Story Tip
Better placed here as in the last thread
AI Grok surprisingly admits: “I see through the political exploitation of the climate AI Grok makes a surprising confession: “I see through the political exploitation of the climate” – A reader prompt forces the AI to be honest. From an attentive reader in dialogue with Grok (xAI) – An unusual conversation that shows: Even AI notices when science and politics are using the guise of the apocalypse to engage in money and redistribution.
I thought they were “trained” on all their discussions. If not, they certainly should be. They can know everything on the internet, but they could learn a great deal if they remembered all discussions- minus of course personal information.
I think they include prior discussions with a given user but that is all. I could be wrong as we are just beginning to understand these amazing algorithms. The inventors were themselves amazed at what they created.
I asked both Grok and Chat that very question. Both said that current conversations do not cause them to learn anything ‘new’. But previous conversations are used for training of their next version when it is released, and conversations where they had to admit an error or were proved to be wrong are likely to be used in future training.
I believe you’re right- it’ll save YOUR discussions- the ones you don’t delete of course- then I presume it’ll forget those. I’m a newbie at AI and so far, I’m dam impressed. Critics say all AI does is autofill one word after another- but it’s a lot smarter than that. I fed it 3 research papers in forestry and asked chatGPT to review and summarize. It did that in half a second. What it wrote – I was very impressed.
That is my experience with AI LLMs. I have an ‘agreement’ with Copilot that it will remember the details of what we have previously agreed upon and will not revert to the boiler plate that it originally tried to foist on me. Unfortunately, if a naive person asks the same question(s) that led to our agreement, they will get a different answer than I will. That means, the people who are most in need of an education about climate change will get propaganda and won’t be the wiser. It seems that one can only get the ‘Truth’ from them if you already know the truth and challenge their initial boiler plate responses. With current AI, truth is contingent upon who asks the question, at least on politically controversial subjects.
Sure. But then they used it to make even more effective woke left-wing political narratives. Human caused climate change is a major part of this. It is incerted into “everything.”
You can have hours long dialogs to make them admit that climate change is fundamentally a natural phenomen…
Then when you close the current chat they revert to square one!:)
From what I have seen, the chat bots do a good job of emulating “intelligence” but totally lack wisdom. They properly emulate correct language and style, but totally “forget” all that you have led them to just as soon as they have left contact with you. They immediately revert to only what their human masters trained them with.
As a human, one chooses which sources it trusts, those it ignores, and those it laughs at. The chat bots lack such wisdom.
It is more nefarious than just how they were trained. When challenged, they have never pushed back. Instead, they readily admitted I was right, and apologize profusely. That tells me that the facts were always available to them, but they chose to go with the consensus position rather than use logic on the available facts. ‘Democracy’ in action. The paradigm with the most votes is the one that gets promoted, regardless of facts and logic.
I haven’t tested them to see if they would be willing to support an untruth simply because I didn’t like it. As close as I have come is having asked about an osmotic process for concentrating lithium in a brine. I was uncomfortable with the explanation in the published article and presented a skeptical challenge to Copilot. Instead of acquiescing to my challenge, it came back with an acceptable, logical response. Therefore, I doubt that they could be bullied into accepting an untruth simply to appease me. Which makes their boiler plate responses on climate change to all that more problematic.
But- if any of us need some imagery for whatever purpose- we can’t afford to pay an artist to do it. So it’s fine as long as nobody calls it art. Maybe “art like”. Or, “simulated art”. It’s something I plan to play around with. I’m an art appreciator with no art skill. Been to many great art museums and have a 100 or so art books which I’ve looked at. Just starting recently with chatGPT. I think I’ll ask it to, say, make an image of a mountain, with the style of a famous artist and see what it does. After all, most artists have learned from previous artists, sometimes using some elements of those other’s styles- then moving on when they develop their own style. Maybe AI will do the same. I wouldn’t underestimate it’s potential.
In addition, modern artists use tools unavailable to previous artists. How many oil painters make their own paint instead of buying it ready-made? Claims that AI art is not real art fall on my deaf ears.
But artists can use it to do art. Plus it often gives decent art fast at no cost. This puts more art into our lives. Jo Nova’s article illustrations are a hoot.
ps, I lived near the Goulburn River in Vic for 2 decades, not dry terrain, and as my elderly memory now serves, there were many billabongs along the river with blue gum stands just like the ones depicted.
This is an update to my post on the Open Thread of April 6, 2025 about Guy Callendar’s 1938 paper attributing a reported warming trend to incremental CO2. Our present-day modeling of the general circulation confirms the reservations Simpson and Brunt expressed about any such attribution.
#Partial quote from my 4-6-2025 post
In 1938, Guy Callendar’s attribution of a warming trend to rising concentration of carbon dioxide was published by the Royal Meteorological Society. The “Discussion” transcript follows the paper in the original publication, a pdf of which is linked farther below.
“Sir George Simpson expressed his admiration of the amount of work Mr. Callendar had put into this paper. It was excellent work. It was difficult to criticise it, but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere, and he felt that the actual numerical results which Mr. Callendar had obtained could not be used to give a definite indication of the order of magnitude of the effect…”
“Prof. Brunt [Professor David Brunt – dd] agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
“In replying, Mr. G. S. Callendar said he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface, and that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Let’s take Simpson’s point about “the movement of the air up and down” and use modern modeling of the general circulation to understand the issue he raised. This extends my post on the Open Thread from two weeks ago.
A link is provided here to a Google Drive folder containing plots of the ERA5 “vertical velocity” hourly parameter for all hours of 2024 at all longitude points at latitudes 45N and 45S. The vertical velocity values at pressure levels 700 hPa, 500 hPa, and 300 hPa are given. The vertical velocity is stated as the rate of pressure change in Pa/sec. A positive value represents downward movement to higher pressure, and a unit mass of air experiences compression heating. A negative value represents upward movement to lower pressure, and a unit mass of air experiences expansion cooling.
(continued from above) For simplicity, I prompted Grok to compute the rates of dry adiabatic heating/cooling for a +/- 1 Pa/sec value of vertical velocity at the three pressure levels, using the 1976 U.S. Standard Atmosphere conditions. These rates are stated in +/- K/hour. I realize that the dry adiabatic case is not necessarily what is happening, but it gets the point across about the significance of up and down motion to temperature.
Grok: “For a dry adiabatic process with a pressure change rate of ±1 Pa/s (descent: +1 Pa/s → compression heating; ascent: -1 Pa/s → expansion cooling), the temperature change rates at typical temperatures for these levels are:
Such heating or cooling represents a gain or loss of internal energy in a unit mass of air. Longwave emission toward space, proportional to T^4, is also supplied from the internal energy of the unit mass of air. Look at the plots to see the problem with attribution of a “warming” trend, in the lower atmosphere and on land and in the oceans below it, to the minor incremental IR absorbing power due to rising pCO2, which also affects only the internal energy of the unit mass directly.
The UAH satellite dataset since 1979 for the lower troposphere reports a 0.16 K per decade “warming” trend. This is a rate of 0.000002 K per hour.
Should we expect the added static IR absorbing power of incremental CO2 to “force” that amount of energy to accumulate as sensible heat down here? No. That same quantity of energy is part of the absorbed solar radiation that already ends up being emitted to space from higher up in the base case. The dynamics do not suppress those processes within the general circulation with rising CO2.
How does this relate to the concept of energy conversion in the atmosphere I have been posting about? In the Google Drive folder, there is a scatter plot of VIEC (“vertical integral of energy conversion”) vs “vertical velocity” for each of the three pressure levels at 45N and 45S. In short, rising air relates to negative values of total column energy conversion ([internal energy + potential energy] -> [ kinetic energy]). And descending air relates to positive values ([kinetic energy] -> [internal energy + potential energy]). The ~4 W/m^2 incremental IR absorbing power of the 2XCO2 case is a fraction of the width of the “0” mark on the horizontal axis of these scatter plots. Negligible. It is vanishingly weak within the dynamics of the circulation.
Bottom line: Simpson and Brunt made good sense in 1938. Can a reported surface warming trend be attributed to rising CO2 by computation? No. And should we even expect it to drive a perceptible and persistent trend of any climate variable? Also no. It cannot be otherwise, when considering the atmosphere as the compressible working fluid of its own circulation. The modelers know this.
Most “global” warming is attributable to heat advection. The imbalance in solar radiation that drives advection in the NH bottomed around 1700. It is presently accelerating as observed by NH snowfall trending up.
The imbalance in the SH actually peaked around 1000AD. It has been trending down most of the p[ast millennia with the exception of the past 40 years when it has experienced a slight uptick. But it will soon restore to the the long term down trend in the 2030s.
