Every once in awhile, a letter like this makes what I do all worth it – Anthony
From the Chico Enterprise-Record:
Stop wasting our time with climate alarmist letters. Just stop.
The condescension and smug self-righteousness from self-professed experts over the past few decades have gone on long enough. You were short on science and unapologetically long on hysteria.
You know who says so? The very same people you’ve quoted for the past 30 years: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Future projections come from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) — a project of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization, the International Science Council, and UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.
That’s a whole lot of non-MAGA people who have now scientifically concluded that their multi-decade high-emissions scenarios are officially “implausible.” Their word, not mine. That’s quite a step down from the hectoring about fossil fuels, backyard barbecues, air conditioning, and ultimate doom unless we transfer more tax dollars to Sacramento and Washington and adopt a spartan “sustainable” lifestyle.
You can console yourselves that you made Al Gore rich and turned Greta into a household name — though even she has moved on from climate activism to anti-Israel causes. The quasi-religion of climate doom has run its course.
You may choose to argue with Anthony Watts, and you may choose to be wrong. It’s a free country. He consistently and politely presents a logical, evidence-based perspective on climate topics and offers a free website packed with supporting research. Check it out: https://wattsupwiththat.com
(He and I have never met.)
— Barry Johnson, Chico
But, as I detail here you can be sure that climate alarmism will be back with a vengeance once the political winds of power shift. That’s why it is important that WUWT be there when it happens. Please consider becoming a supporting member, thanks – Anthony
Alarmist propaganda outlets will continue to ignore empirical reality. The brainwashed have been wholly captured and must be kept in the flock.
Some days the weather ain’t perfect, therefore something must be wrong! Must be the fault of them right wing fossil fuel companies! 🙂
The weaponization of perfectly normal weather extremes through false attributions to fossil fuels is the biggest deception propagandists are pushing.
That’s a great letter!
But it gets even better, as more and more skeptics of climate alarm can find out for themselves that even the core idea that emissions of CO2 drive “warming” – to any perceptible extent – has been physically implausible from the start!
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your patient attention to his matter.
Oof. *this* matter.
The Climate Cult’s Demisehttps://willempost.substack.com/p/the-climate-cult
By William Happer
Our guest post today is an excerpt from Canary in a Climate World: Climate Realism vs. the Net Zero Myth, a newly released book bringing together 38 Climate Canaries from across science, climatology, geology, engineering, economics, medicine, law, journalism, public policy and independent research.
The chapter below, by Princeton physicist Professor William Happer, is one of many thought-provoking contributions examining climate science, energy policy, Net Zero and the wider climate debate. Filled with fascinating essays, scientific discussion, investigative analysis and thought-provoking perspectives, Canary in a Climate World is now available on Amazon here.
Fifty years from now, academic treatises will be written about the climate madness that prevailed when these canary songs were written. I hope the songs will clarify the Zeitgeist of this bizarre interval in the history of human folly.
Many people with inadequate scientific knowledge are convinced that Planet Earth is in mortal danger from global warming due to humans. If Planet Earth were really in great danger from humans, any means to protect it would be justified.
Some extremists propose reducing Earth’s eight billion population of people to no more than one billion. How this is to be done has always been a bit vague.
Genghis Khan made a good start by slaughtering some 40 million people in the 13th century.
In our day, Prince Philip, father of King Charles III of the United Kingdom, opined that: “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
The climate alarmism of our time is a malignant alliance of ignorant fanaticism, like that mentioned above, and opportunism: the lust for power, fame and wealth.
Like all fanatical movements, climate alarmism is doing great collateral damage, most notably to the reputation of my own profession of science.
Generous research grants from governments and private foundations have created a new discipline of ‘climate science’. Traditional, rigorous disciplines like atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, meteorology or palaeontology were quick to cash in by renaming themselves with some variant of ‘Centre for Saving the Planet’.
They were generously rewarded with research grants, new laboratories, professorships, elections to learned societies, prizes and other tokens of gratitude.
This largess came with strings. If your research did not show that the planet needed to be saved, you would be expelled from the elect.
Thus, many credible scientists made no public mention of doubts they had about the party line.
But a few refused to accept this new ‘science by consensus’ and remained faithful to the traditional criterion: the validity of a scientific theory is how well its predictions agree with all available observations, and how successfully it predicts previously unobserved phenomena.
Open top URL to see whole article
One thing is still assured–the unrevealed information layers of money and influence behind the climate crusades is still solid.
Lots of careers depend on climate doom. It infests every academic campus and the vast majority of grade schools.
The emerging hope is that the propaganda has been pushed so far into early education that those now reaching voting age actually know they have been lied to for their entire formative years about the impending doom if humans do not stop burning fossil fuels.
In Australia, One Nation has the highest support of any political party from millennials. That is encouraging.
One of the sad things is that the “climate doom” has infected way too many of the current science fiction writers from anywhere in the world. Granted, it does provide an easy plot, but not every story should rely on it.
