vigor, as is now happening in Virginia.
One of the benefits of a republic-cum-party based government is that the next elected reps actually have evidence of what worked and what didn’t.
….In general, of course, if the leaders decide not to learn from history and follow their philosophies to irrational conclusions without applying pragmatism then…..oops..
Joseph Zorzin“… every energy and economic policy Donald Trump implemented while he was president will be quickly and totally reversed” — I’d bet against that happening.
———————————————-
Here’s my prediction of what will be happening in the future. One of two competing populist economic policies will eventually win out in this country.
It will either be Trump’s America First populist economic policy, or it will be the Democrat’s socialist-communist populist economic policy as epitomized by Mamdani in New York City and Spanberger in Virginia.
One side will win, the other will lose.
I’ve been involved in Republican Party politics off and on since the early 1980’s. I’ve witnessed the numerous failures of post-Reagan Establishment Republicans epitomized by Bush 41, Bush 43, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell — the list goes on and on — to capitalize on the political gains Reagan made for the Republican Party while he was president.
While a strong majority of the rank-and-file Republican voter base supports Donald Trump and his America First economic, energy, and trade policies, most of the state-level Republican Party organizations are bitterly opposed to Donald Trump and his MAGA economic agenda.
For those GOPe politicians and party functionaries, keeping the Republican Party in second place as the controlled opposition to the Democrats is a highly lucrative proposition.
My own nominally Republican Congressman is an example. He speaks the MAGA talk but votes against it on the most important items of legislation. He has done so with the benefit that his net worth is now ten times what it was when he entered Congress a decade ago.
The Republican campaign for the governor’s race in Virginia was little different from the campaigns which were being run thirty years ago.
The same old GOPe rhetoric from thirty years ago was being spoken by a new generation of GOPe establishment Republicans. These GOPe candidates also took great pains to distance themselves from Donald Trump and his America First agenda.
All the hard work which was done four years ago by America First MAGA Republicans to put Glenn Youngkin in office was deliberately and consciously thrown away by the state’s Republican Party functionaries and their GOPe candidates for office.
In great contrast, Spanberger ran as a contemporary economic populist. She was able to mobilize her core voter base by promising cheaper costs for essential goods and services, basing that promise on a hard and fast implementation of her Democrat socialist-communist economic agenda.
Here is the future. One side will win, the other will lose. It will either be Trump’s America First populist economic agenda, or it will be the Democrat’s socialist-communist populist economic agenda as epitomized by Mamdani in New York City and Spanberger in Virginia.
If it is the Democrats who win in the 2026 mid-terms and then again in the 2028 presidential cycle — largely because the Republican Establishment prevails in its bitter struggle with the MAGA Republican base — then Biden’s America as it existed in the summer of 2024 will be brought back with a vengeance, plus their Net Zero energy agenda along with it.
“She was able to mobilize her core voter base by promising cheaper costs for essential goods and services”
Excluding of course the most essential item, energy. Or if she promised that too- she certainly won’t be able to deliver on it. Or, maybe the drop in energy prices now thanks to Trump, will be claimed by the green blob- they’ll say it’s thanks to all that free energy from the wind and sun.
Here is my “prediction” —Trump is the last president in this iteration of the fabled American Republic (which it hasn’t been for way too many years). Trump oversees the critical crisis that ends this 4th turning and post WWII saeculum, and the new saeculum is different from anything any of us can imagine. Just my 2 cents.
The problem is that Trump has abandoned the MAGA/AF base in favor of MIGA/IF kowtowing to Zionist donors and endless engagement in foreign affairs — distracting from the Epstein files that they are lawlessly stonewalling, again, on behalf of the Zionist donors.
Twelve months of “accountability is coming” has resulted in zero arrests for Russiagate, J6, covid, autopen, the list goes on and on. Worse yet, he endorses the very worst RINOs like the pervert Lindsey Graham while calling Thomas Massie and MTG traitors. He still touts his Operation Warpspeed and rather than holding anyone accountable for creating a bioweapon, he does new deals with Pfizer. We’re spending more money than Biden after dismantling DOGE.
And all that is before covering up the truth about who killed Charlie Kirk.
Trump is the biggest betrayer of all times. No one has ever seen anything like him.
Call me a panican black-piller all you want. Anyone who still supports Trump is a cultist.
How much blame or credit a president should really get for the economy is debatable. The biggest part of the Q3 GDP increase was consumer spending growth, but it came despite 0% real wage growth and higher and higher consumer debt. It’s also juiced by record deficits and the One Big Bloated Bill that should be an embarrassment to any fiscal conservative.
But most of all I oppose him for lying to us about ending forever wars and acting in America’s interest. He has bastardized that into leveraging US power to take advantage of other countries in foreign adventures when we understood it to mean attending to domestic issues. He is 100% wholly owned by Netanyahu the world’s biggest war criminal.
He’s not actually deporting illegals at a rate that will solve the crisis but he is choosing to be as aggressive as possible in the areas most likely to resist rather than focusing on swing states where illegal voting could make a difference. It seems like he’s trying to make maximum noise without actually doing mass deportations.
I have never been more disillusioned by a politician in my life.
That is exactly what it means. And it’s been proven to be a winning political strategy in New York, in New jersey, and in Virginia. And in many other places around the country too as will be seen in the upcoming 2026 mid-terms.
Snow, sleet and power outages: 140m Americans under warnings for major winter storm A powerful winter storm with more than 140 million Americans in its crosshairs started sweeping across much of the US on Saturday, packing heavy snow and sleet as well as freezing rain and causing widespread power outages. Snowfall was already being reported on Saturday morning across parts of the plains, the south and the midwest, including in areas of Oklahoma, Iowa, Tennessee, Kansas, Texas and Missouri. The severe cold weather created unsafe driving conditions on many roads throughout the midwest and southern US as ice coated streets and highways and electric grid operators stepped up precautions to avoid rotating blackouts.
Central Missouri here. Less snow than expected, heavier snow, sleet and ice went further south. Predicted temps are spot on. I need to refill the bird feeders.
I had to throw the bird feed out on top of that 4-5 inches of white globulwarming we had since all the bird feeder tops were frozen closed. Been below freezing for at least 36 hours now, (current 16 degrees F at noon Sunday), I live in Texas cause I don’t like winter–this is too much like home in PA
An AI generated comedy sketch featuring funny interviews talking about the UK’s Net Zero energy policy featuring members of the british public and a fictional MP called Ted Willihand.
One of my friends, who isn’t completely clueless, when I asked her how much she thought the sea level was rising each year, said, “I don’t know, I heard it rose by a meter in 20 years,” or 5 cm per year. My brother had told me the same thing. They were quite surprised when I gave them the real figures, and they didn’t jump down my throat and call me a denier. That’s refreshing!
The PETM is a topic that interests me a lot as well. I haven’t been able to find any information regarding the (estimated) speed of the significant warming that occurred during that period. If anyone has any leads, I’d be very grateful!
I’m glad to see that the alarmism is waning. I’ve always heard that a wounded animal is twice as dangerous as before, so caution is advised. I hope that the doomsayers, seeing that they are starting to lose the media spotlight, won’t resort to anything truly catastrophic. The Kaczynski episode was dramatic, and the act of vandalism by the Vulkan group, which plunged part of Berlin into darkness a few days ago, will not be followed by other, more extreme events. These people are capable of terrible things; we must not underestimate their destructive potential.
Oh, sorry, I should have used the full name. The acronym PETM stands for The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, a period 5 to 8 degrees Celsius higher than today, during which our distant ancestors prospered.
It would be a bit pricey (English slang for ‘more than you want to pay for it’) but one of the best references on almost anything geological is the 2020 edition of Geologic Time Scale, by Gradstein, Ogg, Schmitz, and Ogg (Elsevier). 99% of it is of interest only to professional geologists, but it contains the most comprehensive paleo-temperature charts in existence, dating back to 3.2 billion years (thousand-million, for our European friends). It gets a major update about every eight years or so (new research and findings).
Chances are, any nearby University (with a Geology Department) might have a copy, or possibly a library (I’ve often suggested getting a copy for our local community college library, and depending upon their level of funding from the State Legislature, they have obtained a copy for use by faculty and students). I do NOT know if it is available in French, but your command of English seems to be superb.
As a by-product of the temperature charts, GTS-2020 also contains paleogeochemical charts, such as “C.I.E.” or Carbon Isotope Excursions, which, to my mind, definitively proves that “carbon” (i.e., carbon dioxide) does NOT have any influence upon Earth temperatures, either regional, local, or global.