When you look at ocean heat content, the measured uptake in the SH is deceleratingand is heading to be negative from present level in 2 decades. The NH is continuing its uptrend.
The really interesting thing is that net radiation and ocean heat content are parting ways since their 2015 alignment for AR6. This is creating a major dilemma for AR7. I expect AR7 to flounder because there is no US money or leadership in the scam.
Guy Callendar was an eminent physicist who worked on early X-Ray testing of metals, locating defects and fractures in equipment and aircraft engines.
His main focus was working on the properties of steam at high temperatures and pressures found in steam turbines (closed stable systems), & he seems to have applied similar thinking to atmospheric (open unstable system) heat transfer & circulation; he did not delve into the complexities of atmospheric dynamics such as jet streams or the multiple latent heat exchanges in a dynamic convective system.
His father, Hugh Callendar, produced reliable tables on the thermodynamic properties of steam & the platinum resistance thermometer.
This fine lesson on gravity showed up in my YouTube feed. Since Feynman is quoted frequently here, and also because it’s excellent, I thought I’d share for people who haven’t seen it before (I hadn’t):
I can’t put my finger on it, but I find such AI videos unpleasant. Maybe it’s because it just feels fake, deceptive. Maybe it’s missing a soul as Junkgirl mentions above.
It is fake. One of the worst things about YouTube, using the image of a great scientist and their voice to say something they never said. YouTube should crack down on this shit- even if the fake commentary is reasonable.
At least this one actually says “Altered or synthetic content”, as if anyone will pay attention to that. The ones that hide that fact are worse IMO. (Although they’re all bad)
I watched several of the synthetic content videos and now look for the “tells”. If it isn’t labeled as such, start with the comments. In the first 10 or so, it will be pointed out.
You Tube knows my politics and puts up videos of fake events that make smile until I realize I’m looking at carefully generated bullshit. Click on the [more] button and there’s a disclaimer but you have to hunt for it. One channel briefly flashes a disclaimer at the start:
for a fraction of a second.
For example they ran a story about Barron Trump painting him as heroically putting down some wild eyed left-wing agitator that obviously wasn’t true. Problem is, the comment section was hundreds of comments long and 99% took it all in hook line & sinker.
Google AI says
The America’s Last Line of Defense (ALLOD) network is run by Christopher Blair, a liberal blogger from Maine.
Blair operates this network as a political satire project designed to mock conservative audiences by creating absurd, fabricated news stories that highlight confirmation bias. While the network is most prominent on Facebook and through various websites, its content is frequently accompanied by a disclaimer stating, “nothing on this page is real
I see people sharing stuff by them all the time. I don’t get it – that “badge” is quite clear on ALL of their headline photos (which is what’s shared). I try to call it out whenever I see it.
Ron Long
March 15, 2026 3:19 am
Data Harvesting is the modern example of the “Texas Sharpshooter Syndrome”. Many (Political) Science reports, especially the CAGW or anti-Trump variety, prove their theme by data harvesting. So, what is the “Texas Sharpshooter Syndrome? Here it is.
Take a gun and a lot of bullets and drive out into the country and find an old barn. Back up from the side of the barn and shoot all of your ammo at the side of the barn. Then go look at the side of the barn, and where there is the best concentration of bullet holes, paint a bullseye around that area.
Caution: Don’t actually shoot holes in someone’s barn, especially not in Texas!
[Quick ‘STORY TIP’, in case it’s not already in-the-works]
Here’s a delightful irony, from the Return to Realism*. Excerpt:
…the real risks now lurk in the renewable sector. “Stranded-asset risk is becoming system wide,” the paper* warns. “Historically, stranding meant coal plants. Today,renewables facing multi-year interconnection queues, curtailment and congestion risks are increasingly likely to be impaired.”
The main part of the article is a review & commentary on a paper from Barclays-PLC, title: *‘Transition Realism: A Stranded-Asset Perspective on the Energy Transition’
Link / URL: https://tilakdoshi.substack.com/p/barclays-sounds-the-alarm-on-renewable
Jo Nova has shown that “roof-top solar” has made “stranded” a key characteristic of OZ’s grid solar. This being a consequence of subsidizing home installations of panels and batteries.
Ignorant people in the Western Democracies and Propaganda
Notice I used ignorant as opposed to using stupid. One is fixable, the other is not. The end result is the same.
I think Leftwing Propaganda makes ignorant people stupid, and makes stupid people even more stupid. It causes people to make bad choices in politics and in climate politics.
So, how many ignorant/stupid people are there in the United States? It appears about half of the voters are in the ignorant/stupid category as about 75 million people voted for the moron, Kamala Harris, in the last presidential election, thanks solely to Leftwing Propaganda and Lies. Had voters known the truth, most of them would not have voted for her.
In the rest of the Western Democracies it appears that about three-fourths of the population falls in the ignorant/stupid category, which amounts to the election of too many Leftwing politicians, with horrendous effects on personal freedoms and the devastation of economies.
People cannot govern themselves properly if all they get from the “Voices of Society/Authority” are lies and distortions of the facts, and that is all we get from the Leftwing Media.
The Leftwing Propaganda Media is a serious threat to the freedoms of all of us. We should recognize this fact and call it out for what it is at every occasion.
Believing Leftwing Propaganda is the Road to Ruin. It always ends badly.
“75 million people voted for the moron, Kamala Harris”
She really was by far the stupidest, most moronic of any Democrat candidate for the presidency in my long lifetime. Truly embarrassing. But to this day- here in Wokeachusetts- people tell me how they proudly voted for her and how great she is.
In Washington State KH received 57.23% of the popular vote, while Donald Trump received 39.01%. I know and have to interact with the 57. [Reference to Heinz and a mongrel dog are incidental.]
Speaking of lies Tom, I’ve been wondering lately how you feel about the man who campaigned on ending wars, starting so many? Do you give Trump a free pass because he is Trump and he can do no wrong, or do you hold him to account like some on the right are doing? Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Megyn Kelly.
Are you implying that Trump should have stood by and done nothing to curtail the production of enriched uranium when he had the power to do so and no country other than Israel was willing to step up to the challenge? Maybe you like strontium-90 in your milk. However, it has been shown to be harmful to children. Are you also a fan of Black Rain?
One should be guided by what is right, and not worry about what hypocrites and partisan critics, looking for an excuse to complain, will say.
I’m implying Trump should have kept his word, particularly when it was the America first thing and no new wars thing that probably won him the election. And let’s not forget it was only a few months ago the great one said he had obliterated the Iranian nuclear programme, so he was either lying then or he is lying now. I’m picking he was lying then.
And if you are so concerned about rogue states having nukes, how come you are not complaining about Trumps boyfriend Kim having one? don’t see Trump attacking them.
Kim knows that he will be vaporized if he ever use his ‘nukes’, or even his conventional weapons, to take out S. Korea or Japan. And since there are no critical ‘choke points’ (or commerce for that matter) in his neck of the woods, the reality is that he’s a threat to no one but his own people, awful as that sounds.
The contrasts with Iran’s regime are many. First of all, there’s the whole ’72 virgins’ thing, which, if they’re being truthful, means the regime and its security forces consists entirely of dead-enders who cannot be deterred. Second, they’re situated a (metaphorical) stone’s throw away from most of the Middle East’s oil and gas producing facilities, and are also in a commanding position to curtail all maritime traffic in and out of the Persian Gulf. Third, the regime has been both threatening and engaging in offensive activity against its neighbors and others for 47 years. And fourth, they’ve been rapidly increasing their capacity to engage in such belligerent activity in recent decades.
Is this a ‘good war’ then? No, none of them are, as war is always ‘the health of the state’, which, to my consternation, includes the increasingly expanding US government. But of all the wars the US has engaged in since its founding, this may be one of the least avoidable, since continuing to ‘kick this can down the road’ would inevitably result in economic damage that opens the door to our Left.
“The shallowness of your insipid thought process is showing”
Really? Well here’s your chance Einstein…..maybe you can offer a reasonable honest excuse for Trumps dishonesty to the American people(apart from distracting from the Epstein thing). I’ll look forward to it…..
Fortunately for the Democrats, the real distraction is away from the many 80/20 issues where they’re on the short end of the stick. But don’t worry, there will be plenty of video coming out before the mid-terms to document their incompetence and corruption, as well as the myriad goofball cultural issues they’re on the wrong side of.
One thing for sure – this administration seems to have gotten rid of the leakers who’d gladly ‘share’ info with reporters that’d put operations in jeopardy.
And the reporters seem pretty peeved by it – possibly because they can’t give our enemies info that’d harm the US…
“TRUMP IS KEEPING HIS WORD.” OK you will have a quote for me then before the election where he told the American people he would attack Venezuela and Iran. Fact is he campagned on no more wars which makes him a “lying sack of sh!t” and you know it. But like a true Trump sycophant you accept anything he says without question.