Congratulations, AW. You are having an impact even in your old hometown.
Story tip:
Asbestos found in 1,000 UK wind turbines after supply chain concerns
oops
There are two two main types asbestos: crocidolite and chrysotile. Crocidolite is the “bad” asbestos and has short and brittle fibers which if inhaled can cause asbestosis and cancer. This type was used for blown insulation.
Chrysotile is the “good” asbestos and has long silky fibers which can be woven into cloth. The shorter fibers of chrysotile are mixed with gypsum to form asbestos board. This type of asbestos was used for many decades in brake shoes and pads.
Interesting. The article didn’t make that clear. Thanks.
Actually, asbestos isn’t a mineralogical name. It is a name that industries use for fibrous, insoluble minerals with tolerance for high temperatures, which belong to different crystal systems and have different chemical compositions. The primary property that they all share is the fibrous crystal habit.
My understanding is that one of the main uses for crocidolite, other than gas mask filters, was as insulation for battleship boilers. When the battleships were decommissioned and scrapped, the blue crocidolite was salvaged, sold, and often mixed with other kinds of asbestos, thus contaminating the comparatively benign chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite stocks.
No kind of dust, whether it be road dust, saw dust, or whatever, is good for one’s lungs. But the data I have seen suggests that crocidolite is at least one or two orders of magnitude more dangerous than the other fibrous minerals.
Not just battleships, almost all cargo ships for decades.
Much of the serious harm done to ship builders was during WWII. Thousands of workers were breathing the asbestos clouds while also smoking all day in the holds of ships. Most all were seriously injured by the exposure. Kaiser was given a purchase order a couple of days after Pearl Harbor, for 50 aircraft carriers provided he delivered the first one in 60 days. He was forgiven after taking 90 days.
Sorry, I beg to differ after 55 years of medical practice.
The different types of asbestos include chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 classifies these 6 minerals as commercial types of asbestos. All types of asbestos can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis.
Because of their structure and chemical makeup, all types of asbestos can get stuck in the body, causing irritation and potentially serious diseases. No particular asbestos type is more prone to causing a specific disease. About 5% to 10% of people exposed to asbestos at work will develop a related cancer, according to a 2025 study.
I got the info from “Rocks and Minerals” which is a book from the Golden Nature Guides series. There was no mention of the other forms of asbestos. Did you have some of these books when you were growing up? I have 12 books of the series.
I recall a TV documentary about an asbestos mining town in Australia where most all the miners developed asbestosis and died. The government shut down the mine and the town which heavily contaminated with asbestos fibers was then abandoned. There were warning signs not to enter the area due to asbestos contamination.
I think I had that book when I was a kid, along with several How and Why Wonder Books. 😊
The researcher that I’m deferring to mentioned the town in Australia. IIRC, he said that people who had lived there for as little as six-months acquired lung cancer and 90% of those who lived there long-term acquired lung cancer. If I remember the facts right, that is much worse than the problem in Libby, Montana where the problem was “amphibole asbestos.”
How many cases of mesothelioma caused by chrysotile asbestos have there been?
The authority I’m citing claimed that the Ontario residents did not have an elevated lung cancer rate, despite having to shake off the chrysotile when taking the laundry in from drying outside.
Most of what I know about asbestos was from a US Geological Survey researcher in Menlo Park (Calif.) who gave a presentation when I was president of the Bay Area Mineralogists and teaching geology at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills in the 1970s. If even still alive, I’m sure he retired long ago.
He complained that he was unable to get published in medical journals because he did not have an MD. Yet, physicians who didn’t know a Fairburn agate from chrysotile were routinely publishing on the dangers of ‘asbestos.’ Does difficulty getting published sound familiar?
I’ll take your claim of having 55-years of medical practice experience as being true. However, are you personally familiar with the differences in the physical and chemical properties of the different varieties of ‘asbestos?’ Can you vouch for the mineralogy expertise of the authors of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986? Are you familiar with how the authors came to the conclusion that “No particular asbestos type is more prone to causing a specific disease” if those performing autopsies did not have the expertise to identify the species or motivation to make the identification?
However, the legal community has persuaded the public, judges and juries that all asbestos is bad.
Not just the legal community. The environmental activists who know even less about mineralogy than general practitioners.
Just got a text message from National Grid. Telling me it’s gonna be hot a weekend. I hate getting stupid text messages- wasting my time. It’s now 90 F outside my house in north central Wokeachusetts- 72 inside thanks to AC.
To make the degree symbol: °, do the following:
Depress “Num Lock”Press and hold down the “Alt” keyEnter 0176 on the Num Key PadRelease the “Alt” key and the degree symbol will appear.
Your pompous idiotic suggestions no one asked for is either a reflection of an insecure man desperate for attention and to prove he has value, or a brilliant troll to annoy me. It’s really hard to tell.