Paleogeochemical charts are explained in Volume I, with the majority of charts presented in Volume II.
Hope that helps,
Mark H
P.S. Be aware that you may not be allowed to remove the book(s) from the facility, but will have to use it on-site. Our local College library often allows photocopies at nominal cost, sometimes at no cost, depending on various factors. May you be blessed with good luck in your quest.
I sound like I’m fluent in English because I rely on Google Translate to translate my messages! I could probably manage on my own, but it would take too long to have an active discussion, even through messages exchanged on a discussion forum, and my replies would be sorely lacking in subtlety. So, the automatic translator option isn’t a bad compromise, even if the occasional inaccuracy might creep in.
I’ll check with my university library soon to see if the book is available. You have to be a student or professor to borrow them, and since I’ve interrupted my studies, I’ll have to do my research there. The library has a fairly good selection of books, and I think the university has a natural sciences department. If the library has them, even in English, I can use an app to translate passages from the chapters you indicated, for which I thank you again.
I believe it was you who put me on the trail of the graphs created by Scotese and Berner when I asked, in a previous open thread, if anyone had information on the Ordovician period, which was characterized by high CO2 levels that couldn’t prevent an glaciation (geological and orbital parameters are more influential, surprise surprise, than carbon dioxide). I’ve seen alarmists respond that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is clearly apparent during interglacial periods, which Henry’s Law explains very well (as well as the fact that I have to change my shirt after opening a Pepsi at room temperature). They also talk about the “weak young sun paradox” to justify why an enormous level of greenhouse gases (compared to what we know) didn’t lead to a catastrophe. Okay, so let them explain the temperature inconsistency during the Holocene conundrum. Incidentally, calling something like this a “paradox” seems to me more like a way to obscure the resulting falsification of the carbon-centric theory. This is all the more outrageous to the scientific method because such a thing, or so I like to think, wouldn’t fly in a less media-friendly scientific discipline. Quantum physics is absolutely fascinating, but who really cares about quarks or gluons when they get their electricity bill? Probably not many people.
It’s sad to say, but perhaps not so surprising: the less a science interests people, the more its integrity remains. And what makes a science interesting to a wide audience is the lure of profit and the appeal of fame. There aren’t many Grigori Perelmans or Paul Diracs among the TV climatologists.
Anyway, thank you again, sir, and I wish you a pleasant afternoon. It’s dark here, but if you’re in North America, it’s early afternoon (six hours behind France).
“Faint sun paradox” does not explain why episodes before and after the Cryogenian Period were warm (no, it wasn’t CO2 — — levels were about the same before, during, and after the Cryogenian), and, since the late Ordovician (Hirnantian Epoch), the sun is only about 2% more luminous now than it was then.
If, as you state, I was involved in an earlier thread (I know I was, just can’t remember which one … ), the Berner and Kothavala CO2 curve shows that CO2 was about ten times the amount we have today. Strong evidence that any claims made for CO2 having a measurable warming effect are waaaaay!!! overblown.
Attempting to use the ‘faint sun’ as an explanation is an admission that there are factors much more powerful than CO2 affecting Earth climate(s). Most scientifically illiterate persons do not even realize they are undermining their own argument (that CO2 has a significant influence on temperature), Furthermore, if the ‘faint sun’ was that important, then the Earth would have been a big ball of ice for most of PreCambrian time.
May you know success in your studies. I’ll watch for posts in ‘Open Thread’ discussions, and aide your work as I am able,
And what kind of thermometers determined that temp ? Treemometer, coral mometers, pond-pollenmometers, stalactit-ometers ? Any kind of ‘mometer that that meteorologists use cuz of their known accuracy?
Just trying to make the point that any proxy temp estimate is very dubious, usually very limited sources to compare….
Your friend and brother may not follow the science at much depth. The folks running the global warming agenda count on that with the majority of the public, where if the masses wonder about the science just a little, the CAGW mob need only reply with “don’t listen to skeptic scientists, they’re on the payroll of Big Oil to say there is no harm from burning fossil fuels, just like the “experts” were who worked for Big Tobacco who said smoking wasn’t harmful.”
The thing to ask your friend and brother is what the evidence is for the “crooked skeptics” accusation. I’d wager they’ll respond with one or another or all of the four accusation elements that are the ‘core evidence’ the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits stand on. Variations of that 4-part narrative are all the enviro-activists’ side have ever had to back up their accusation. Or else they’ll simply say “the accusation is well-documented and that you should look it up for yourself,” and then cross their fingers in hopes that you never do. The legacy news media never did. I did. At my GelbspanFiles blog, I detail at huge length how not one of those accusation elements is true. I posit that when more of the public realizes the skeptic scientists are heroes who bring good news, victims of massive defamation efforts to steer the public away from taking their science assessments seriously, that’s when the tide of public opinion could turn against the tiny group of people who’ve managed to keep the climate issue alive via – not sincere science debate – but instead via character assassination of their opponents.
My friend went through a major period of eco-anxiety; my brother is a very busy man, with a wife, three children, a hectic job, and local government responsibilities, so he never bothered to delve deeper into the subject, and I can understand that when you have a thousand other things to do and nothing in your professional life encourages you to learn more. It’s likely that “oil company financing” would have come up at some point, but I don’t think the #Exxonknews affair would have been mentioned. It received media attention in France, but less so than across the Atlantic. I looked into it, and, indeed, Exxon’s scientists knew as much about CO2 as anyone else at that time, which is to say, not much. They had their own ideas on the matter, hypotheses, but no certainties. The trial in which Naomi Oreskes testified ended in a victory for Exxon, if I’m not mistaken? I’ll visit your blog with great pleasure.
The problem with this “Big Oil = Big Tobacco” argument is that the survival of a civilization has never depended on cigarette consumption, unlike fossil fuels. I’m glad that cigarette advertising has been banned in France. That doesn’t stop people from buying what they want at their local tobacconist. On the other hand, banning advertising for internal combustion engine vehicles is simply idiotic. It’s funny that we never suggest making advertisements to extol the virtues of poverty—excuse me, “happy frugality.” Perhaps because it is not a very enviable thing, and the only way to make it acceptable to a large part of the population is to make them adopt it by coercion, and let time do its work so that people forget what the concepts of free movement and prosperity were.
If you know of European court transcripts which contained Naomi Oreskes’ trial testimony contributions, I could use that for my blog! She is the gift that keeps on giving – if only the U.S. energy company defendants would use that in Motions to Dismiss concerning the bogus accusations about ‘industry-led/financed disinfo campaigns.’
Please forgive me for this somewhat late response.
I don’t know if the English term “testify” also works for written documents intended to support the arguments of plaintiffs, or if it only applies to a statement on the stand, in a court of law.
I wouldn’t want to lead you off on the wrong track: your excellent work as a citizen journalist does not need my lack of method!
There are subtleties that get lost with translations, and I tend to get confused with GoogleTrad and the copy and paste that I make of final messages after translation. I should be more attentive and reread myself more seriously!
Compared to my previous message, I checked, and from what I saw, “testify” is used more in the sense of oral declaration in a court of law; I should have instead used the term “testimony” for Naomi Oreskes’ contribution to climate litigation. Many apologies for this confusion.
I asked ChatGPT to provide me with the names of donors, recipients, dates, and amounts of money supposedly provided to skeptics from the fossil fuel industry. It was unable to do so, indicating that it was not in the public record. I chastised ChatGPT for its initial vague and innumerate responses that were little better than rumor, guilt by association, and repetition of claims made by climate alarmists. I got ChatGPT to promise not to provide me such unsupported claims in the future. However, that is only me, not the general public.
Your blog looks great! I see that Mr. Gelbspan is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything about the validity of his “accusatory” case against the fossil fuel industry. A Nobel Prize winner can very well go completely off the rails after being showered with honors. For example, in France, Luc Montagnier, who, with his team, discovered the AIDS virus, took up Jacques Benveniste’s work on the “memory of water.” Homeopathy benefited from the popularity of this theory. Benveniste was a great researcher: he made crucial discoveries concerning asthma, if I remember correctly. Then he had this idea, and couldn’t let go of it when it was proven false. The result: his credibility collapsed, and now people remember him as the researcher who tried against all odds to prove that drinking a glass of water containing trace amounts of acetylsalicylic acid would cure your migraine just as effectively as an aspirin tablet. I find that tragic. But instructive.