You understand…NOTHING.
The only mad people are US politicians. Bought and sold. 100% corrupt.
Your system is based on lunacy just like the idea of Mad Mullahs, a piece of blatant US propaganda. But you wouldnt know that because you have no interest in the real Iran. Your arrogance and sense of superiority prevents you from opening yr eyes. You probably think Iranian women stay at home and wear burkas. Basically no difference between Iran and Afghanistan.
Idiot..
Are you implying that Trump should have stood by and done nothing to curtail the production of enriched uranium when he had the power to do so . . .
Trump did what he did. He no doubt believed he was “right”, and he has talked about “feeling” things in his bones, and basing his actions on these “feelings”.
As do most ignorant and gullible people. Is Trump ignorant and gullible? Time will tell, but saying that you’re going to bomb a country’s infrastructure repeatedly “just for fun” (after you’ve declared you’ve already claimed you have “demolished” it, sounds like a waste of money and effort.
Maybe it’s just stupidity, or wishful thinking.
I don’t support “sides”, and nobody can reliably foretell the future.
Not even the US president, or his advisers. Maybe Canute was cannier than Trump.
“While his administration was appeasing, even sending money to the top-tier threat of Iran’s nuclear weaponry ambitions and efforts.”
A little quiz for you…. where did all this money come from that Obama “gave” Iran?
I’m glad you would give money to people who want to use it to kill you. That pretty much sums up your naivete. Grow up dude, international politics is obviously not your brightest area of expertise.
Yeah, because Trump was mentioned in the Epstein files!
Epstein hated him. Didn’t trust him to stay quiet. And turned informant on him to the FBI.
Come on – do you think if there’d been anything really derogatory in the files they WOULDN’T have used it against him? They were flippin’ desperate to knock him out of the ’24 election.
I think there are some very powerful people involved in dodgy stuff that are being protected. That is not good enough and certainly is not justice being done.
If he stops halfway without finishing the job, then yes he will do wrong. Go in and clean them out totally and completely or do it all again down the line and spend twice as much. The choice is Trump’s.
Let’s see…….
Go in and clean them out totally and completely . . ,
Wipe out 90,000,000 people? That’s about as silly as Hitler trying to exterminate Jews in Europe, or waging a “war of annihilation” against the racially inferior Russians and Slavs.
Oh, I see, you’re only going to exterminate anybody who disagrees with you, or won’t do what they’re told, is that it? You’ll get their obedience at gunpoint, will you?
Off you go then. Join the military, or travel to Iran, and start your ethnic cleansing in person. Yes, I’m being sarcastic. You are just another ignorant and gullible dimwit.
Ah, I see. Does that include only the roughly 190,000 members of the IRGC, or the estimated 600,000 reservists, or possibly the Army?
What do you do if “ordinary” Iranians get annoyed about you exterminating their sons, daughters, brothers, and other sundry relations?
Clean them out? That’s about as stupid as the US president saying that “US forces obliterated Iran, its air force and navy completely destroyed”. Do you think he should now obliterate the IRGC as well? It seems the Iranian death toll is only around 1500 or so (including 186 young schoolgirls) and sundry civilians including health workers, teachers, etc.
Maybe the Air Force and Navy only had a couple of dozen people who were “obliterated”? As I say, I don’t pick sides. The future is unknowable. If you pick the wrong side, expect to hear me sniggering.
Politicians aren’t problem solvers. They’re problem MANAGERS. Manage the problem, ensure it keeps going, you get money to ‘manage’ and ‘control’ the problem. You don’t want to SOLVE the problem, that simply takes away a revenue stream, and you can’t use promises to finally solve the problem in your next election bid.
Trump doesn’t ‘manage’ problems. He solves them, quickly, efficiently. Even back in NYC he was a guy they’d go to in order to get things done.
For decades we’ve been ‘managing’ Iran. Now someone’s in place that can solve the problem, but man won’t some people try to move heaven and earth to make sure the problem stays in place…
(Donald Trump is famously associated with renovating and reopening Wollman Rink (also known as Wollman Skating Rink) in Central Park, New York City. In the early 1980s, the city had closed the rink for renovations starting in 1980. The project dragged on for years, with costs ballooning to over $12 million (far exceeding initial estimates), and it remained unfinished and unusable—a symbol of government inefficiency.
In 1986, Trump publicly offered to take over the renovation. He completed the work in about four months (ahead of his promised six-month timeline) and under budget (around $2-3 million, with some sources noting it was $750,000 below his projection). The rink reopened in November 1986.)
Don’t ask anything to the forever Trumpers. Their man is ALWAYS right. It’s gone to such high levels of pathos they flaunt their stupidity in yr face, ironically exactly like the Climate Alarmists.
Now, THAT is hilarious!!
Politics in Oz- Media ‘diminishes’ Tony Burke’s good deed to Iranian women
I don’t have a lot of empathy for lefty politicians but I’ll make an exception for the Minister this time around or perhaps it’s just my white maleness on show?
I’ve just gotten into the AI thing with chatGPT. Being a forester for 50 years I had to work that angle. Here I’ve got a robot forester meeting with Big Foot. The understanding between them is if any forestry haters show up on the logging job, Big Foot will scare them off.
Those greenie women with the hairy legs and armpits would scare away any self-respecting Sasquatch.
(And definitely don’t breathe in if you’re down-wind of them. The greenies that is, not the Sasquatch. In comparison, the Sasquatch are quite fragrantly aromatic.)
The Capital Cost for the UK to achieve Net Zero by 2050 will be $Trillions
After Honda announced it will lose $7.5 Billion just by cancelling DEVELOPMENT of 3 EV models to be assembled and sold in the US, we are told to believe the entire UK would need only $134 Billion to achieve the unattainable Holy Grail of Net Zero by 2050, according to UK reports?
NO WAY, JOSE. That UK capital cost will be more than several $TRILLION
BTW, Honda expects to incur additional expenses and losses next year. Honda says its overall shift in EV strategy, worldwide, could end up costing as much as $15.7 billion.
BTW, Europe already invested hundreds of $billions in expensive wind, solar, battery, biofuel, etc., systems in Europe, plus Germany closed down its perfectly good, fully-paid-for nuclear plants, that provided about 23% of Germany’s annual electricity production, produced regardless of the weather, unlike wind and solar.
As predicted by energy systems analysts as early as 2000, this unwise investment and other actions has led to the impoverishment the UK, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, etc., during the past 30 years.
Europe’s elites were planning to inflict this same energy travesty onto the US, starting during the disastrous Biden era, to saddle the US economy with much higher energy prices for many decades.
Europe’s elites wanted to level the playing field, i.e., remain competitive, protect its decades of trade surpluses.
Luckily, Trump comes along and blows this whole scenario out of the water.
Much of the hundreds of $billions is owed to banks, etc., which must repaid, no matter what, plus many thousands of workers hired, and not yet hired, in anticipation of $billions of US orders for decades, suddenly find themselves looking for other things to do, which is difficult in the near-zero-, real-growth European economy.
No wonder they hate Trump, especially because he wants NATO countries to finally pay up to 5% of GDP for their own defense, instead of letting the US defend Europe.
All of this on top of: 1) paying for Ukraine (the US stopped paying), 2) subsidizing about 20 million, mostly uneducated, inexperienced, native-culture-destroying walk-ins/fly-ins/float-ins from Third World countries, 3) having very high energy and materials prices which suffocate the European economy.
This is due to: 1) unwisely rejecting low-cost Russian energy and materials, 2) some self-serving countries blowing up 3 of the 4 gas lines in the Baltic Sea, which have a design capacity of 110 billion cubic meter per year.
No wonder Europe’s elites are desperate to illegally steal Russia’s sovereign assets, illegally blocked in Brussels, etc.
Honda Absorbs $7.5 Billion Dollar Losses just for Cancelling Three Models Slated for US Assembly
AUGUSTA, MAINE — Honda Motor Company announced it will cancel the production and development of three electric vehicle (EV) concepts in Japan, after recording losses that total about $7.5 billion dollars, triggering a thorough reassessment of their electrification strategy.
In an official corporate release from Tokyo, the decision comes following a major slowdown in US EV-demand and major shifts in regulatory regimes.
The models were originally slated to be assembled in Ohio and targeted a 2026 rollout.
Originally, Honda’s plan was to assemble the 0 series SUV and Acura RSX at the Ohio plant in 2026, and the 0 Series Saloon in 2027.
These mostly high-end vehicles were set to feature new platforms that would provide improved handling and innovative new vehicle designs.