I just try to be helpful and friendly to the members of the WUWT community.
I have a request: Can you have the “Waiting for Approval” condition of my comments removed?
No.
I’m going to appeal your unfair verdict to Anthony.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha
Charles, do not sugar coat it like that. Tell us how you really feel. 🙂
Charles, you have previously refused to censor Harold and others. Are you going back on your word? I think that your sensitivities are misplaced when you are more annoyed by Harold than you are by some of the trolls like Simon, Eldrosian, and The Final Nail. Harold appears to be well meaning. I don’t understand why you are so hard on him after refusing to deal with Big Oil Bob being pompous and insulting.
He knows why he’s moderated or maybe he’s forgotten, which is even more humorous. First off, literally no one has contacted me about the trolls to which you refer. When complaints arrive, I look into them. But in order to not be an echo chamber, I certainly give extra leeway to people not in my tribe.
I thank you for your support. You should add to the list: UserNameReloaded. He believes the all energy can be supplies by windmills and solar panels. I am constantly reminding him that 80% of energy use is thermal energy. He seems to have no knowledge of the heavy industries and heavy transportation systems.
Hurtful.
Honest and accurate. Hurtful is merely your personal perception and reflects your personal insecurities.
I did formally complain about Big Oil Bob. Have you forgotten about the cartoon showing a home for the elderly? You don’t want me to quote your verbatim response in open dialog.
Hello Harold,
Could you tell me how I can post images on WUWT? There used to be a button for it on the old website, but it seems to have disappeared.
I know it’s hard but I always look for any information that improves my tech skills, regardless of where or how it’s provided. Unfortunately, Harold’s suggestion doesn’t work if you don’t have a separate numeric keypad on a full sized keyboard (typing the numbers on the top row don’t work).
So, inaccurate information (or information without stating the caveats) isn’t usually helpful. However, for us laptop users one can press the Windows key + . (period) to access the “emoji panel” then select the symbols tab (Ω), then find the degree symbol.
°
…which works. Tough if one rarely uses these special symbols though, since I forget my name every two weeks or so. 🙂
That’s only for Windows, Macs use a different set of keystrokes to get the degree symbol.
I would like to have card that lists the key combos for the special symbols.
I used AI to make a small app that sits in the corner of my screen, where I can access all kinds of special characters. I can properly type El Niño now.
αΩ
Your alpha symbols is too small. Make it bigger.
Now try doing that on your phone.
I knew this, but I do not believe it adds anything to any of my posts to include the degree symbol.
In technical documents, certainly. In social blog posts, not so much.
Anyone is free to include the “°” when they wish, but it is not mandatory.
Freedom of choice is freedom of choice.
Someday you might wish you had paid attention to those warnings – the heat won’t be so easy to ignore in the future.
In your imagination. !
Or just wait for the next NON-HUMAN-CAUSED El Nino event. 😉
I live in Australia, and have spent lots of time away from the coast in summer.
It gets way hotter, and you just learn to live with and ENJOY it !
Much of central and southern Australia is dry heat, which is very different from humid heat experienced in many other parts of the world. Humid heat is significantly harder for the human body to cope with as temperatures increase, so personal experience in one climate doesn’t reflect global conditions.
*experiences dry heat*
You just denied all of the climate models.
You expect internal consistency from the alarmists?
Because CO2 and H2O absorb mostly the same frequencies of IR, where ever the is lots of the water in the air, extra CO2 has almost no impact.
Yawn
Maybe in the future, for now until 2035 things are going to get cooler overall – and nobody give me the ice-age crap, cooler than now but not cooler than the depth of the last dip in the temperature on the authentic records and varying from place to place, hemisphere to hemisphere.
I don’t need warnings issued to me via text message interrupting what I’m doing. Like most people, I pay attention to various sources for weather forecasting. Besides, EVERY YEAR at this time- just before the 4th, we get very hot weather.
So many warnings it conjures the image of Chicken Little.
Too many warnings desensitizes people.
It’s not like the temperature goes up 30 C in one minutes.
Sensible people pay attention and only need one weather forecast.
In the 1970’s, alarmists like you were predicting imminent climate doom from global cooling.
Not a single one of the environmental scare stories has ever turned out to be true. Not one.
What heat? Do you mean the few tenths of a degree that everyone is predicting?
You have been forewarned of potential outage.
One of the problems with distributed solar and wind is that the grid cannot rely on it. So the operator needs enough firm generation available to avoid grid collapse or unplanned load shedding.
On a hot day the air-condition demand combined with wind and solar variability increases the risk of outage. In the event of an outage they can claim that you were warned. Is your generator fueled up and ready to keep the things that need to run powered up?
We had a 16 hour outage last February on a hot day when a local transformer lost a phase after most of the household batteries went flat due to cloud cover. Only 30% of customers in the area were without power for the 16 hours so it was not given priority to restore. People without back-up power lost contents of fridges and freezers. In our region the network operator now gives a warning every year of potential outage at the onset of summer.