In the case of CAGW, honest scientists become pariahs for raising legitimate concerns about the “imminent disaster” (which keeps being about to happen (but when it does, everything will be over!)).
…. I see that Mr. Gelbspan is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. …
Al Gore’s 2006 book made that claim, so did Greenpeace and so have myriad others right up to the man’s death, including the claim made by an organization that’s self-described as a climate information provider to journalists. But when you – or any journalist – goes to the Pulitzer organization’s website to do a search on what work of his earned that prize (which every U.S. reporter strives to earn) — it’s revealed that he never won a Pulitzer at all.
That right there shows just how corrupted the U.S. ‘legacy’ news media is, that they would not expose him for having every appearance in the world of committing one of the biggest acts of ‘stolen journalism valor’ an American journalist could do. I posit that if American journalists had done their job on that particular massive fault back in 1997 and then had given proper objective journalism balance to skeptic climate scientists (instead of excluding their views entirely), we would not even be discussing the ‘climate crisis’ today. It would have died of natural causes at the hands of science-based examinations of all-encompassing climate assessments.
Conventional estimates on the amount and rate of the PETM spike are probably going to be a lower-bound. When estimating based on proxies, the concentrations tend to get smeared out by diffusion and error introduced by sampling and measurement. Similarly, the time parameter, by whatever method used, has an absolute range that increases with time, even for a fixed-percentage error. Also, the proxies are not perfect correlations, which introduces additional error. Furthermore, there are inevitably lags in the effects such as the elevation of ancient shorelines.
Yet, the estimates are typically presented as a single number, especially calculated rates associated with the changes such as degrees per century. That is why one should be very careful about comparing direct instrumental measurements with proxy estimates, even when the proxy parameter is measured.
You’re right! These juxtapositions of measurements of different natures give me a headache… A bit like being hit on the head with a… hockey stick.
The PETM dates back tens of millions of years, and I know that data resolution degrades with age.
My question about the estimated speed of warming during that period stems from the fact that you’ll always find a way to answer: “Yes, it was much warmer before, but those conditions took centuries or millennia to develop!” In short: the “final” temperature doesn’t matter; what matters to the alarmists is the (supposedly “unprecedented”) speed of the warming.
Most of the time, you’ve been called an ostrich and a flat-Earther just for managing to string two sentences together, and the discussion ends there. Which is actually quite relaxing, and allows you to save your breath for more interesting discussions
It’s about 20F here in southern Maryland. My house (~1,600ft^3, one floor, 2×4 walls, 2×8 ceiling with insulation appropriate those dimensions, is heated/cooled by a ground-source closed-loop heat pump. It uses three 200 ft deep wells where the groundwater is a steady 55F winter and summer. Groundwater flow keeps it that way, sweeping away the heat (summer) or cold (winter) delivered to the wells by the pump. The system is presently keeping my interior at 72F night and day without difficulty. The downside is that it cost about $20K, 12 years ago; 1/3 for the wells, 1/3 for the machine and 1/3 to install and hook it up to a preexisting forced air system. $More now I am sure. The delta T at present is about 17F so it operates at modest power. In summer, it gets up to 90F here and the delta T is about 35F so it works harder. The electricity cost for my all-electric house averages about $250 per month with electricity at about 17c/KWH. I have the system inspected and adjusted annually by the installer for a couple hundred. Nothing has failed so far. If you have a bit of land with groundwater and reasonably priced electricity you may wish to consider such a system.
Burning NG in a modern furnace or water heater loses about 15% of the energy up the flue.
Converting NG to electricity loses about 65% up the chimney and out the cooling system before it even leaves the plant site.
Dumb!
Natural gas at $6/E6Btu burned in a modern condensing furnace (air) or water heater with 85% efficiency has a net delivered cost of $7/E6Btu.
Electricity at $0.15/kWh and 100% efficiency powering a furnace (air) or water heater has a net delivered cost of about $40/E6Btu.
A heat pump using $0.15/kWh and a COP of 3.5 has a net delivered energy cost of about $12/E6Btu. The colder the weather the lower the COP and higher the net cost.
An important comment on the efficiency and lower costs of using natural gas in the home. It’s more efficient to burn natural gas in the home than it is burning it in a natural gas power plant.
In my State of Oklahoma natural gas companies will pay you to install natural gas appliances.
MrGrimNasty
January 25, 2026 9:15 am
Remember the Dawlish railway seawall collapse, it’s gone again.
To be fair it appears only a bit of top decoration, the main new foundation seaside and railtrack seems fine.
King Charles gets a new ‘eco’ car. Considering an average EV could need to do up to 60k miles to beat an ICE on total CO2 emissions, how is a 600 or 900bhp hyper-EV pottering around Sandringham ever going to be anything but a catastrophic wildly extravagant waste of earth’s resources?
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Outer space is 394 K.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT.
Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 63 out.
Calculated balance 2: S-B 396 calculated BB at 16 C / 333 “back” radiation from cold to warm without work violates Lot 2. / 63 net duplicates balance 1 violating GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all the energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. TFK_bans09: 87 out of 160 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR.
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
UCLA Diviner observes that although Moon and Earth are same distance from Sun, Moon is not like Earth because it lacks Earth’s atmosphere.
The “Doh!” flip side is that without the atmosphere Earth would be much like the Moon.
ISS, both US & Russian sides, have critical and redundant ammonia refrigeration systems. Why? As the HVAC engineer comments, ”It’s a challenge keeping his astronauts comfortable when the lit side is 250 F.”
Space and Moon walking astronauts carry a life-support backpack. What’s included? A water chiller for circulating cool water through tubing infused long underwear. It’s hot out there!
Nikolov and Kramm state in their paper’s abstracts that RGHE is wrong.
JWST has a five layer golden sun shade to protect its instrument from the 390 K solar fog.
That Earth without RGHE would become a 33 C cooler, -18 C ball of ice is complete nonsense.
Hmm – wasn’t there a computing centre concern several years ago?
Perhaps for ‘cloud storage’ centres, to be put in remote area like dry eastern WA state.
(Or am I thinking of a huges garbage landfill to handle Seattle’s waste? Shipped by railway.
Seattle WA and Vancouver BC compact it in collection centres then truck it to a landfill, Vancouver’s is not far away in Delta, I don’t know where Seattle’s is now.
Vancouver BC incinerates part of its garbage, as do some large Scandinavian cities.)
The minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O, etc., is massively overwhelmed by dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation.
That is how skeptics of climate alarm can explain, from fundamental physical principles, why there is no risk of harmful influence on the climate system from past or future emissions of CO2 and other IR-active trace gases. The computed radiative effect itself need not be in dispute to make this point, as that claimed effect does not determine the end result in any case, because the atmosphere operates dynamically as the compressible working fluid of its own circulation.
This is straightforward, and the modelers know it. Let’s hope the EPA acts SOON to finalize the withdrawal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194-0305
One more thing: It doesn’t matter what others may call you.
Thank you for your patience in this important issue.
This was obvious more than a quarter century ago, when Thatcher started this scare.
It was known from the off, even before it became well known. It’s why the original paper by Arrhenius was not a sensation.
The science has never justified the fear.
As a scientific hypothesis, AGW was always plausible.
But it was never plausible that AGW could have a newsworthy impact.
AGW should be studied as a social and political movement, not a scientific hypothesis.
“This was obvious more than a quarter century ago…”
For example, it was obvious to Simpson and Brunt in 1938 that Callendar’s attribution of a warming trend to rising concentrations of CO2 made little sense physically. Their comments remain valid as modern numerical modeling now shows us.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/06/open-thread-138/#comment-4058322
Also this known by us biologists doing proper homework.
Moberg, E. G., D. M. Greenberg, R. Revelle, and E. C. Allen. 1934. The buffer mechanism of sea water. Bull. Scripps Inst. Ocean. 3(11):231-278.
Start the day with a laugh.
Shakespeare Was a Black Jewish Woman – Claims Feminist Historian
Who knew? The book, The Real Shakespeare, is by Irene Coslet. She expounds her theory on a blog page of the London School of Economics:
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/01/25/shakespeare-was-a-black-jewish-woman-claims-feminist-historian/
I notice identity thief Peter Gleick is hawking his opinions around…
We’re seeing more conflicts and they are multicausal,” said Dr Peter Gleick
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/23/water-related-violence-increase-pacific-institute
Not related to this comment, but last week you pointed me to a video by Paul Burgess. Many thanks for that. It is a useful resource to get credulous or fretful friends to think a little more sceptically about AI.