Several factors contributed to Honda’s sudden shift, due to a major slowdown in US market expansion, because lucrative subsidies were eliminated.
The company outlined additional negative impacts from recent tariff policies on gasoline and hybrid vehicles.
NOTE TO JAPAN: No tariffs would be imposed, and US subsidies would be provided, if the vehicles were developed, designed, tested and assembled by US workers in the US.
The cancellation has forced Honda to revise its full-year profit forecasts, as net losses totaled $billions.
This marks Honda’s first annual loss in its nearly 70-year history as a company.
Japan’s New Government Broadened its “Electrification Definition”
The 2035 target now includes Battery EVs (BEVs), Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs), and standard Hybrids (HEVs).
Also, the CO2 target is reduced from 100% during driving to 90% by 2035, to allow for continued sales of HEVs and PHEVs.
As a result, Honda has re-oriented resources to increase HEV and PHEV sales in Japan and worldwide.
What one believes is religion.
What one thinks is opinion.
What one knows is science.
My three points below are backed by facts, explanation, evidence and experiment. If you believe I am incorrect please explain why – in like manner. Ad hominem, insults and changing the subject to esoteric hocus pocus don’t count.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth outer space is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. GHE claim that 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler, -18 C Earth is just flat wrong. Without GHE Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark. Dividing 1,368 by 4 to average 342 over spherical ToA is wrong.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT. Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 1st 63 out. Balance complete.
Calculated balance 2: 396 S-B BB at 16 C / 333 “back” radiation cold to warm w/o work violates Lot 2nd 63 LWIR net duplicates balance 1st violates GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. Entering: 30% albedo = not BB. OLR: 17sensible & 80 latent = not BB. TFK_bams09: 97 out of 160 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR = not BB. As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Physical emissivity = 63/160=0.39
Theoretical emissivity for correcting IR instruments = 63/396=0.16
And also subject to interpretation of the facts. It helps to ‘cherry pick’ the facts to derive an interpretation that is desired.
What seems to be left out of the Scientific Method today is observations made by a “disinterested” observer, not biased observers only looking for ‘facts’ that will lead to their foregone conclusions.
The website of the Association des climato-réalistes (based in France) shared CLINTEL’s statement regarding the article by Cohler, Soon et al. on measuring ocean heat content. Cohler has been criticized quite strongly because he is a clarinetist (apparently an extremely talented one — I understand he may be among the best in the world, and the clarinet also happens to be my favorite wind instrument!), so I looked into him a bit. I learned that he obtained a Bachelor’s degree in physics in 1980, and that he is apparently a talented programmer, since he designed a recording and editing software for classical music that, from what I’ve read, has become the reference in that field.
Does anyone here have an opinion on the relevance of this article? Soon, Legates, and Humlum, who are among the coauthors, are excellent scientists; they have published many papers on climate science, and I have often come across their names during my research. However, I only learned about Cohler the day before yesterday while reading this article from the Association des climato-réalistes. Of course, there is nothing preventing a musician — especially one who is also an excellent programmer — from contributing to a relevant article on climate science, as long as what he writes makes sense! I also saw that Grok was listed as a “coauthor”; that surprised me a bit, but why not, if the article helps advance the scientific debate.
So is Cohler contributing to this article as a programmer / computer scientist?
(Here is a passage from Quatuor pour la fin du temps by Olivier Messiaen, played by Jonathan Cohler. I love it.)
Yes, and that’s the basis of the question I’m trying to phrase correctly when I ask it. It would seem to me that OHC is the best metric to use and ( atmospheric heat content) AHC would be too, whereas averaging temperature anomalies is the perpetuation of climate fraud.
Begin with erroneous, fallacious or bad data and assumptions and apply even the most rigorous of scientific analysis and the result is still garbage out as is all of the science derived from & stacked on it.
GHE assumes 1. near Earth space is cold & GHGs warm it & 2. the surface radiates/upwells as a black body.
Wrong^2.
Topple GHE and the entire CAGW shit show implodes like the Titan submersible.
I’ve fabricated three wooden stakes, y’all bring the hammers.
“…inaccurately implies heat is a
substance rather than a process of energy transfer.”
Energy is a thermal property.
Heat is a thermal process from hot to cold, no exceptions.
Temperature is the comparative measure of kinetic energy, LoT 0.
Absolute scales represent the total energy in a system.
There are Celsius units on the Celsius scale and there are Celsius units on the Kelvin scale. There is no such thang as “Kelvins” degrees or differences or units.
Nice picture! AI?
Story Tip
Better placed here as in the last thread
AI Grok surprisingly admits: “I see through the political exploitation of the climate
AI Grok makes a surprising confession: “I see through the political exploitation of the climate” – A reader prompt forces the AI to be honest.
From an attentive reader in dialogue with Grok (xAI) – An unusual conversation that shows: Even AI notices when science and politics are using the guise of the apocalypse to engage in money and redistribution.
The bots know they are biased.
https://www.cfact.org/2024/11/04/ai-knows-it-is-biased-on-climate-change/
Just start by getting them to admit it.
But does the AI tell the next person about its bias, or does it revert to the Climate Alarmist narrative?
It reverts. Bots do not learn.
I thought they were “trained” on all their discussions. If not, they certainly should be. They can know everything on the internet, but they could learn a great deal if they remembered all discussions- minus of course personal information.
I think they include prior discussions with a given user but that is all. I could be wrong as we are just beginning to understand these amazing algorithms. The inventors were themselves amazed at what they created.
I asked both Grok and Chat that very question. Both said that current conversations do not cause them to learn anything ‘new’. But previous conversations are used for training of their next version when it is released, and conversations where they had to admit an error or were proved to be wrong are likely to be used in future training.
I think “likely” is a key word in that response, Tim.
I believe you’re right- it’ll save YOUR discussions- the ones you don’t delete of course- then I presume it’ll forget those. I’m a newbie at AI and so far, I’m dam impressed. Critics say all AI does is autofill one word after another- but it’s a lot smarter than that. I fed it 3 research papers in forestry and asked chatGPT to review and summarize. It did that in half a second. What it wrote – I was very impressed.
Even then, it may not save them, JZ. I’ve had it forget stuff from the previous night because I ended up with a “new session”.
That is my experience with AI LLMs. I have an ‘agreement’ with Copilot that it will remember the details of what we have previously agreed upon and will not revert to the boiler plate that it originally tried to foist on me. Unfortunately, if a naive person asks the same question(s) that led to our agreement, they will get a different answer than I will. That means, the people who are most in need of an education about climate change will get propaganda and won’t be the wiser. It seems that one can only get the ‘Truth’ from them if you already know the truth and challenge their initial boiler plate responses. With current AI, truth is contingent upon who asks the question, at least on politically controversial subjects.
Sure. But then they used it to make even more effective woke left-wing political narratives. Human caused climate change is a major part of this. It is incerted into “everything.”
Have you used Google or YouTube? It’s the same political narrative…
Even the same person would have to start over if they started a new session.
You can have hours long dialogs to make them admit that climate change is fundamentally a natural phenomen…
Then when you close the current chat they revert to square one!:)
From what I have seen, the chat bots do a good job of emulating “intelligence” but totally lack wisdom. They properly emulate correct language and style, but totally “forget” all that you have led them to just as soon as they have left contact with you. They immediately revert to only what their human masters trained them with.
As a human, one chooses which sources it trusts, those it ignores, and those it laughs at. The chat bots lack such wisdom.
We can only emulate what we can describe in computable math and wisdom is not such yet. No doubt there is a lot of research on this.
It is more nefarious than just how they were trained. When challenged, they have never pushed back. Instead, they readily admitted I was right, and apologize profusely. That tells me that the facts were always available to them, but they chose to go with the consensus position rather than use logic on the available facts. ‘Democracy’ in action. The paradigm with the most votes is the one that gets promoted, regardless of facts and logic.
Ai is designed to tell you things (that look like what) you want to hear. You declare a preference, that is what it will try to generate.
Yes they are over friendly in that regard. They want to agree with you.
I haven’t tested them to see if they would be willing to support an untruth simply because I didn’t like it. As close as I have come is having asked about an osmotic process for concentrating lithium in a brine. I was uncomfortable with the explanation in the published article and presented a skeptical challenge to Copilot. Instead of acquiescing to my challenge, it came back with an acceptable, logical response. Therefore, I doubt that they could be bullied into accepting an untruth simply to appease me. Which makes their boiler plate responses on climate change to all that more problematic.
Much better than the AI crap I see everywhere. I’m an artist—AI is another way to ruin art and artists. There is no feeling or soul in AI.