Australia has lots of nat. gas. Why don’t the power companies start building plants using the new CCGT technology? What is the chance of One Nation eventually get a majority government?
Yearly is fine, excellent even. Hourly or more frequently is an unneeded, unwanted annoyance.
“But, as I detail here you can be sure that climate alarmism will be back with a vengeance once the political winds of power shift.”
Absolutely right. We might think we’re winning, but they still have all the loud voices.
And the knowledge of how to spend your money in a violent rush.
Anthony, your inbox must be overflowing with apologies and mea culpas along with innumerable notices of paper retractions.
You’d think that, but no.
Sometimes I get the notion in my head that news outlets like the Chico Enterprise-Record know perfectly well (or at least suspect) that there are serious scientific problems with the CAGW narrative. They just won’t admit to it though no matter how much contradictory evidence exits. Why won’t they admit it?
Because of what I call a goodie-goodie-two-shoes mindset. What I mean by that is that the editors believe that they are doing the country and the world a favor by aligning themselves with the anti-fossil fuel ideologists and activists. The editors have decided that the anti-fossil fuels crowd is right and fossil fuels have to go. Never mind that the editors have no scientific background to determine who exactly is right and who is wrong in the fossil fuels and climate alarmism debates.
It has always been my belief that journalists (and their editor bosses) are supposed to be neutral, disinterested third party observers when it comes to the subjects in the news that they write about. That this principal has been abandoned, even in the absence of scientific literacy in the newsroom, serves to demonstrate the degree to which arrogance, egotism and politics have all replaced journalistic ethics. The editors have determined (somehow) that the skeptics and so-called “deniers” of climate alarmism can be safely ignored.
I of course could be wrong about my goodie-goodie-two-shoes idea. Maybe the editors are totally convinced by the “science is settled” and “consensus” arguments, and they have little or no doubts that the Earth, its climate and humanity are all in great danger from human-sourced greenhouse gas emissions. If so, the editors and their subordinates at the Enterprise-Record along with others like them around the country will probably go to their graves believing that they were listening to the right people the whole time.
I believe it was Carl Sagan who said something to the effect that societies can pay a dear price for being so scientifically illiterate. How right he was. May he rest in peace.
It has always been my belief that journalists (and their editor bosses) are supposed to be neutral, disinterested third party observers when it comes to the subjects in the news that they write about.
They were, for the most part, until media organizations became profit centers for larger corporations and ad-click and zero time to publish became the rule as opposed to objective journalism.
This has been exacerbated with colleges teaching advocacy journalism in lieu of objective journalism. Advocacy journalism requires much less effort. Write an editorial or opinion piece with a couple of links and publish it as news. Add a hyperbolic headline to attract attention and the news business model is happy.
few know this, but “Rest in Peace” originally started as a request that the deceased should not return as an undead.
I’ll bet dollars to donuts that if he sent his letter to the LA Times they would not publish it.
How many donuts can you get for a dollar these days.
I was born in 1944. Back in those days a cup of coffee and a donut were 10 cents each, IIRC. At Tim Hortons in Canada a single donut costs $1.33 to $1.59. I saw a report on the TV news that Dunkin Donuts plans to invade Canada, set up many thousands of stores and challenge Tim Hortons. We Canuks will shun the Invaders
This is hardly the only letter of this type across North America and well beyond as people have learned that the whole climate narrative is essentially as scam. It’s the old story of being able to fool some of the people all the time since there’s a sucker born every minute, but when the majority of the population sees nothing more than the normal annual fluctuations in the weather and coincidentally government efforts to convince them of the need of for carbon taxation new restrictions and green product mandates, the climate crisis song-and-dance starts sounding more and more out of tune.
Today’s normal people lack critical thinking skills. Scan and Scroll (defined by the Lansing State Journal) is merely read the headline and maybe a line or two of the first paragraph and you “know the whole story” which is why disclaimers are generally hidden in the 15th paragraph.
The automatic distrust of media is not a major factor with most people. If it were, social media would not be the enterprise it is.
Children are born with a natural respect for adults/authorities. They defer to the “wisdom” offered until they are properly educated with critical thinking skills. We have 2 generations of people who have been failed by our education systems.
In on example, getting the correct answer in a math problem is not necessary as long as the student knows how it works. Sad, but true.
In another example, a student proposes something in science. The other students then vote. If the consensus supports the student proposition, it is declared valid and accurate.
One of the big problems is that climate scaremongering seems to cosegregate with anti-war groups, which is a big shame.
I’m entirely anti-war, but I’m not prepared to see scientific illiterates spend trillions of dollars/GBPs/Euros/Yuan on feelgoodery which has zero prospect of actually changing the climate in which we live.