In return I offer this by Gerben Wierda:
.
I thank you for that. Paul Burgess is best known (on his YT channel) for dissecting Miliband’s energy lunacy and net zero.
see the video I uploaded to this thread 🙂
Hamlet was a black man- according to a recent play! 🙂
Everyone knows Shakespeare was a Somalian.
The ‘Shakespeare was African’ hypothesis dates back to at least the 19th century and is mainly based on a (slightly racist) interpretation of his name.
It is true that writing a play with a black lead character was very progressive for the time.
Yeah, the Somalis created a daycare center in Minneapolis to commemorate one of Shakespeare’s famous plays.
European Electricity Review 2026
…
Nice to see Europe moving forward 😀
And de-industrialising. Outsourcing all their manufacturing to China. Similar to what they did by outsourcing gas and oil to Russia – did not turn out well as Trump predicted a decade ago. At least Merz has pivoted back to nuclear after recognising the future folly of shutting down working nuclear plants.
Australia is well down the track to de-industrialisation as well. The place runs off rooftop solar and clapped out coal plants most around 50 years old.
In the mid-1990’s, Germany had 21 GW of nuclear power which supplied 30% of that nation’s electricity. All it’s nuclear plants are now shuttered and are not recoverable.
It’s worse than that. The German nuclear expertise which built its nuclear plants is either retired or is in the graveyards. Much of the generalized industrial base Germany had thirty-five years ago, upon which the nuclear industrial base floats, is now going or is already gone.
New-build nuclear will not be playing much of a future role in Germany simply for the fact that the industrial base needed to achieve a restoration of nuclear power in that country has been discarded by the German greens, along with discarding the legacy nuclear reactors themselves.
Germany has made its bed and must now lie in it. IMHO, their situation is unrecoverable in the near to mid-term future. Another three decades of hard work will be necessary to put Germany back where it was industrially at the beginning of the 1990’s.
“…their situation is unrecoverable in the near to mid-term future.”
That’s a shame. When I was preparing for a degree in Engineering back in the late ’50s my father suggested I study German since Germany had developed the best engineers and engineering documentation.
It is Sunday after all, so why not a sermon from WUWTs very own green pastor?
It’s as well you don’t include the UK in that, or do you subconsciously? Anyway, we have our own unique Gaian febrile – Ed Miliband. Even the Politburo (Commission) isn’t as crazy as he is.
So wind and solar made ~30% of electricity production versus ~29% from fossil fuels. And electricity is only about a fifth of total EU energy consumption which is still dominated by fossil fuel. And all that green electricity at what economic and ecological cost? And the horrific industrialization of the land and seascape.
I would say – and username can respond – that he is of the school that holds to the principle that the village must be burned in order to save the village.
Very similar to Starmer in the UK saving democracy by cancelling elections and blocking political opponents from running for office.
“Nice to see Europe moving forward”
Really?
How is Germany Facing Total Collapse Through Deindustrialization and Net Zero Energy Policies
Over the past four years, Germany’s industrial workforce has been decimated, with hundreds of thousands of jobs vanishing amid rising energy prices and policy-driven inefficiencies. A study revealed that the industrial sector shed nearly 250,000 jobs since 2019, representing a 4.3% contraction in the workforce.
The automotive industry, a cornerstone of German manufacturing, lost 51,500 jobs in just one year, equating to a 7% drop in employment.
Broader manufacturing saw 120,000 positions disappear in 2024 alone, bringing the total to around 6.67 million workers by early 2025.
These losses are closely tied to net zero policies, which have accelerated the transition to renewables while phasing out fossil fuels and nuclear power. Critics argue that the Energiewende—Germany’s ambitious energy transition—has inflated electricity costs, making it uncompetitive for energy-intensive industries like chemicals and steel. For instance, companies such as BASF and Volkswagen have announced mass layoffs, citing the need to adapt to a changing landscape that prioritizes sustainability over economic viability.
The best way to avoid scarcity is to stop production. There can be no scarcity of that which is not produced. Marxists have proven this over and over.
Productive people cause scarcity. When they are eliminated utopia is accomplished.
I don’t know if you know this or not, but Trump says only stupid people buy windmills.
Warren Buffett, not noted for stupidity, bought windmills. He did so because US subsidies make them profitable and without the subsidies, they make no sense.
And Buffett actually said that!
Are you implying that anything Trump says is brilliant and true? many articles on this forum deride the ‘argumenr from authority” tactic used to justify climate panic: ‘science says” is no different from “Trump says”.
No, I was just saying that to get a rise out of username.
I don’t know if you know this Tom but Trump says a lot of things that make no sense at all.
And while I am not a gloater… can I just say (modestly) that it seems I was bang on the money, 100% right, the winner….. when I said Trump would fold on Greenland. After all the fuss and damage done to a treaty that protected the planet from war, he has walked away with nothing he couldn’t have got by just asking.i.e some more bases on Greenland.
Trump got everything and more than he wanted, especially access to minerals.
Now has open slather.. And he has woken many in the EU up to reality.
They are now totally on his side re Greenland.
He truly is a master at his craft.
“Trump got everything and more than he wanted, especially access to minerals.”
Got a reference for that?
As I recall he was going to settle for nothing less than getting the whole of Greenland, so your statement, once again (eye roll) is wrong.
The Danes know of no deal so maybe send them the reference too.
Pay more attention. !!
Yes he has access to minerals, get over it.
Yes, he does now have access to the whole of Greenland, and the Arctic, with the EU blessing.
You don’t have a clue how Trump operates, do you. !!
“You don’t have a clue how Trump operates, do you. !!”
I know he is a con man who talks big. That about covers him. Still waiting for your reference???? Till then you are just blowing smoke.
I bet you pay the asking price for everything. Negotiating is definitely not in your wheelhouse.
Well perhaps you know what Trump has secured in this exceptional deal? If so let’s see it?
On another note I see The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a recent study indicates 96% of the tariffs are paid by the American people.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/americans-are-the-ones-paying-for-tariffs-study-finds-e254ed2e
See this is what I meant by con man. The crazy thing is some swallowed it. The truth….Tariffs are a sales tax on foreign goods paid by the US consumer.
I would have thought it was 100%. Did the WSJ tell us who pays the other 4%?
Yes. The importers have shouldered the rest.
The importers have shouldered Most of it, according to the rightwing economists I listen to.
Inflation is down to around. 2.5 percent, so if Americans are paying the tariffs, they aren’t paying much.
All the Leftwing economic pundits claim tariffs will increase inflation but there is no evidence that is happening. Inflation is actually going down, not up.
When you are dealing with a used car salesman, only a fool believes everything the salesman says. Trump is unconventional, but he is effective at what he does. I’m glad he is on our side.
I think you are being kind to Trump comparing him to a used car salesman. But are you really glad to have a man like him on your side? A man so tackless he thinks it’s ok to insult friendly countries whose soldiers died for a common cause. Here we have a draft dodger lecturing allied nations that their soldiers were not brave enough. I literally have no words to describe what sort of human being does that, let alone a leader. Let’s reverse that and for a second and imagine the British prime minister had done that to Americas brave fallen soldiers? How does that feel?
Many people aren’t informed at all about the military tactic called a “feint”, which as Sun Tzu explains in his time-proven masterpiece “The Art Of War”, involves performing credible moves quite openly that have your gullible enemy preparing for the course of action you have openly signaled (i.e. your “feint”).
When you then proceed with a course of action that is what the enemy thought you should be taking at the outset, they are then left wondering if this latest position is the the real one you’re going to prosecute, or are you actually preparing to proceed with the tactic you signaled originally.
And so your enemy has to prepare for either or both avenues of your advance, thereby dividing and confusing your enemy as to how they should prepare to deploy their forces.
Trump’s strategists seem to be using the feint tactics in most of their dealings on many issues both domestically and internationally with America’s ‘adversaries’ these days –
announce a particular line of engagement, then withdraw and do something different (or the same).
Sun Tzu advises that you must always keep your enemy guessing and unsettled about how you might (or might not) proceed.
My impressions from afar are that the Trump administration is rendering many ‘adversaries’ confused and impotent as to how they counter the dismantling of their organizations.
Mind games in military strategy. Sun Tzu recognizes that warfare is not just about physical confrontation, but also about outsmarting the enemy. Deception plays a crucial role in gaining advantage without direct conflict.
Key aspects of deceptive tactics:
Implementing deception:
By mastering the art of deception, a commander can manipulate the enemy’s perceptions and actions, leading them to make mistakes that can be exploited for victory.