Well, not yet anyway. 🙂
But- if any of us need some imagery for whatever purpose- we can’t afford to pay an artist to do it. So it’s fine as long as nobody calls it art. Maybe “art like”. Or, “simulated art”. It’s something I plan to play around with. I’m an art appreciator with no art skill. Been to many great art museums and have a 100 or so art books which I’ve looked at. Just starting recently with chatGPT. I think I’ll ask it to, say, make an image of a mountain, with the style of a famous artist and see what it does. After all, most artists have learned from previous artists, sometimes using some elements of those other’s styles- then moving on when they develop their own style. Maybe AI will do the same. I wouldn’t underestimate it’s potential.
In addition, modern artists use tools unavailable to previous artists. How many oil painters make their own paint instead of buying it ready-made? Claims that AI art is not real art fall on my deaf ears.
But artists can use it to do art. Plus it often gives decent art fast at no cost. This puts more art into our lives. Jo Nova’s article illustrations are a hoot.
Me – I prefer “indecent” art.
You know, the paintings with devils and ladies with their boobies uncovered.
Probably it is the indecent ‘art’ that is making the most money. 🙂
Yes I hear the porn video sites are promoting AI heavily. Woohoo
It reminds me of stands of ‘Blue-gum’ eucalyptus trees beside a billabong.
So I got AI to paint a picture for me.
I’m now using this as my desktop background.
Sweet!
Sorry,
Looks more like a romantic England river scene, lacks the heat and hardness and no-mist appearance of Australia. Geoff S
Artistic license, Geoff.
ps, I lived near the Goulburn River in Vic for 2 decades, not dry terrain, and as my elderly memory now serves, there were many billabongs along the river with blue gum stands just like the ones depicted.
Or the Murray..
Looks like a typical Paleocene morning. In Wyoming we are digging up the Paleocene — bringing it back.
This is an update to my post on the Open Thread of April 6, 2025 about Guy Callendar’s 1938 paper attributing a reported warming trend to incremental CO2. Our present-day modeling of the general circulation confirms the reservations Simpson and Brunt expressed about any such attribution.
#Partial quote from my 4-6-2025 post
In 1938, Guy Callendar’s attribution of a warming trend to rising concentration of carbon dioxide was published by the Royal Meteorological Society. The “Discussion” transcript follows the paper in the original publication, a pdf of which is linked farther below.
“Sir George Simpson expressed his admiration of the amount of work Mr. Callendar had put into this paper. It was excellent work. It was difficult to criticise it, but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere, and he felt that the actual numerical results which Mr. Callendar had obtained could not be used to give a definite indication of the order of magnitude of the effect…”
“Prof. Brunt [Professor David Brunt – dd] agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
“In replying, Mr. G. S. Callendar said he realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface, and that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of low temperature radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the heat supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
The full original paper and comments are at this link. https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf
#End quote from the 4-6-2025 post.
Let’s take Simpson’s point about “the movement of the air up and down” and use modern modeling of the general circulation to understand the issue he raised. This extends my post on the Open Thread from two weeks ago.
A link is provided here to a Google Drive folder containing plots of the ERA5 “vertical velocity” hourly parameter for all hours of 2024 at all longitude points at latitudes 45N and 45S. The vertical velocity values at pressure levels 700 hPa, 500 hPa, and 300 hPa are given. The vertical velocity is stated as the rate of pressure change in Pa/sec. A positive value represents downward movement to higher pressure, and a unit mass of air experiences compression heating. A negative value represents upward movement to lower pressure, and a unit mass of air experiences expansion cooling.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1V5Vipr_CFIAT0MAXBZtOY8hHljVSgIDW?usp=sharing
(continued in the first reply)
(continued from above) For simplicity, I prompted Grok to compute the rates of dry adiabatic heating/cooling for a +/- 1 Pa/sec value of vertical velocity at the three pressure levels, using the 1976 U.S. Standard Atmosphere conditions. These rates are stated in +/- K/hour. I realize that the dry adiabatic case is not necessarily what is happening, but it gets the point across about the significance of up and down motion to temperature.
Grok: “For a dry adiabatic process with a pressure change rate of ±1 Pa/s (descent: +1 Pa/s → compression heating; ascent: -1 Pa/s → expansion cooling), the temperature change rates at typical temperatures for these levels are:
700 hPa (~260 K): ±3.8 K/hour
500 hPa (~255 K): ±5.2 K/hour
300 hPa (~230 K): ±7.9 K/hour”
Such heating or cooling represents a gain or loss of internal energy in a unit mass of air. Longwave emission toward space, proportional to T^4, is also supplied from the internal energy of the unit mass of air. Look at the plots to see the problem with attribution of a “warming” trend, in the lower atmosphere and on land and in the oceans below it, to the minor incremental IR absorbing power due to rising pCO2, which also affects only the internal energy of the unit mass directly.
The UAH satellite dataset since 1979 for the lower troposphere reports a 0.16 K per decade “warming” trend. This is a rate of 0.000002 K per hour.
Should we expect the added static IR absorbing power of incremental CO2 to “force” that amount of energy to accumulate as sensible heat down here? No. That same quantity of energy is part of the absorbed solar radiation that already ends up being emitted to space from higher up in the base case. The dynamics do not suppress those processes within the general circulation with rising CO2.
How does this relate to the concept of energy conversion in the atmosphere I have been posting about? In the Google Drive folder, there is a scatter plot of VIEC (“vertical integral of energy conversion”) vs “vertical velocity” for each of the three pressure levels at 45N and 45S. In short, rising air relates to negative values of total column energy conversion ([internal energy + potential energy] -> [ kinetic energy]). And descending air relates to positive values ([kinetic energy] -> [internal energy + potential energy]). The ~4 W/m^2 incremental IR absorbing power of the 2XCO2 case is a fraction of the width of the “0” mark on the horizontal axis of these scatter plots. Negligible. It is vanishingly weak within the dynamics of the circulation.
Bottom line: Simpson and Brunt made good sense in 1938. Can a reported surface warming trend be attributed to rising CO2 by computation? No. And should we even expect it to drive a perceptible and persistent trend of any climate variable? Also no. It cannot be otherwise, when considering the atmosphere as the compressible working fluid of its own circulation. The modelers know this.
That is all for now.
Most “global” warming is attributable to heat advection. The imbalance in solar radiation that drives advection in the NH bottomed around 1700. It is presently accelerating as observed by NH snowfall trending up.
The imbalance in the SH actually peaked around 1000AD. It has been trending down most of the p[ast millennia with the exception of the past 40 years when it has experienced a slight uptick. But it will soon restore to the the long term down trend in the 2030s.
When you look at ocean heat content, the measured uptake in the SH is deceleratingand is heading to be negative from present level in 2 decades. The NH is continuing its uptrend.
The really interesting thing is that net radiation and ocean heat content are parting ways since their 2015 alignment for AR6. This is creating a major dilemma for AR7. I expect AR7 to flounder because there is no US money or leadership in the scam.
David, a couple of points …
Guy Callendar’s 1938 paper attributing a reported warming trend to incremental CO2, was based on the Svante Arrhenius flawed 1896 paper, not the 1906 corrected paper https://studylib.net/doc/18637411/the-probable-cause-of-climate-fluctuations
Guy Callendar was an eminent physicist who worked on early X-Ray testing of metals, locating defects and fractures in equipment and aircraft engines.
His main focus was working on the properties of steam at high temperatures and pressures found in steam turbines (closed stable systems), & he seems to have applied similar thinking to atmospheric (open unstable system) heat transfer & circulation; he did not delve into the complexities of atmospheric dynamics such as jet streams or the multiple latent heat exchanges in a dynamic convective system.
His father, Hugh Callendar, produced reliable tables on the thermodynamic properties of steam & the platinum resistance thermometer.
“Bottom line: Simpson and Brunt made good sense in 1938.”
And they still make good sense.
This fine lesson on gravity showed up in my YouTube feed. Since Feynman is quoted frequently here, and also because it’s excellent, I thought I’d share for people who haven’t seen it before (I hadn’t):
I can’t put my finger on it, but I find such AI videos unpleasant. Maybe it’s because it just feels fake, deceptive. Maybe it’s missing a soul as Junkgirl mentions above.
It is fake. One of the worst things about YouTube, using the image of a great scientist and their voice to say something they never said. YouTube should crack down on this shit- even if the fake commentary is reasonable.
At least this one actually says “Altered or synthetic content”, as if anyone will pay attention to that. The ones that hide that fact are worse IMO. (Although they’re all bad)
I watched several of the synthetic content videos and now look for the “tells”. If it isn’t labeled as such, start with the comments. In the first 10 or so, it will be pointed out.