I find it a strange reflection on western societal imperfections that the choices you usually get at elections are:
I believe that I am not an outlier when I say that I am not big on imperialism, I think that when wealth inequalities reach a certain point, that societies simply break apart; I believe in entrepreneurial energies to create a dynamic base of young growing companies, I believe that mid-sized companies can form the glue that keeps many towns together but I also believe that the very biggest companies must move beyond mere profit maximisation (which is necessary to even survive as a start-up) toward broader socially useful measurements of organisational endeavour; I believe in evidence-based climate science and clear requirements for societal utility to justify major investments in changing energy provision.
I have to say I’ve never come across a single politician in the UK that ran successfully on such a platform. They all succumb to the US hegemony and become warmongers as a career move.
I wonder if a different outcome might ever prevail in the USA?
‘Beliefs’ are made to be shattered.
Better to lean on what we’ve learned.
(mainly the hard way).
Wealth inequalities?? Seriously?? When have there NOT been “wealth inequalities”?
This ^
In a (fictional) true Socialistic country there is no wealth inequality. Problem is, the typical individual will put his needs and wants, first, meaning those in power will always have more than the others. But without MERIT-based inequalities there is no motivation to create, produce, or take risks, so society devolves to the lowest common denominator. That invariably leads to shortages of everything, including necessities.
The evolution of Man to take care of his own needs, first, then those of his family dooms Socialism and Communism which require putting the needs of the community, first.
For the economic engine to run, there has to be a potential difference and that is not called wealth inequality.
Perhaps there are excessive wealth inequalities and if that is true, those can be legislatively addressed. Just do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
One factor remains true, world wide, the bigger the government, the bigger the wealth disparity.
Capitalism creates wealth for everyone.
Socialism destroys wealth for everyone except the elite.
People like to put everyone in one of two boxes – you’re in “our” box, or in “theirs”. But, if there are to be boxes, then there must be a Truth and Science box, which is a much more important one. Science and Truth is blind to the other boxes. They are but a piffle in comparison. Climate Realism is in the Science and Truth box.
Two workers. One is industrious and works hard. The other sits on his butt and does minimum or nothing. Both receive the same pay (socialism). How long is it before worker one says “F” this and sits down, also.
Old saying from the Soviet Union days.
We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.
I’ve talked to many people who used to work in union shops. They would tell tales of workers being punished by the foreman and other workers, for working to hard.
I agree with a lot of what you posted.
One thing to note is US industry abandoned long term plans too often and devolved in to annual profits, then quarterly profits, then monthly profits. Some of this is driven by expectations of stock holders, too often riding the Stock Market like a roller coaster rather than investing for the long term.
The fall of Rome occurred because the leaders transition from building to wealth accumulation.
There are scholarly articles that address other factors, but the resemblance to Western Capitalism is striking. Note: supply and demand economics are not the same as capitalism. They are related, of course.
The claim that US businesses only cared about next quarter’s profits is a myth often propagated by the left, but with a few minor exceptions, it was never true.
Take the stock market for example, you will find that stock prices can be determined by the current break up value of the company, plus or minus market expectations of future profits.
There are numerous cases where a company would invest most of their current profits in future technology, and instead of seeing the stock price go down, it went up. As investors gambled that future income was worth the current drop in dividends.
Most of the time when you do find a company that is focusing, laser like on current profitability, it is a company that is on the verge of bankruptcy and may not be around in a year or two.
If you want people who don’t care about the future, the place to look is government.
Very few politicians give a flip about anything after the next election cycle.
Government workers don’t care if their efforts help or hurt the future. Their jobs and pensions are guaranteed.
For most of the world’s history, people who refused to fight were better known by another name.
Slaves.
The world hasn’t changed by as much as you want to believe.
There is not and never has been a US hegemony.
The IPCC got another thing wrong.
In its 2007 AR4 report, the IPCC forecast that:-
The rate of warming in all the global surface and satellite data sets (including UAH) since 2007 is currently above +0.3°C per decade.
WUWT should highlight this error.
We should celebrate the warmth. Colder is bad.
Yeah, but the IPCC still got it wrong by -1.3°C per decade (in the case of UAH).
What if the IPCC had erred in the other direction?
What if, instead of warming+1.3°C faster than the projected +2.0°C per decade since 2007 (as it has, according to UAH), it had only warmed at +0.07°C per decade?
Then do you think WUWT would have drawn attention to their error?
Of course not, because this site is fair and balanced!
Your arithmetic is flawed. Best change the batteries in yo0ur calculator.
https://dailycommercials.com/duracell-and-messi-reboot-the-battery-ad/
IPCC cannot forecast El Nino events, that are the cause of all warming this century.
IPCC did not forecast the increase in absorbed solar radiation that provides the energy for those El Nino events..
Not everyone knows, like you do, that ENSO is a magic heat engine that produces energy from nothing, forever.
Also, here’s a paper that might interest you. It is entitled: “Negative trend in total solar irradiance over the satellite era”
National Library of Medicine?