You beat me to it with the remark about the essence of warfare.
My favorite example is that when a general that was being pursued by his enemy had run out of arrows, with the enemy encamped on the other side of a river, waiting for dawn to attack, he gave out orders for his soldiers to gather grass and bundle it into bales placed around their boats on the river shore, which the enemy was aware of. Once all the bales were in place, he had torches lit and the war drums banged as though they were attacking at night. The enemy general than had his archers send volley after volley of arrows towards the drums and torches. All that the archers had to do replenish their quivers was to pluck the arrows out of the bales. Thus, the enemy general obligingly and quickly re-stocked the smarter general with all the arrows his archers needed, while depleting the supplies of the enemy.
It is the Simple Simons of the world who are most easily deluded and manipulated.
Trump is doing a good job.
Trump has our enemies back on their heels.
Trump considers politicians who are enemies of Free Speech to be enemies of the United States. Are you listening, European Politicians?
I thought Trump blackmailing European allies was not a good look.
I don’t know that this tactic gained him anything. I don’t know that it didn’t. But I would not have approached it that way.
Trump seems to think he got everything he wanted. Apparently, whatever extra it was that he wanted was not available under current treaties.
We don’t know all the details of the deal as yet so claiming Trump got nothing is pure speculation.
I thought Trump blackmailing European allies was not a good look.
I don’t know that this tactic gained him anything. I don’t know that it didn’t. But I would not have approached it that way.
Trump seems to think he got everything he wanted. Apparently, whatever extra it was that he wanted was not available under current treaties.
We don’t know all the details of the deal as yet so claiming Trump got nothing is pure speculation.
“We don’t know all the details of the deal as yet so claiming Trump got nothing is pure speculation.”
Fair enough but his responses to the questions on the deal would indicate he is not getting Greenland which he said was his bottom line.
“I thought Trump blackmailing European allies was not a good look.”
What about the comments re Nato forces hanging back? You would not have liked that one I’m picking either Tom.
I will give Trump credit where it is due though. He seems to have worked out the ICE thing in Minneapolis is not working and is going to pull them. Hopefully this last death was not in vain.
You’re not watching the pea.
Jobs and industries are not lost, they now are only elsewhere… 😁
Well, Europe and the UK will always have their tourist industries- except of course where they covered the landscape with hideous wind and solar “farms”. Wealthy America and Chinese tourists will enjoy taking photos of the European peasants sitting on their stoops wearing rags.
Wealthy American tourists? If there are any left, I suspect that the UK and the EU won’t welcome them anyway.
“Nice to see Europe moving forward”
Really? how’s its economy doing?
Europe moving forward…. like lemmings !
Here’s Germany’s reward for leading the transition:
As of January 2026, Germany faces a precarious natural gas supply situation with low storage levels (~40%) following a cold winter, raising risks of industrial curtailments and potential rationing, particularly affecting energy-intensive sectors. While the country successfully reduced reliance on Russian gas since 2022 by diversifying with LNG and increasing storage, current supplies remain tight.
Key details on Germany’s gas situation:
Current Outlook (2026): Storage levels have dropped below 57% early in the 2026 heating season, which is 23 percentage points lower than the previous year, causing concern about supply security.Potential Impact: A severe shortage could necessitate government intervention, potentially forcing industrial shutdowns or rationing for industries like chemicals and metals.Funny. No mention of unreliables coming to the rescue. Perhaps a few new coal power plants are needed.
I’m French, and truly glad we have an efficient nuclear power plant fleet (thanks to General de Gaulle), even if environmentalists want to dismantle it and replace it with wind turbines and solar panels. I hope you’re writing this from somewhere with reliable and cheap energy, otherwise the next “wind crunch” that lasts a little longer than usual will have you shivering.
How many of the French nuclear powerplants are reaching their retirement ages? What is being done to replace them?
Please excuse my somewhat delayed response.
There are still quite a few active nuclear power plants in France. I sincerely hope that environmentalists don’t come to power to realize their renewable energy fantasies. The Fessenheim power plant (in Alsace) was closed a few years ago. It could have operated for quite some time longer, and it was profitable.
Given that Denmark is backtracking on nuclear power, we can hope that wind turbines and solar panels will be less prevalent in the plains and on rooftops in the coming years, and that Europe (France, in particular) will resume serious work on power plant projects that were extremely promising but were abandoned, much to the delight of the Greens.
Yes, into the abyss…poor fool
“Nice to see Europe moving forward” like a crash dummy heading toward a concrete wall.
Stupid stupid stupid.
My house has very low carbon emissions: me breathing; propane for cooking, furnace, and hot water; a couple hundred gasoline miles a month, and the occasional fire.
My little town of 100 people has similarly low carbon emissions.
But gosh, you know what? We have outsourced 99% of our carbon emissions to larger communities far away. We manufacture nothing. We import all our electricity. Package delivery is based elsewhere.
And hey, Europe is moving to that model too! Driving industry away, importing electricity, natural gas, oil. So yeah, great they’ve reduced their carbon emissions. Sucks to be the rest of the world, who now emit more carbon on their behalf than they used to emit by and for themselves.
Carbon dioxide, please.
As mentioned before, wind and solar are the most environmentally and economically destructive forms of part-time electricity there is..
Clean… they are NOT.
The majority of people are reactive, scientists are analytical. This is playing out now in the political arena, where reactive persons are rabidly against Trump. The same division existed in the CAGW/Net Zero nonsense, but a lot of progress is being achieved with analytical themes. I wonder if TDS will ever become analytical? Don’t wait for it.
scientists are analytical.
In this paradigm I don’t believe that statement to be true. Where climate scientist [activist] people are concerned, they are entirely dogmatic. Religious. Conform or be cast out.
To say that engineers are analytical would be closer to the truth.
You are conflating those who are dogmatic, religious conformists, with scientists? Just because a group calls themselves scientists doesn’t mean they are.
No true Scotsman – Wikipedia
The question becomes, even if someone wears a lab coat at work and calls themselves a “scientist,” are they actually a scientist if they are not analytical? What I see frequently is someone with a PhD who behaves like a technician. It is more likely that someone calls themselves a scientist because there is nothing else about them that would suggest that they are a ‘disinterested’ observer that reflexively responds to an unanticipated event by thinking, “That is interesting! I wonder why that happened?” And then proceeds to try to figure it out.
“Climate scientist” is an oxymoron, as far as I can see. “Scientists” is the last thing they are. “High priests” would be a better designation
The fun begins in PJM. Buckle up.
Incoming VA governor Spanberger ran in part on a promise to deal with the affordability crisis, did she not? And she had a solid win based in part on that promise.
She and the VA legislature are now quickly undoing anything and everything Glenn Youngkin did while he was governor. As it concerns energy, the only thing that stands in her way in strongly pushing Net Zero is Trump’s all-of-the-above energy policy, including a continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Sooner or later, the Democrats will be back in full control of the Federal Government. It’s the way politics works in America. And when that day comes, every energy and economic policy Donald Trump implemented while he was president will be quickly and totally reversed.
It will then be back to Net Zero Business As Usual (NZ-BAU) in this country. And with renewed vigor, as is now happening in Virginia.
“every energy and economic policy Donald Trump implemented while he was president will be quickly and totally reversed”
I’d bet against that happening.
One of the benefits of a republic-cum-party based government is that the next elected reps actually have evidence of what worked and what didn’t.
….In general, of course, if the leaders decide not to learn from history and follow their philosophies to irrational conclusions without applying pragmatism then…..oops..
Only if many many business leaders push back against the Dems. All this whipsawing back and forth can’t be good for business.
Joseph Zorzin “… every energy and economic policy Donald Trump implemented while he was president will be quickly and totally reversed” — I’d bet against that happening.
———————————————-
Here’s my prediction of what will be happening in the future. One of two competing populist economic policies will eventually win out in this country.
It will either be Trump’s America First populist economic policy, or it will be the Democrat’s socialist-communist populist economic policy as epitomized by Mamdani in New York City and Spanberger in Virginia.
One side will win, the other will lose.
I’ve been involved in Republican Party politics off and on since the early 1980’s. I’ve witnessed the numerous failures of post-Reagan Establishment Republicans epitomized by Bush 41, Bush 43, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell — the list goes on and on — to capitalize on the political gains Reagan made for the Republican Party while he was president.
While a strong majority of the rank-and-file Republican voter base supports Donald Trump and his America First economic, energy, and trade policies, most of the state-level Republican Party organizations are bitterly opposed to Donald Trump and his MAGA economic agenda.