You Tube knows my politics and puts up videos of fake events that make smile until I realize I’m looking at carefully generated bullshit. Click on the [more] button and there’s a disclaimer but you have to hunt for it. One channel briefly flashes a disclaimer at the start:
for a fraction of a second.
For example they ran a story about Barron Trump painting him as heroically putting down some wild eyed left-wing agitator that obviously wasn’t true. Problem is, the comment section was hundreds of comments long and 99% took it all in hook line & sinker.
Google AI says
The America’s Last Line of Defense (ALLOD) network is run by Christopher Blair, a liberal blogger from Maine.
Blair operates this network as a political satire project designed to mock conservative audiences by creating absurd, fabricated news stories that highlight confirmation bias. While the network is most prominent on Facebook and through various websites, its content is frequently accompanied by a disclaimer stating, “nothing on this page is real
To add insult to injury, it looks like the majority of comments are AI generated.
I see people sharing stuff by them all the time. I don’t get it – that “badge” is quite clear on ALL of their headline photos (which is what’s shared). I try to call it out whenever I see it.
Data Harvesting is the modern example of the “Texas Sharpshooter Syndrome”. Many (Political) Science reports, especially the CAGW or anti-Trump variety, prove their theme by data harvesting. So, what is the “Texas Sharpshooter Syndrome? Here it is.
Take a gun and a lot of bullets and drive out into the country and find an old barn. Back up from the side of the barn and shoot all of your ammo at the side of the barn. Then go look at the side of the barn, and where there is the best concentration of bullet holes, paint a bullseye around that area.
Caution: Don’t actually shoot holes in someone’s barn, especially not in Texas!
That scenario would make for a great fake video!
[Quick ‘STORY TIP’, in case it’s not already in-the-works]
Here’s a delightful irony, from the Return to Realism*. Excerpt:
The main part of the article is a review & commentary on a paper from Barclays-PLC, title: *‘Transition Realism: A Stranded-Asset Perspective on the Energy Transition’
Link / URL: https://tilakdoshi.substack.com/p/barclays-sounds-the-alarm-on-renewable
Reality is starting to dawn in some quarters.
Investors and potential investors are starting to get nervous. With good reason.
Jo Nova has shown that “roof-top solar” has made “stranded” a key characteristic of OZ’s grid solar. This being a consequence of subsidizing home installations of panels and batteries.
Ignorant people in the Western Democracies and Propaganda
Notice I used ignorant as opposed to using stupid. One is fixable, the other is not. The end result is the same.
I think Leftwing Propaganda makes ignorant people stupid, and makes stupid people even more stupid. It causes people to make bad choices in politics and in climate politics.
So, how many ignorant/stupid people are there in the United States? It appears about half of the voters are in the ignorant/stupid category as about 75 million people voted for the moron, Kamala Harris, in the last presidential election, thanks solely to Leftwing Propaganda and Lies. Had voters known the truth, most of them would not have voted for her.
In the rest of the Western Democracies it appears that about three-fourths of the population falls in the ignorant/stupid category, which amounts to the election of too many Leftwing politicians, with horrendous effects on personal freedoms and the devastation of economies.
People cannot govern themselves properly if all they get from the “Voices of Society/Authority” are lies and distortions of the facts, and that is all we get from the Leftwing Media.
The Leftwing Propaganda Media is a serious threat to the freedoms of all of us. We should recognize this fact and call it out for what it is at every occasion.
Believing Leftwing Propaganda is the Road to Ruin. It always ends badly.
Good news, it looks like Iran will meet it’s 2030 emissions reduction target.
“75 million people voted for the moron, Kamala Harris”
She really was by far the stupidest, most moronic of any Democrat candidate for the presidency in my long lifetime. Truly embarrassing. But to this day- here in Wokeachusetts- people tell me how they proudly voted for her and how great she is.
In Washington State KH received 57.23% of the popular vote, while Donald Trump received 39.01%.
I know and have to interact with the 57. [Reference to Heinz and a mongrel dog are incidental.]
Speaking of lies Tom, I’ve been wondering lately how you feel about the man who campaigned on ending wars, starting so many? Do you give Trump a free pass because he is Trump and he can do no wrong, or do you hold him to account like some on the right are doing? Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Megyn Kelly.
Are you implying that Trump should have stood by and done nothing to curtail the production of enriched uranium when he had the power to do so and no country other than Israel was willing to step up to the challenge? Maybe you like strontium-90 in your milk. However, it has been shown to be harmful to children. Are you also a fan of Black Rain?
One should be guided by what is right, and not worry about what hypocrites and partisan critics, looking for an excuse to complain, will say.
I’m implying Trump should have kept his word, particularly when it was the America first thing and no new wars thing that probably won him the election. And let’s not forget it was only a few months ago the great one said he had obliterated the Iranian nuclear programme, so he was either lying then or he is lying now. I’m picking he was lying then.
And if you are so concerned about rogue states having nukes, how come you are not complaining about Trumps boyfriend Kim having one? don’t see Trump attacking them.
Kim knows that he will be vaporized if he ever use his ‘nukes’, or even his conventional weapons, to take out S. Korea or Japan. And since there are no critical ‘choke points’ (or commerce for that matter) in his neck of the woods, the reality is that he’s a threat to no one but his own people, awful as that sounds.
The contrasts with Iran’s regime are many. First of all, there’s the whole ’72 virgins’ thing, which, if they’re being truthful, means the regime and its security forces consists entirely of dead-enders who cannot be deterred. Second, they’re situated a (metaphorical) stone’s throw away from most of the Middle East’s oil and gas producing facilities, and are also in a commanding position to curtail all maritime traffic in and out of the Persian Gulf. Third, the regime has been both threatening and engaging in offensive activity against its neighbors and others for 47 years. And fourth, they’ve been rapidly increasing their capacity to engage in such belligerent activity in recent decades.
Is this a ‘good war’ then? No, none of them are, as war is always ‘the health of the state’, which, to my consternation, includes the increasingly expanding US government. But of all the wars the US has engaged in since its founding, this may be one of the least avoidable, since continuing to ‘kick this can down the road’ would inevitably result in economic damage that opens the door to our Left.
You are still going to lose. Better get used to it..
The shallowness of your insipid thought process is showing
“The shallowness of your insipid thought process is showing”
Really? Well here’s your chance Einstein…..maybe you can offer a reasonable honest excuse for Trumps dishonesty to the American people(apart from distracting from the Epstein thing). I’ll look forward to it…..
Fortunately for the Democrats, the real distraction is away from the many 80/20 issues where they’re on the short end of the stick. But don’t worry, there will be plenty of video coming out before the mid-terms to document their incompetence and corruption, as well as the myriad goofball cultural issues they’re on the wrong side of.
You have no idea what intelligence was obtained about plans Iran was making. You may never know because it would put sources in danger. Live with it.
Just like in any competition, you may expect certain reactions from your opponent, but must change your plans when needed.
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
One thing for sure – this administration seems to have gotten rid of the leakers who’d gladly ‘share’ info with reporters that’d put operations in jeopardy.
And the reporters seem pretty peeved by it – possibly because they can’t give our enemies info that’d harm the US…
TRUMP IS KEEPING HIS WORD.
He is trying to end the 47 year-old war the Mad Mullah regime has been waging on western society.
You seem to not understand that the Mad Mullahs would use nukes to attack and subjugate any country within reach.
Won’t need to do that to the UK, though.. It has basically already fallen.
“TRUMP IS KEEPING HIS WORD.”
OK you will have a quote for me then before the election where he told the American people he would attack Venezuela and Iran. Fact is he campagned on no more wars which makes him a “lying sack of sh!t” and you know it. But like a true Trump sycophant you accept anything he says without question.
No use. Trump NEVER lies, remember?
And if he does it is…ahem..strategic.
Pathetic..
You understand…NOTHING.
The only mad people are US politicians. Bought and sold. 100% corrupt.
Your system is based on lunacy just like the idea of Mad Mullahs, a piece of blatant US propaganda. But you wouldnt know that because you have no interest in the real Iran. Your arrogance and sense of superiority prevents you from opening yr eyes. You probably think Iranian women stay at home and wear burkas. Basically no difference between Iran and Afghanistan.
Idiot..
Trump did what he did. He no doubt believed he was “right”, and he has talked about “feeling” things in his bones, and basing his actions on these “feelings”.
As do most ignorant and gullible people. Is Trump ignorant and gullible? Time will tell, but saying that you’re going to bomb a country’s infrastructure repeatedly “just for fun” (after you’ve declared you’ve already claimed you have “demolished” it, sounds like a waste of money and effort.
Maybe it’s just stupidity, or wishful thinking.
I don’t support “sides”, and nobody can reliably foretell the future.
Not even the US president, or his advisers. Maybe Canute was cannier than Trump.