I read the whole freaking report.
It does spell out assumptions, models, conditional exceptions, etc., and is not a definitive conclusion.
No matter which emissions scenario we follow, the rate of warming is still unprecedented relative to the natural variability of the Holocene.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616287114
It’s funny how much you guys need to focus on RCP8.5 being phased out to sell your climate denialist BS.
Did you actually read the paper you linked to? It covers two regions on Greenland. It is meaningless from the perspective of the globe. It does show that Greenland was much warmer immediately after de-glaciation.
The hockey stick is still evident in global proxy datasets.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3
No it isn’t.
If you remove Mann’s stupid and corrupted tree data (which doesn’t remotely coincide with Briffa’s, then you get a much more realistic graph.
And here is Briffa’s tree ring data since 1900
where is the warmest point?
Briffa’s tree ring series was affected by the well documented divergence problem…
It matches northern hemisphere measured temperatures very well.
Those aren’t Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Northern Hemisphere temperatures look like this:
Up and away!!!!!
Why is this rise not reflected in actual measured temperature series?
Most of the world is warming
I love it when alarmists refute their own arguments.
The divergence problem proves that trees do not make good thermometers, but we will ignore that for the past when there were no thermometers.
We can set tree rings aside if you’d like. Ice cores show the same hockey stick pattern.
Also, I’m not the one insisting on a global proxy dataset. RickWill is. Global reconstructions usually require dense spatial coverage, and tree rings are the only or one of the only proxies capable of providing that at annual resolution.
The hockey stick required carefully selected proxies and novel statistical techniques that have been proven to be invalid.
According to ice cores from GISP there have been much larger swings in temperature than the current small solar forced warming.
note…. that little tick up at the end starts in 1900 (according to Mickey Mann) so the peak is about 1940… and raw data from all over the world shows that the 1940s was similar to, or warmer than, the first two decades of this century.
No.
“The GISP2 ice core only extends up to 1855 – 95 years before 1950. “
From: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
[When you write “so you’re saying” you’re doing idiotic word or strawman logic again. ~ctm]
Mickey’s graph clearly shows the minimum is in 1900. !
And another graph that shows a rise starting just after 1900, (obviously not from CO2), to then a 1930, 40’s peak, which was warmer than the start of this century.
You think that tricks me?
Just trying to show the facts.
But trolls gotta have a “safe space”
CarbonBrief?
bwahahaha
According to the alarmists, the quality of a site is determined solely by how well it matches what they want to see.
No…
I just want lurkers to know that the data bnice keeps posting doesn’t actually extend to 1940, despite his repeated claims that it does.
Don’t worry about a little warming, but always worry about winter and really cold temperatures like -50° C in the Yukon last winter.
It’s more than a little, Harold.
Data shows Canadian waters were warmer in the 1940’s
And cooling from 1998 to 2015.
I do not consider 1.3 C to be anything than a little.
Especially given the way it is calculated.
A global average temperature. Snort.
See my post above.
It’s strange that this increase only appears in “average” temperatues and not is measured ones.
In Eldrosians world, there were no heat wavers prior to 1970.
“High Arctic Holocene temperature record from the Agassiz ice cap and Greenland ice sheet evolution”
Not the world. And all proxies.
18O from 6 Ice cores show a very different picture, and when combined with later ice core data showing no trend since around 1300, I can only assume they have spliced made-up data onto the end.
This is a standard anti-science practice of climate alarmists.
No, they didn’t. You can read the paper yourself. All they did was extend the Agassiz ice core time series to 2009 and compare that extended record with A84 and A87 over the period in which all the proxy time series overlap.
The reason you’re confused is that you’re looking at data from Greenland, whereas this proxy comes from the High Arctic – specifically, Ellesmere Island.
The High Arctic north of 80°N has been warming much faster than Greenland.
Greenland’s temperature record is influenced by North Atlantic sea surface temperatures and associated oscillations , which can either amplify or dampen the regional response to external radiative forcing on decadal timescales.
There is no measured data that shows a spike at the end.
sigh
Of course. I should have known better than to expect my point to be acknowledged. Silly me for thinking that might happen.
Here’s WUWT author Andy May. Will you believe him?:
“I agree that Greenland doesn’t track pan-Arctic temperature very well where we have instrumental data”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/05/holocene-warming/#comment-4162633
Other studies show a distinct cooling from the MWP to at least 1950.
The “spike” just doesn’t exist in any data except from the climate alarmist at PNAS.
JFC. I thought I told you no more than five responses to a single individual in a thread. I may enforce three.
That was only 2 responses to this particular baseless statement of his.
Charles, bnice2000 has cleaned up his act considerably. I even criticized his style once. I think that his current persona should be encouraged, rather than discouraged. After all, “It takes two to tango.” If someone writes something that is easily refuted I think that the person with the counter evidence should be allowed to present it. To be fair, if you are going to limit bnice2000, then you should limit Eldrosian (and others) similarly.