For those GOPe politicians and party functionaries, keeping the Republican Party in second place as the controlled opposition to the Democrats is a highly lucrative proposition.
My own nominally Republican Congressman is an example. He speaks the MAGA talk but votes against it on the most important items of legislation. He has done so with the benefit that his net worth is now ten times what it was when he entered Congress a decade ago.
The Republican campaign for the governor’s race in Virginia was little different from the campaigns which were being run thirty years ago.
The same old GOPe rhetoric from thirty years ago was being spoken by a new generation of GOPe establishment Republicans. These GOPe candidates also took great pains to distance themselves from Donald Trump and his America First agenda.
All the hard work which was done four years ago by America First MAGA Republicans to put Glenn Youngkin in office was deliberately and consciously thrown away by the state’s Republican Party functionaries and their GOPe candidates for office.
In great contrast, Spanberger ran as a contemporary economic populist. She was able to mobilize her core voter base by promising cheaper costs for essential goods and services, basing that promise on a hard and fast implementation of her Democrat socialist-communist economic agenda.
Here is the future. One side will win, the other will lose. It will either be Trump’s America First populist economic agenda, or it will be the Democrat’s socialist-communist populist economic agenda as epitomized by Mamdani in New York City and Spanberger in Virginia.
If it is the Democrats who win in the 2026 mid-terms and then again in the 2028 presidential cycle — largely because the Republican Establishment prevails in its bitter struggle with the MAGA Republican base — then Biden’s America as it existed in the summer of 2024 will be brought back with a vengeance, plus their Net Zero energy agenda along with it.
“She was able to mobilize her core voter base by promising cheaper costs for essential goods and services”
Excluding of course the most essential item, energy. Or if she promised that too- she certainly won’t be able to deliver on it. Or, maybe the drop in energy prices now thanks to Trump, will be claimed by the green blob- they’ll say it’s thanks to all that free energy from the wind and sun.
Here is my “prediction” —Trump is the last president in this iteration of the fabled American Republic (which it hasn’t been for way too many years). Trump oversees the critical crisis that ends this 4th turning and post WWII saeculum, and the new saeculum is different from anything any of us can imagine. Just my 2 cents.
The problem is that Trump has abandoned the MAGA/AF base in favor of MIGA/IF kowtowing to Zionist donors and endless engagement in foreign affairs — distracting from the Epstein files that they are lawlessly stonewalling, again, on behalf of the Zionist donors.
Twelve months of “accountability is coming” has resulted in zero arrests for Russiagate, J6, covid, autopen, the list goes on and on. Worse yet, he endorses the very worst RINOs like the pervert Lindsey Graham while calling Thomas Massie and MTG traitors. He still touts his Operation Warpspeed and rather than holding anyone accountable for creating a bioweapon, he does new deals with Pfizer. We’re spending more money than Biden after dismantling DOGE.
And all that is before covering up the truth about who killed Charlie Kirk.
Trump is the biggest betrayer of all times. No one has ever seen anything like him.
Call me a panican black-piller all you want. Anyone who still supports Trump is a cultist.
He has closed the border and gutted the Green New Deal. I’ll give him that.
Trump has the U.S. economy humming along at 4+ percent annual growth and gasoline prices are under two dollars a gallon in many States.
You should give him that, too.
How much blame or credit a president should really get for the economy is debatable. The biggest part of the Q3 GDP increase was consumer spending growth, but it came despite 0% real wage growth and higher and higher consumer debt. It’s also juiced by record deficits and the One Big Bloated Bill that should be an embarrassment to any fiscal conservative.
But most of all I oppose him for lying to us about ending forever wars and acting in America’s interest. He has bastardized that into leveraging US power to take advantage of other countries in foreign adventures when we understood it to mean attending to domestic issues. He is 100% wholly owned by Netanyahu the world’s biggest war criminal.
He’s not actually deporting illegals at a rate that will solve the crisis but he is choosing to be as aggressive as possible in the areas most likely to resist rather than focusing on swing states where illegal voting could make a difference. It seems like he’s trying to make maximum noise without actually doing mass deportations.
I have never been more disillusioned by a politician in my life.
To her ilk, affordability means shifting costs to someone else.
That is exactly what it means. And it’s been proven to be a winning political strategy in New York, in New jersey, and in Virginia. And in many other places around the country too as will be seen in the upcoming 2026 mid-terms.
She lied during the campaign? Say it isn’t so.
Snow, sleet and power outages: 140m Americans under warnings for major winter storm
A powerful winter storm with more than 140 million Americans in its crosshairs started sweeping across much of the US on Saturday, packing heavy snow and sleet as well as freezing rain and causing widespread power outages.
Snowfall was already being reported on Saturday morning across parts of the plains, the south and the midwest, including in areas of Oklahoma, Iowa, Tennessee, Kansas, Texas and Missouri.
The severe cold weather created unsafe driving conditions on many roads throughout the midwest and southern US as ice coated streets and highways and electric grid operators stepped up precautions to avoid rotating blackouts.
Central Missouri here. Less snow than expected, heavier snow, sleet and ice went further south. Predicted temps are spot on. I need to refill the bird feeders.
I had to throw the bird feed out on top of that 4-5 inches of white globulwarming we had since all the bird feeder tops were frozen closed. Been below freezing for at least 36 hours now, (current 16 degrees F at noon Sunday), I live in Texas cause I don’t like winter–this is too much like home in PA
There’s a foot of snow on the ground here in Oklahoma. It’s two degrees F outside.
NET ZERO: The BBC WON’T Show You This!
The t-shirts and name tags are hilarious.
Was hoping some of her buttons would give up.
Hello everyone!
One of my friends, who isn’t completely clueless, when I asked her how much she thought the sea level was rising each year, said, “I don’t know, I heard it rose by a meter in 20 years,” or 5 cm per year. My brother had told me the same thing. They were quite surprised when I gave them the real figures, and they didn’t jump down my throat and call me a denier. That’s refreshing!
The PETM is a topic that interests me a lot as well. I haven’t been able to find any information regarding the (estimated) speed of the significant warming that occurred during that period. If anyone has any leads, I’d be very grateful!
I’m glad to see that the alarmism is waning. I’ve always heard that a wounded animal is twice as dangerous as before, so caution is advised. I hope that the doomsayers, seeing that they are starting to lose the media spotlight, won’t resort to anything truly catastrophic. The Kaczynski episode was dramatic, and the act of vandalism by the Vulkan group, which plunged part of Berlin into darkness a few days ago, will not be followed by other, more extreme events. These people are capable of terrible things; we must not underestimate their destructive potential.
PETM means exactly what?
Oh, sorry, I should have used the full name. The acronym PETM stands for The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, a period 5 to 8 degrees Celsius higher than today, during which our distant ancestors prospered.
It would be a bit pricey (English slang for ‘more than you want to pay for it’) but one of the best references on almost anything geological is the 2020 edition of Geologic Time Scale, by Gradstein, Ogg, Schmitz, and Ogg (Elsevier). 99% of it is of interest only to professional geologists, but it contains the most comprehensive paleo-temperature charts in existence, dating back to 3.2 billion years (thousand-million, for our European friends). It gets a major update about every eight years or so (new research and findings).
Chances are, any nearby University (with a Geology Department) might have a copy, or possibly a library (I’ve often suggested getting a copy for our local community college library, and depending upon their level of funding from the State Legislature, they have obtained a copy for use by faculty and students). I do NOT know if it is available in French, but your command of English seems to be superb.
As a by-product of the temperature charts, GTS-2020 also contains paleogeochemical charts, such as “C.I.E.” or Carbon Isotope Excursions, which, to my mind, definitively proves that “carbon” (i.e., carbon dioxide) does NOT have any influence upon Earth temperatures, either regional, local, or global.
Paleogeochemical charts are explained in Volume I, with the majority of charts presented in Volume II.
Hope that helps,
Mark H
P.S. Be aware that you may not be allowed to remove the book(s) from the facility, but will have to use it on-site. Our local College library often allows photocopies at nominal cost, sometimes at no cost, depending on various factors. May you be blessed with good luck in your quest.
Thank you very much for this reference, sir!
I sound like I’m fluent in English because I rely on Google Translate to translate my messages! I could probably manage on my own, but it would take too long to have an active discussion, even through messages exchanged on a discussion forum, and my replies would be sorely lacking in subtlety. So, the automatic translator option isn’t a bad compromise, even if the occasional inaccuracy might creep in.