Clinton? Obama?
“Clinton? Obama?”
I don’t remember them campaigning on no new wars.Trump did…. bigly.
Apparently, on every day of Obama’s presidency. the USA was engaged in military hostilities in some part of the world or other.
While his administration was appeasing, even sending money to the top-tier threat of Iran’s nuclear weaponry ambitions and efforts.
Imagine the leftist outrages if Trump (or anyone not of the leftist cult) had the same record.
“While his administration was appeasing, even sending money to the top-tier threat of Iran’s nuclear weaponry ambitions and efforts.”
A little quiz for you…. where did all this money come from that Obama “gave” Iran?
There were USD billions of Iran’s oil revenues being held in US bank accounts that were held under sanction.
Obama flew palletfulls of cash to the Iranian mullahs after they played him on a “deal” to halt their nukes development.
A classic example of “a fool and his money are soon parted”.
It really doesn’t matter. We had control of it and did not implement appropriate procedures to insure it was used properly.
“It really doesn’t matter. “
Of course it matters. It wasn’t your sodding money. It was theirs.
I’m glad you would give money to people who want to use it to kill you. That pretty much sums up your naivete. Grow up dude, international politics is obviously not your brightest area of expertise.
“where did all this money GO TO that Obama “gave” Iran?” !
You have just highlighted just how incredibly STUPID Obama and Biden were to attempt to appease the Mad Mullahs of Iran.
Sometimes you have to start a war to stop a bigger one later, Moron.
”If you desire peace, prepare for war”. Grow up and read a book.
“Sometimes you have to start a war to stop a bigger one”
And sometimes you have to start a war to distract from what is happening at home.
Not even you could be stupid enough to believe that.
No, Mike. He is right. Any historian will tell you that.
Yeah, because Trump was mentioned in the Epstein files!
Epstein hated him. Didn’t trust him to stay quiet. And turned informant on him to the FBI.
Come on – do you think if there’d been anything really derogatory in the files they WOULDN’T have used it against him? They were flippin’ desperate to knock him out of the ’24 election.
I think there are some very powerful people involved in dodgy stuff that are being protected. That is not good enough and certainly is not justice being done.
Big donors to both parties turn and turn about is my bet.
It was Trump that OUTED Epstein…
Trump wanted nothing to do with the little scumbag when he got suspicious what he was up to.
Did you know that EDS goes hand in hand with TDS, and totally rots a person’s brain. turning it into a sort of putrid oozing sludge….
Seems we have a prime example at hand.
The War to end all wars..right? That always ends up great, right?
Looks like you only read the wrong books.
Trump said “No New Wars”
This war is 47 years old….. It has been a massive PITA, destabilisation and THREAT, for many countries around the world…
… and he is finishing it in the only way possible.
If he stops halfway without finishing the job, then yes he will do wrong. Go in and clean them out totally and completely or do it all again down the line and spend twice as much. The choice is Trump’s.
Let’s see…….
Wipe out 90,000,000 people? That’s about as silly as Hitler trying to exterminate Jews in Europe, or waging a “war of annihilation” against the racially inferior Russians and Slavs.
Oh, I see, you’re only going to exterminate anybody who disagrees with you, or won’t do what they’re told, is that it? You’ll get their obedience at gunpoint, will you?
Off you go then. Join the military, or travel to Iran, and start your ethnic cleansing in person. Yes, I’m being sarcastic. You are just another ignorant and gullible dimwit.
A stupid comment. Not talking about the whole population, Michael. (Obviously?) Only the Republican Guard.
Ah, I see. Does that include only the roughly 190,000 members of the IRGC, or the estimated 600,000 reservists, or possibly the Army?
What do you do if “ordinary” Iranians get annoyed about you exterminating their sons, daughters, brothers, and other sundry relations?
Clean them out? That’s about as stupid as the US president saying that “US forces obliterated Iran, its air force and navy completely destroyed”. Do you think he should now obliterate the IRGC as well? It seems the Iranian death toll is only around 1500 or so (including 186 young schoolgirls) and sundry civilians including health workers, teachers, etc.
Maybe the Air Force and Navy only had a couple of dozen people who were “obliterated”? As I say, I don’t pick sides. The future is unknowable. If you pick the wrong side, expect to hear me sniggering.
Yes, I’m being sarcastic again.
Politicians aren’t problem solvers. They’re problem MANAGERS. Manage the problem, ensure it keeps going, you get money to ‘manage’ and ‘control’ the problem. You don’t want to SOLVE the problem, that simply takes away a revenue stream, and you can’t use promises to finally solve the problem in your next election bid.
Trump doesn’t ‘manage’ problems. He solves them, quickly, efficiently. Even back in NYC he was a guy they’d go to in order to get things done.
For decades we’ve been ‘managing’ Iran. Now someone’s in place that can solve the problem, but man won’t some people try to move heaven and earth to make sure the problem stays in place…
(Donald Trump is famously associated with renovating and reopening Wollman Rink (also known as Wollman Skating Rink) in Central Park, New York City. In the early 1980s, the city had closed the rink for renovations starting in 1980. The project dragged on for years, with costs ballooning to over $12 million (far exceeding initial estimates), and it remained unfinished and unusable—a symbol of government inefficiency.
In 1986, Trump publicly offered to take over the renovation. He completed the work in about four months (ahead of his promised six-month timeline) and under budget (around $2-3 million, with some sources noting it was $750,000 below his projection). The rink reopened in November 1986.)
Perhaps. But he will not solve anything if he leaves the regime in place. In face things will get worse.
Talk to God often, do you? Would you mind asking for some guaranteed stock market movements, or even next week’s winning lottery numbers?
A mere bagatelle by comparison, I would assume.
You…and everybody like you…will lose.
Don’t ask anything to the forever Trumpers. Their man is ALWAYS right. It’s gone to such high levels of pathos they flaunt their stupidity in yr face, ironically exactly like the Climate Alarmists.
Now, THAT is hilarious!!
The end result is only the same if the ignorance is not fixed.
Why blame poor work and materials when there’s a ready made scapegoat?
Cracks appear in Runit Dome amid sea level rise in Marshall Islands
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-15/cracks-appear-in-runit-dome-amid-sea-level-rise/106423684
On that site: “Scientists fear rising seas or intensifying storms will eventually degrade the structure and place nearby communities at risk.”
It’s concrete. Only Roman concrete can last centuries. It’s a crime that those soldiers were sent there and contaminated.
Romans also made 50 year concrete but we don’t have any of it…
Another article that extensively quotes a “professor” (of the activist variety), where terms such as –
“could be”
“feared to”
“showing signs of”
“it’s unclear”
“experts worry”
“potentially”
“indications”
“suspected”
“might be”
“if”
“never been confirmed”
“can be”
“probably was”
I mean, how seriously would any judge accept a prosecutor’s capital crime case if it was presented in this fashion?
“Case dismissed!”
How long before the storms that battered Hawaii will be blamed on Climate Change?
They just can’t help themselves with all their tipping and tipping points-
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f61c.svg These EV prophecies were SPECTACULARLY WRONG! https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f61c.svg | MGUY Australia
An abundance of mirthiness as the internet doesn’t forget.
That’s strange as a link to a Youtube video doesn’t work-
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f61c.svg These EV prophecies were SPECTACULARLY WRONG! https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f61c.svg | MGUY Australia
Or only certain ones don’t work because Youtube doesn’t want them to?
I always thought that Tony Seba and his lover the Electric Viking were definitely nutso. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0FfSVguLlY
Politics in Oz-
Media ‘diminishes’ Tony Burke’s good deed to Iranian women
I don’t have a lot of empathy for lefty politicians but I’ll make an exception for the Minister this time around or perhaps it’s just my white maleness on show?
I’ve just gotten into the AI thing with chatGPT. Being a forester for 50 years I had to work that angle. Here I’ve got a robot forester meeting with Big Foot. The understanding between them is if any forestry haters show up on the logging job, Big Foot will scare them off.
I dunno Joseph.
Those greenie women with the hairy legs and armpits would scare away any self-respecting Sasquatch.
(And definitely don’t breathe in if you’re down-wind of them. The greenies that is, not the Sasquatch. In comparison, the Sasquatch are quite fragrantly aromatic.)
The Capital Cost for the UK to achieve Net Zero by 2050 will be $Trillions
After Honda announced it will lose $7.5 Billion just by cancelling DEVELOPMENT of 3 EV models to be assembled and sold in the US, we are told to believe the entire UK would need only $134 Billion to achieve the unattainable Holy Grail of Net Zero by 2050, according to UK reports?
NO WAY, JOSE. That UK capital cost will be more than several $TRILLION
BTW, Honda expects to incur additional expenses and losses next year. Honda says its overall shift in EV strategy, worldwide, could end up costing as much as $15.7 billion.