I released two users from moderation holds today who’ve been moderated for years, but he is not one of them. bnice2000 violates the rules I laid out, specifically for him, daily. I’m still deleting his comments regularly and this dueling graphs in the comments on every other post is just boring. I’ve seriously considered turning off image uploads for everyone simply because of him.
Charles, sorry to bother you with this, but I believe I’m in a position to respond to Clyde’s requests for censorship.
Regarding bnice2000:
First, he repeatedly misrepresents the GISP2 dataset. GISP2 ends in 1855 and does not extend into the modern instrumental period. I use Carbon Brief as my source.
Second, in response to you, he wrote:
“That was only 2 responses to this particular baseless statement of his.”
I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization.
The first “response” was simply a Greenland temperature time series. I’ve explained to him multiple times that this is not the official Greenland temperature record. His typical response is to shout FRAUD.
The second “response” consisted of proxy records from New Brunswick, Canada. Those sites are nowhere near 80°N. The Arctic north of 80°N is warming substantially faster than the Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes, so those proxies are not directly comparable. I pointed this out in my comments of June 30, 2026 (8:59 pm and 10:23 pm), and I made the same point previously on February 3, 2026 6:22 am using modern instrumental data.
All in all, debating with him is unproductive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
He has not cleaned up his act as much as Clyde suggests.
I also don’t think Clyde is presenting the situation fairly: not only because he deliberately omits these above details when addressing you, but ALSO:
Clyde is misrepresenting James Hansen’s work by implying that, because Hansen’s chart has not been updated, Hansen still endorses the older best fit trend shown in Clyde’s June 30, 2026 9:45 pm comment. That trend only extends to 2010.
However, Hansen’s 2025 paper explicitly states:
“Global warming has accelerated since 2010 by more than 50% over the 1970-2010 warming rate of 0.18 °C per decadeFootnote
1 (Figure 1).Footnote
2 “
Whether one agrees with Hansen’s interpretation of acceleration is a separate discussion. My point is simply that it is inaccurate to present an older trend line as though it still reflects Hansen’s current assessment.
Sorry, but these two are simply dishonest. They deceive themselves and refuse to engage with reality.
You’re not helping your case. I suggest you quit while you’re ahead.
I do give more leeway to those who are essentially on the opposing side of this blog’s primary point of view, because I believe in avoiding echo chambers.
I have stated my reasons and criteria to bnice2000 multiple times. If he chooses to not understand or ignore that’s on him.
Not above 80N.
What leads you to believe that when it is generally accepted that the Holocene Optimum was warmer that what it currently is?
I imagine that you have heard of James Hansen. His official website still shows a trend of +0.18°C per decade from 1970 to 2010 instead of your claim of +0.3°C per decade. It appears that his trend line could be changed to a start date of about 1965 without changing the trend. The last few years the trend has been a little higher, but it remains to be seen whether or for how long that will continue.
No-one has been able to show where the temperatures were measured for most of the oceans and most of the land surface in much before 1940.
Below is a map of where land temperatures were measured from 1861 to 1920.
And oceans were basically not measured anywhere except by a random bucket thrown overboard.
The latter part of the graph is concocted from highly tainted urban and airport data and “homogenised” to create a “not-real” reconstruction.
2m urban and airport fabrication then combined with totally sparce or non-existent ocean measurements made 2-3-4m below the surface…. seriously !!!
The graph is totally bogus.
Ships going from N. America to Europe learned long ago to hitch a ride on the gulf stream to speed their trip. The problem was that the gulf stream tended to move around a bit, so it could take time to find it.
Since the advent of satellite imaging, these ships are able to know exactly where the gulf stream is today.
Ships going the other way have always steered well south of where the gulf stream usually ran so that they could avoid it all the time.
Clyde conveniently omits that his best-fit linear trend fails to capture the exceptionally rapid warming observed since 2010 – 4.8°C/century in the GISS record.
Clyde also ignores the implication that, if current warming rates continued, temperatures would eventually surpass those of the Holocene Climate Optimum by such a large margin that it would appear comparatively cold.
And that is by no means an exhaustive list of the things he ignores or omits – I’m sure there are far more.
If is a rather big word when there is nothing to support it except speculation.
One can take a snippet of a sine wave and use it to project anything.
It is not my best fit. It is James Hansen’s. And IF pigs could fly! The BIG IF that you are ignoring is your speculation that the warming since 2010 is the new normal. It may or may not be. We will have to wait to find out. Climate is defined by long term meteorological records, not a decade or even two. I certainly wouldn’t stake my reputation on wishful thinking.
And then there is this month’s report on the lower troposphere by Christy and Spencer: “The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through June 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans)”, which isn’t much different from Hansen’s data of 0.18, but much different from what Eldrosian is claiming.
Yes, because that’s the trend line starting in 1979. I’m referring to the trend beginning in 2010.