I’ll check with my university library soon to see if the book is available. You have to be a student or professor to borrow them, and since I’ve interrupted my studies, I’ll have to do my research there. The library has a fairly good selection of books, and I think the university has a natural sciences department. If the library has them, even in English, I can use an app to translate passages from the chapters you indicated, for which I thank you again.
I believe it was you who put me on the trail of the graphs created by Scotese and Berner when I asked, in a previous open thread, if anyone had information on the Ordovician period, which was characterized by high CO2 levels that couldn’t prevent an glaciation (geological and orbital parameters are more influential, surprise surprise, than carbon dioxide). I’ve seen alarmists respond that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is clearly apparent during interglacial periods, which Henry’s Law explains very well (as well as the fact that I have to change my shirt after opening a Pepsi at room temperature). They also talk about the “weak young sun paradox” to justify why an enormous level of greenhouse gases (compared to what we know) didn’t lead to a catastrophe. Okay, so let them explain the temperature inconsistency during the Holocene conundrum. Incidentally, calling something like this a “paradox” seems to me more like a way to obscure the resulting falsification of the carbon-centric theory. This is all the more outrageous to the scientific method because such a thing, or so I like to think, wouldn’t fly in a less media-friendly scientific discipline. Quantum physics is absolutely fascinating, but who really cares about quarks or gluons when they get their electricity bill? Probably not many people.
It’s sad to say, but perhaps not so surprising: the less a science interests people, the more its integrity remains. And what makes a science interesting to a wide audience is the lure of profit and the appeal of fame. There aren’t many Grigori Perelmans or Paul Diracs among the TV climatologists.
Anyway, thank you again, sir, and I wish you a pleasant afternoon. It’s dark here, but if you’re in North America, it’s early afternoon (six hours behind France).
You are very welcome.
“Faint sun paradox” does not explain why episodes before and after the Cryogenian Period were warm (no, it wasn’t CO2 — — levels were about the same before, during, and after the Cryogenian), and, since the late Ordovician (Hirnantian Epoch), the sun is only about 2% more luminous now than it was then.
If, as you state, I was involved in an earlier thread (I know I was, just can’t remember which one … ), the Berner and Kothavala CO2 curve shows that CO2 was about ten times the amount we have today. Strong evidence that any claims made for CO2 having a measurable warming effect are waaaaay!!! overblown.
Attempting to use the ‘faint sun’ as an explanation is an admission that there are factors much more powerful than CO2 affecting Earth climate(s). Most scientifically illiterate persons do not even realize they are undermining their own argument (that CO2 has a significant influence on temperature), Furthermore, if the ‘faint sun’ was that important, then the Earth would have been a big ball of ice for most of PreCambrian time.
May you know success in your studies. I’ll watch for posts in ‘Open Thread’ discussions, and aide your work as I am able,
Mark H
And what kind of thermometers determined that temp ? Treemometer, coral mometers, pond-pollenmometers, stalactit-ometers ? Any kind of ‘mometer that that meteorologists use cuz of their known accuracy?
Just trying to make the point that any proxy temp estimate is very dubious, usually very limited sources to compare….
Not to mention wildly varying temporal resolutions.
Your friend and brother may not follow the science at much depth. The folks running the global warming agenda count on that with the majority of the public, where if the masses wonder about the science just a little, the CAGW mob need only reply with “don’t listen to skeptic scientists, they’re on the payroll of Big Oil to say there is no harm from burning fossil fuels, just like the “experts” were who worked for Big Tobacco who said smoking wasn’t harmful.”
The thing to ask your friend and brother is what the evidence is for the “crooked skeptics” accusation. I’d wager they’ll respond with one or another or all of the four accusation elements that are the ‘core evidence’ the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits stand on. Variations of that 4-part narrative are all the enviro-activists’ side have ever had to back up their accusation. Or else they’ll simply say “the accusation is well-documented and that you should look it up for yourself,” and then cross their fingers in hopes that you never do. The legacy news media never did. I did. At my GelbspanFiles blog, I detail at huge length how not one of those accusation elements is true. I posit that when more of the public realizes the skeptic scientists are heroes who bring good news, victims of massive defamation efforts to steer the public away from taking their science assessments seriously, that’s when the tide of public opinion could turn against the tiny group of people who’ve managed to keep the climate issue alive via – not sincere science debate – but instead via character assassination of their opponents.
My friend went through a major period of eco-anxiety; my brother is a very busy man, with a wife, three children, a hectic job, and local government responsibilities, so he never bothered to delve deeper into the subject, and I can understand that when you have a thousand other things to do and nothing in your professional life encourages you to learn more. It’s likely that “oil company financing” would have come up at some point, but I don’t think the #Exxonknews affair would have been mentioned. It received media attention in France, but less so than across the Atlantic. I looked into it, and, indeed, Exxon’s scientists knew as much about CO2 as anyone else at that time, which is to say, not much. They had their own ideas on the matter, hypotheses, but no certainties. The trial in which Naomi Oreskes testified ended in a victory for Exxon, if I’m not mistaken? I’ll visit your blog with great pleasure.
The problem with this “Big Oil = Big Tobacco” argument is that the survival of a civilization has never depended on cigarette consumption, unlike fossil fuels. I’m glad that cigarette advertising has been banned in France. That doesn’t stop people from buying what they want at their local tobacconist. On the other hand, banning advertising for internal combustion engine vehicles is simply idiotic. It’s funny that we never suggest making advertisements to extol the virtues of poverty—excuse me, “happy frugality.” Perhaps because it is not a very enviable thing, and the only way to make it acceptable to a large part of the population is to make them adopt it by coercion, and let time do its work so that people forget what the concepts of free movement and prosperity were.
Was that one of the European ones? So far, I haven’t counted those among my list of “ExxonKnew” lawsuits because I didn’t see any text in the German lawsuit itself (Peruvian farmer suing Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk) or in the Italian one (Greenpeace suing Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi) which repeated the same basic accusation elements seen widely in the U.S. lawsuits. As I show at my blog regarding Casquejo v Shell PLC that was filed in the UK High Court in December, I need to see the lawsuit document to find out if they’ve repeated the U.S. accusations.
If you know of European court transcripts which contained Naomi Oreskes’ trial testimony contributions, I could use that for my blog! She is the gift that keeps on giving – if only the U.S. energy company defendants would use that in Motions to Dismiss concerning the bogus accusations about ‘industry-led/financed disinfo campaigns.’
Please forgive me for this somewhat late response.
I don’t know if the English term “testify” also works for written documents intended to support the arguments of plaintiffs, or if it only applies to a statement on the stand, in a court of law.
I wouldn’t want to lead you off on the wrong track: your excellent work as a citizen journalist does not need my lack of method!
There are subtleties that get lost with translations, and I tend to get confused with GoogleTrad and the copy and paste that I make of final messages after translation. I should be more attentive and reread myself more seriously!
Compared to my previous message, I checked, and from what I saw, “testify” is used more in the sense of oral declaration in a court of law; I should have instead used the term “testimony” for Naomi Oreskes’ contribution to climate litigation. Many apologies for this confusion.
I asked ChatGPT to provide me with the names of donors, recipients, dates, and amounts of money supposedly provided to skeptics from the fossil fuel industry. It was unable to do so, indicating that it was not in the public record. I chastised ChatGPT for its initial vague and innumerate responses that were little better than rumor, guilt by association, and repetition of claims made by climate alarmists. I got ChatGPT to promise not to provide me such unsupported claims in the future. However, that is only me, not the general public.
Your blog looks great! I see that Mr. Gelbspan is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything about the validity of his “accusatory” case against the fossil fuel industry. A Nobel Prize winner can very well go completely off the rails after being showered with honors. For example, in France, Luc Montagnier, who, with his team, discovered the AIDS virus, took up Jacques Benveniste’s work on the “memory of water.” Homeopathy benefited from the popularity of this theory. Benveniste was a great researcher: he made crucial discoveries concerning asthma, if I remember correctly. Then he had this idea, and couldn’t let go of it when it was proven false. The result: his credibility collapsed, and now people remember him as the researcher who tried against all odds to prove that drinking a glass of water containing trace amounts of acetylsalicylic acid would cure your migraine just as effectively as an aspirin tablet. I find that tragic. But instructive.
In the case of CAGW, honest scientists become pariahs for raising legitimate concerns about the “imminent disaster” (which keeps being about to happen (but when it does, everything will be over!)).