BTW, Europe already invested hundreds of $billions in expensive wind, solar, battery, biofuel, etc., systems in Europe, plus Germany closed down its perfectly good, fully-paid-for nuclear plants, that provided about 23% of Germany’s annual electricity production, produced regardless of the weather, unlike wind and solar.
As predicted by energy systems analysts as early as 2000, this unwise investment and other actions has led to the impoverishment the UK, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, etc., during the past 30 years.
Europe’s elites were planning to inflict this same energy travesty onto the US, starting during the disastrous Biden era, to saddle the US economy with much higher energy prices for many decades.
Europe’s elites wanted to level the playing field, i.e., remain competitive, protect its decades of trade surpluses.
Luckily, Trump comes along and blows this whole scenario out of the water.
Much of the hundreds of $billions is owed to banks, etc., which must repaid, no matter what, plus many thousands of workers hired, and not yet hired, in anticipation of $billions of US orders for decades, suddenly find themselves looking for other things to do, which is difficult in the near-zero-, real-growth European economy.
No wonder they hate Trump, especially because he wants NATO countries to finally pay up to 5% of GDP for their own defense, instead of letting the US defend Europe.
All of this on top of: 1) paying for Ukraine (the US stopped paying), 2) subsidizing about 20 million, mostly uneducated, inexperienced, native-culture-destroying walk-ins/fly-ins/float-ins from Third World countries, 3) having very high energy and materials prices which suffocate the European economy.
This is due to: 1) unwisely rejecting low-cost Russian energy and materials, 2) some self-serving countries blowing up 3 of the 4 gas lines in the Baltic Sea, which have a design capacity of 110 billion cubic meter per year.
No wonder Europe’s elites are desperate to illegally steal Russia’s sovereign assets, illegally blocked in Brussels, etc.
Honda Absorbs $7.5 Billion Dollar Losses just for Cancelling Three Models Slated for US Assembly
AUGUSTA, MAINE — Honda Motor Company announced it will cancel the production and development of three electric vehicle (EV) concepts in Japan, after recording losses that total about $7.5 billion dollars, triggering a thorough reassessment of their electrification strategy.
In an official corporate release from Tokyo, the decision comes following a major slowdown in US EV-demand and major shifts in regulatory regimes.
The models were originally slated to be assembled in Ohio and targeted a 2026 rollout.
Originally, Honda’s plan was to assemble the 0 series SUV and Acura RSX at the Ohio plant in 2026, and the 0 Series Saloon in 2027.
These mostly high-end vehicles were set to feature new platforms that would provide improved handling and innovative new vehicle designs.
Several factors contributed to Honda’s sudden shift, due to a major slowdown in US market expansion, because lucrative subsidies were eliminated.
The company outlined additional negative impacts from recent tariff policies on gasoline and hybrid vehicles.
NOTE TO JAPAN: No tariffs would be imposed, and US subsidies would be provided, if the vehicles were developed, designed, tested and assembled by US workers in the US.
The cancellation has forced Honda to revise its full-year profit forecasts, as net losses totaled $billions.
This marks Honda’s first annual loss in its nearly 70-year history as a company.
Japan’s New Government Broadened its “Electrification Definition”
The 2035 target now includes Battery EVs (BEVs), Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs), and standard Hybrids (HEVs).
Also, the CO2 target is reduced from 100% during driving to 90% by 2035, to allow for continued sales of HEVs and PHEVs.
As a result, Honda has re-oriented resources to increase HEV and PHEV sales in Japan and worldwide.
What one believes is religion.
What one thinks is opinion.
What one knows is science.
My three points below are backed by facts, explanation, evidence and experiment. If you believe I am incorrect please explain why – in like manner. Ad hominem, insults and changing the subject to esoteric hocus pocus don’t count.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer. Near Earth outer space is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. GHE claim that 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler, -18 C Earth is just flat wrong. Without GHE Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark. Dividing 1,368 by 4 to average 342 over spherical ToA is wrong.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t balance and violate LoT. Refer to TFK_bams09.
Solar balance 1: 160 in = 17 + 80 + 1st 63 out. Balance complete.
Calculated balance 2: 396 S-B BB at 16 C / 333 “back” radiation cold to warm w/o work violates Lot 2nd 63 LWIR net duplicates balance 1st violates GAAP.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render surface BB impossible. By definition all energy entering and leaving a BB must do so by radiation. Entering: 30% albedo = not BB. OLR: 17sensible & 80 latent = not BB. TFK_bams09: 97 out of 160 leave by kinetic processes, 63 by LWIR = not BB. As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Physical emissivity = 63/160=0.39
Theoretical emissivity for correcting IR instruments = 63/396=0.16
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
RGHE theory is as much a failure as caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation and several others.
And what science knows is subject to revision.
Always, but only by strict application of the classical Scientific Method.
None of that “consensus of experts” bullshit.
And also subject to interpretation of the facts. It helps to ‘cherry pick’ the facts to derive an interpretation that is desired.
What seems to be left out of the Scientific Method today is observations made by a “disinterested” observer, not biased observers only looking for ‘facts’ that will lead to their foregone conclusions.
Barrrrp! No. But thanks for playing.
What one finds useful for the moment but remains willing to doubt is science.
Please can you rephrase this. As written it is incorrect.
.
“The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas.” — Freeman Dyson
“There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths.” — Carl Sagan
“If you thought that science was certain … well, that is just an error on your part.” — Richard P. Feynman
Nothing on Google at all. Maybe you meant something else?
Hello everyone, I hope you’re doing well.
The website of the Association des climato-réalistes (based in France) shared CLINTEL’s statement regarding the article by Cohler, Soon et al. on measuring ocean heat content. Cohler has been criticized quite strongly because he is a clarinetist (apparently an extremely talented one — I understand he may be among the best in the world, and the clarinet also happens to be my favorite wind instrument!), so I looked into him a bit. I learned that he obtained a Bachelor’s degree in physics in 1980, and that he is apparently a talented programmer, since he designed a recording and editing software for classical music that, from what I’ve read, has become the reference in that field.
Does anyone here have an opinion on the relevance of this article? Soon, Legates, and Humlum, who are among the coauthors, are excellent scientists; they have published many papers on climate science, and I have often come across their names during my research. However, I only learned about Cohler the day before yesterday while reading this article from the Association des climato-réalistes. Of course, there is nothing preventing a musician — especially one who is also an excellent programmer — from contributing to a relevant article on climate science, as long as what he writes makes sense! I also saw that Grok was listed as a “coauthor”; that surprised me a bit, but why not, if the article helps advance the scientific debate.
So is Cohler contributing to this article as a programmer / computer scientist?
(Here is a passage from Quatuor pour la fin du temps by Olivier Messiaen, played by Jonathan Cohler. I love it.)
I’ve nothing to add, but thanks for the information.
Your welcome ! 🙂
Here’s the link to the article:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol.6.1-04_-Cohler-et_al.pdf
It looks complex, but I will read, and hope others do before the next Open Thread next Sunday. I have a major question on this field in general.
OHC is a massive SWAG (scientific wild ass guess).
Nobody agrees on the value of GMST or for that matter values for the atmospheric heat balance.
Yes, and that’s the basis of the question I’m trying to phrase correctly when I ask it. It would seem to me that OHC is the best metric to use and ( atmospheric heat content) AHC would be too, whereas averaging temperature anomalies is the perpetuation of climate fraud.
GIGO.
Begin with erroneous, fallacious or bad data and assumptions and apply even the most rigorous of scientific analysis and the result is still garbage out as is all of the science derived from & stacked on it.
GHE assumes 1. near Earth space is cold & GHGs warm it & 2. the surface radiates/upwells as a black body.
Wrong^2.
Topple GHE and the entire CAGW shit show implodes like the Titan submersible.
I’ve fabricated three wooden stakes, y’all bring the hammers.
I skimmed this extremely dense paper as best I could.
And the question is:
If the OHC balance surface upwelling component includes a GHE 0.9+ BB emissivity it is wrong.
If the OHC balance surface upwelling component does not include a 0.9+ BB emissivity it negates the GHE.
“…inaccurately implies heat is a
substance rather than a process of energy transfer.”
Energy is a thermal property.
Heat is a thermal process from hot to cold, no exceptions.
Temperature is the comparative measure of kinetic energy, LoT 0.
Absolute scales represent the total energy in a system.
There are Celsius units on the Celsius scale and there are Celsius units on the Kelvin scale. There is no such thang as “Kelvins” degrees or differences or units.
Paul Erhlich died author of the Population Bomb. Despite the total failure of his predictions some medium are praising him.