You’re not engaging with what I actually said. Instead, you are substituting a different trend line.
Clearly, the needle has come too close to popping the bubble that shields you from reality, as evidenced by your demand to have me censored.
Unless your other name is Big Oil Bob,I did NOT even ask, let alone demand, that you be censored. Go back and and read what I wrote. Sometimes you are entertaining.
The commonly accepted definition of Climate — with a big “C” — is 30-years. Yet, to support your belief system about warming, you are willing to ignore the formal definition and try to assign importance to a 16-year trend. Clearly, there is nothing unusual about the three El Ninos that have occurred the last 16-years, except the last one that has the second highest peak since 1979 and the full-width, half-max of the of the peak is the widest since 1979. There are some who have made a case, which can’t be dismissed casually, that the Hunga-Tonga eruption caused a significant increase in stratospheric water vapor. It will take some time to determine if the last El Nino is anomalous, and thus the rate of increase will moderate. However, the Christy-Spencer trend line appears to me to be quite durable, and again, except for the last El Nino, doesn’t warrant re-setting the start date for the trend line. It seems to me that you are just whining that you can’t get a significant increase in the slope of the trend line unless you are allowed to pick a new start date and claim that half the defined length of climate is acceptable.
“Go back and and read what I wrote.”
I can do better. I can link the comment (and quote) back to this instead:
” To be fair, if you are going to limit bnice2000, then you should limit Eldrosian (and others) similarly.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/30/letter-to-the-editor-enough-of-climate-doom/#comment-4213406
“Yet, to support your belief system about warming, you are willing to ignore the formal definition and try to assign importance to a 16-year trend. “
Ironic. You’re willing to assign significance to much shorter periods, for example:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/02/the-new-pause-that-goes-on-giving/
You’re comfortable treating an approximately six-year pseudopause as meaningful, but dismiss a 16 year acceleration. It’s not difficult to see why you prefer one result over the other.
And I’m not claiming the 16-year period is especially significant. I’m pointing out that you’re omitting the most recent data because it doesn’t fit the narrative you’re presenting.
“It will take some time to determine if the last El Nino is anomalous, and thus the rate of increase will moderate.”
I’ve already done this using a similar ENSO analogue—specifically, the transition from a strong El Niño to a weaker La Niña.
From April 2024 to December 2025 (the respective peaks and troughs of El Niño and La Niña), the global temperature anomaly fell by 0.64°C. From February 2016 to September 2018, it fell by 0.73°C.
There’s not much difference between the two. If anything, the decline was slightly larger following the 2016 El Niño.
“It seems to me that you are just whining that you can’t get a significant increase in the slope of the trend line unless you are allowed to pick a new start date and claim that half the defined length of climate is acceptable.”
You can’t argue honestly.
“The commonly accepted definition of Climate — with a big “C” — is 30-years.”
Respectfully, CLIMATE is defined by weather over 30 years. Weather includes total precipitation, precipitation timing, growing season length, and latitude. It also includes geography and terrain as a determining factor for the items in the preceding sentence.
Temperature is one of the smallest contributors to climate. I give you the examples of the savannahs of equatorial Africa and of the central USA. The mean annual temperatures in equatorial Africa savannahs are twice that in the central USA. The major determining contributor to the climates of both is precipitation, not temperature.
Trying to trend temperature as a metric for climate is, frankly, GARBAGE OF THE WORST KIND.
Wow, a 2017 report.
If, repeat if, it is true (no validation offered), then we are heading into a global cooling trend.
The amount of thermal energy stored in the oceans will keep us warm for a while, but with less energy input, the planet cools.
Somehow, someone thought this was a good response and upvoted it.
What is it about alarmists and their absolute refusal to learn anything about statistics.
Only a complete fool, or a climate alarmist, would attempt to compare change rates in proxies with century to millennial resolutions, with daily thermometer readings.
That’s not what’s happening here. Read the paper: they extend the ice core series to the present.
And it’s a very good thing that we’re warming. Cooling for the last 150 years would indeed be a crisis.
We are making good headway we need to modestly celebrate. Having said that we must also really turn the heat up on the other side. They are liars and cheats and everybody needs to know that.
50 years of this crap, and the climate zealots are still slackjawed when you mention that not one single prediction of climate catastrophe has manifested itself.
Prince Charles gave us 100 months to live about ten years ago. Greta gave us about three years shortly afterwards (then recently deleted that tweet), and the global guru of Arctic sea ice, Professor Wadhams, solemnly announced that he had scientifically proved that it would all be gone by 2012, no, 2013, no, 2016, but the only thing that disappeared was him, with his reputation in tatters.
My first tier issue with the Trans-Reality Activists is they do not have the honesty and integrity to show up and admit they were wrong when their projections fail to manifest. Instead they issue new BS predictions. Sadly those “fact check” organizations never take them to task for their failures.