Al Gore’s 2006 book made that claim, so did Greenpeace and so have myriad others right up to the man’s death, including the claim made by an organization that’s self-described as a climate information provider to journalists. But when you – or any journalist – goes to the Pulitzer organization’s website to do a search on what work of his earned that prize (which every U.S. reporter strives to earn) — it’s revealed that he never won a Pulitzer at all.
That right there shows just how corrupted the U.S. ‘legacy’ news media is, that they would not expose him for having every appearance in the world of committing one of the biggest acts of ‘stolen journalism valor’ an American journalist could do. I posit that if American journalists had done their job on that particular massive fault back in 1997 and then had given proper objective journalism balance to skeptic climate scientists (instead of excluding their views entirely), we would not even be discussing the ‘climate crisis’ today. It would have died of natural causes at the hands of science-based examinations of all-encompassing climate assessments.
Conventional estimates on the amount and rate of the PETM spike are probably going to be a lower-bound. When estimating based on proxies, the concentrations tend to get smeared out by diffusion and error introduced by sampling and measurement. Similarly, the time parameter, by whatever method used, has an absolute range that increases with time, even for a fixed-percentage error. Also, the proxies are not perfect correlations, which introduces additional error. Furthermore, there are inevitably lags in the effects such as the elevation of ancient shorelines.
Yet, the estimates are typically presented as a single number, especially calculated rates associated with the changes such as degrees per century. That is why one should be very careful about comparing direct instrumental measurements with proxy estimates, even when the proxy parameter is measured.
You’re right! These juxtapositions of measurements of different natures give me a headache… A bit like being hit on the head with a… hockey stick.
The PETM dates back tens of millions of years, and I know that data resolution degrades with age.
My question about the estimated speed of warming during that period stems from the fact that you’ll always find a way to answer: “Yes, it was much warmer before, but those conditions took centuries or millennia to develop!” In short: the “final” temperature doesn’t matter; what matters to the alarmists is the (supposedly “unprecedented”) speed of the warming.
Most of the time, you’ve been called an ostrich and a flat-Earther just for managing to string two sentences together, and the discussion ends there. Which is actually quite relaxing, and allows you to save your breath for more interesting discussions
Central Missouri here. It’s 6°F now with no relief until Tuesday. The heat pump can’t keep up and can’t get interior temps above 60.
Just think yourself lucky you’ve still got power!
It’s about 20F here in southern Maryland. My house (~1,600ft^3, one floor, 2×4 walls, 2×8 ceiling with insulation appropriate those dimensions, is heated/cooled by a ground-source closed-loop heat pump. It uses three 200 ft deep wells where the groundwater is a steady 55F winter and summer. Groundwater flow keeps it that way, sweeping away the heat (summer) or cold (winter) delivered to the wells by the pump. The system is presently keeping my interior at 72F night and day without difficulty. The downside is that it cost about $20K, 12 years ago; 1/3 for the wells, 1/3 for the machine and 1/3 to install and hook it up to a preexisting forced air system. $More now I am sure. The delta T at present is about 17F so it operates at modest power. In summer, it gets up to 90F here and the delta T is about 35F so it works harder. The electricity cost for my all-electric house averages about $250 per month with electricity at about 17c/KWH. I have the system inspected and adjusted annually by the installer for a couple hundred. Nothing has failed so far. If you have a bit of land with groundwater and reasonably priced electricity you may wish to consider such a system.
Burning NG in a modern furnace or water heater loses about 15% of the energy up the flue.
Converting NG to electricity loses about 65% up the chimney and out the cooling system before it even leaves the plant site.
Dumb!
Natural gas at $6/E6Btu burned in a modern condensing furnace (air) or water heater with 85% efficiency has a net delivered cost of $7/E6Btu.
Electricity at $0.15/kWh and 100% efficiency powering a furnace (air) or water heater has a net delivered cost of about $40/E6Btu.
A heat pump using $0.15/kWh and a COP of 3.5 has a net delivered energy cost of about $12/E6Btu. The colder the weather the lower the COP and higher the net cost.
An important comment on the efficiency and lower costs of using natural gas in the home. It’s more efficient to burn natural gas in the home than it is burning it in a natural gas power plant.
In my State of Oklahoma natural gas companies will pay you to install natural gas appliances.
Remember the Dawlish railway seawall collapse, it’s gone again.
To be fair it appears only a bit of top decoration, the main new foundation seaside and railtrack seems fine.
I notice a distinct bend in the track on the seaward side at the far end of of the rock pile.
Just a reflection off a rock, anyway, main point – it’s not hanging in the air this time!
Now that I look more closely, I think that you are right.
The direct consequences of Myusername’s love affair with extortionately expensive ‘green’ electricity.
The utter destruction of UK industry and the catastrophic security risks having to rely on foreign countries for critical supplies.
The last salt plant in the UK?
https://youtu.be/PQ3hT8tqZgo
Net Zero in the UK is a horror show.
King Charles gets a new ‘eco’ car. Considering an average EV could need to do up to 60k miles to beat an ICE on total CO2 emissions, how is a 600 or 900bhp hyper-EV pottering around Sandringham ever going to be anything but a catastrophic wildly extravagant waste of earth’s resources?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15496477/King-Charles-lotus-electric-car.html
Story Tip
OMG, someone is actually looking at the changing surface of the earth and it’s effects on the climate.
https://theconversation.com/the-way-earths-surface-moves-has-a-bigger-impact-on-shifting-the-climate-than-we-knew-272352
Faster tree growth isn’t strictly a function of available CO2.
However, still just another model…
https://www.earth.com/news/plants-leaves-pores-mystery-why-growth-not-faster-when-co2-levels-are-high/
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Outer space is 394 K.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT.
Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 63 out.
Calculated balance 2: S-B 396 calculated BB at 16 C / 333 “back” radiation from cold to warm without work violates Lot 2. / 63 net duplicates balance 1 violating GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all the energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. TFK_bans09: 87 out of 160 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR.
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
Space is at ~ 3K
294K is 21C
”Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.”
Just bonkers.
1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K.
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
Just to clarify.
UCLA Diviner observes that although Moon and Earth are same distance from Sun, Moon is not like Earth because it lacks Earth’s atmosphere.
The “Doh!” flip side is that without the atmosphere Earth would be much like the Moon.
ISS, both US & Russian sides, have critical and redundant ammonia refrigeration systems. Why? As the HVAC engineer comments, ”It’s a challenge keeping his astronauts comfortable when the lit side is 250 F.”
Space and Moon walking astronauts carry a life-support backpack. What’s included? A water chiller for circulating cool water through tubing infused long underwear. It’s hot out there!
Nikolov and Kramm state in their paper’s abstracts that RGHE is wrong.
JWST has a five layer golden sun shade to protect its instrument from the 390 K solar fog.
That Earth without RGHE would become a 33 C cooler, -18 C ball of ice is complete nonsense.
Thank you, National Weather Service!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/117428/#117483
Story Tip:
A new look at trends in human deaths due to climate extremes
Note the byline by David Appell, which should be familiar to those who have haunted these pages for a long time.
Anti-human sickness everywhere:
Polytechnique Montréal removes beef from cafeteria menus to cut emissions – Victoria Times Colonist
Victoria council wants power to regulate building emissions – Victoria Times Colonist
(That’s Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Not to be confused with:
If you are big or a fad government will ease off:
Ontario government to fast-track new transmission line to Ring of Fire region
The area has minerals that are very desirable today.
(Tribal people will benefit from the line as reserves have to import diesel fuel to generate electricity, and from later economic activity.)
It has valuable minerals like copper and nickel, but few of the ‘rare earth’ elements politically desirable today.
I presume most of the electricity for the line will come from hydro and nuclear generation. (Ontario has a substantial amount of nuclear power.)
Now there’s Net Water:
Microsoft pledged to save water. In the AI era, it expects water use to soar. | The Star
Massive computer centers to support Artificial non Intelligence.
It pledged to be water positive by 2030 but now forecast is ……
(Apparently the water is used for cooling computers doing AnI calculations.)
Hmm – wasn’t there a computing centre concern several years ago?
Perhaps for ‘cloud storage’ centres, to be put in remote area like dry eastern WA state.
(Or am I thinking of a huges garbage landfill to handle Seattle’s waste? Shipped by railway.
Seattle WA and Vancouver BC compact it in collection centres then truck it to a landfill, Vancouver’s is not far away in Delta, I don’t know where Seattle’s is now.
Vancouver BC incinerates part of its garbage, as do some large Scandinavian cities.)