105 Comments
July 24, 2026 2:17 pm
“That statement is just flatly wrong. Instead, the process for establishing causation in science operates through the falsification of alternative (“null”) hypotheses of causation.”
That statement is just flatly wrong, and shows a complete lack of understanding of null hypothesis. It describes statistical inference, which is just a part of science. But falsifying the null hypothesis tells you nothing about causation. It just tells you that an alternative explanation (the null) is too improbable, and so there is need for another. It says nothing about what it might be. That, as the NAS correctly says, you deduce from correlation. Having a new causation hypothesis, various tests are needed. But the NAS is exactly right on the role of correlation.
Yeah, correlation shows aliens cause global warming – as shown by Dr Roy Spencer over 10 years ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/do-aliens-cause-global-warming-the-data-say-yes/
The data says “Yes” – so it must be so…..
Right! You remind me of Prof.Matthews’ famous article “Storks Deliver Babies (p = 0.008)” where he, based on the correlation between the stork population and birth rates across 17 European countries, showed that there was a 99.2% probability that storks really delivered babies. Seems all a layman should know about climate change attribution.
Well this is what Professor Stephen Hawking said:
“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”
=======
There have been many failed predictions of climate doom and all of them have failed to occur. Carbon dioxide is innocent.
You are the one that is wrong. Take Einstein mathematical derivation of the energy released by conversion of mass to energy, E=mc². Do you think he didn’t disprove the null hypothesis that the conversion of mass to energy is not related to the speed of light? How about Newton? Did he disprove the null hypothesis that the acceleration of a mass in a gravitational field is not related to gravity?
I’ll guarantee you all these scientists very much disproved a null hypothesis whether they knew that is what they were doing or not. Newton, Maxwell, Planck, and Faraday all proved their hypothesis by experiments thereby automatically disproving any null hypothesis.
Climate science has had nearly half a century to devise physical experiments to show a connection between CO2 and temperature or extreme weather. Instead, they concentrated on models and statistical analysis of temperature vs time neither of which will ever provide a mathematical functional relationship.
We know that climate has been changing since time immemorial. We know that in the last 100K years, the climate has warmed (Holocene Optimum. Since the end of the Holocene Optimum there has been a general cooling trend, interrupted by 4 periods of warming. 5 if you include the current warming.
What caused the end of the Holocene Optimum. We don’t know. What caused the 4 or 5 warming periods? We don’t know.
The claim that the current warming is being caused by CO2 is nothing more than a hypothesis. In this case the Null hypothesis is that whatever caused the previous warm periods, is also causing the current one.
Given the fact that throughout climate history, the connection between CO2 levels and temperature has been weak to non-existent. Given that the current warm period started well before there was any significant increase in CO2. Given the fact that since the time CO2 did start to rise noticeably, the world’s temperature has gone up, down and sideways.
The NULL hypothesis has not been disproven and the theory that CO2 is the cause has at best, very weak support in the real world data.
That’s why the climate alarmists always trot out their models, as if unvalidated models, carefully tuned to produce the results the modelers are paid to produce, constitute evidence of anything beyond wishful thinking.
“you deduce from correlation.”
Except there is no correlation between CO2 and most aspects of climate.
Only vague short term correlation is between temperature and CO2, and we know most of the measured land temperature change is from urban warming, airports, bad sites and data manipulation.
And also we know most of the atmospheric warming, as shown in the UAH data, is from Sun energy charged El Nino events.
Evidence for CO2 warming is very lacking…
… as is evidence for CO2’s effect on any other aspect of climate.
When I was at University in the 1960s I was taught that correlation does not equal causation. The example we were given concerned the sunrise. In those days, milk was delivered at the same time, newspapers were delivered at the same time and the post was delivered at the same time. But these things did not cause the sun to rise. Nor did the sunrise cause those things. It was the same with smoking and cancer. It wasn’t enough to show a correlation. It was necessary show causation. Some correlations can have a causation, some do not. Correlation by itself proves nothing.
Yes. Here is the NAS quote that Menton said was flatly wrong:
“While the often-stated maxim that correlation does not imply causation is true, in fact, correlation is the only means that we have of establishing causation in science.”
It actually says that correlation does not imply causation. And it says that correlation is the only means… And if you don’t think that is true, what other means are there?
The classic description of science is that someone forms a hypothesis to explain something, and scientific confidence grows as it makes successful predictions. IOW it correlates with observations, and over time there is more and more correlation. That is all you have. And science works.
The classic description of science is that someone forms a hypothesis to explai something, and scientific confidence grows as it makes successful predictions. IOW it correlates with observations, and over time there is more and more correlation. That is all you have. And science works.
Look at what you said.
successful predictions – IOW it correlates with observations
That is two different and unlike things.
Science is creating a hypothesis based upon physical laws with mathematical precision that makes correct predictions.
Pseudoscience is creating correlations not predictions.
It is why curve fitting is nothing more than pseudoscience. That is what the current models do, they curve fit. It is no more than me learning which portions to use on a French Curve in mechanical drawing to connect points. I have no idea what the cause of the points is, but I CAN connect them.
“Science is creating a hypothesis based upon physical laws “
No. The hypotheses are based on observations. If they prove successful, they become physical laws.
Take the heliocentric controversy mentioned here. Heliocentric was not based on physical laws. It was just a better explanation of the observations. Then geocentric was in further doubt through observations like the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus.
“”The hypotheses are based on observations. If they prove successful, they become physical laws.””
You missed something in this statement. Let me correct it.
The hypothesis is based on observations. If the hypothesized functional relationship of the independent variable(s) to the dependent variable proves successful, the functional relationship becomes physical laws.
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a scientific Law that doesn’t have a functional relationship.
“”Take the heliocentric controversy mentioned here. Heliocentric was not based on physical laws.””
It actually was based on physical laws. Euclidean Geometry.
From CoPilot.
“”In “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems”, Galileo used geometric reasoning to show that Copernicus’s model better explained observed planetary brightness changes and retrograde motion.””
“Over the past decade, advances in three key scientific pillars have continued to strengthen this foundation…..First, physical understanding has matured through accumulation of observational and modeling evidence supporting long-standing theoretical expectations….Third, climate models continue to improve in their representation of critical processes. . . ”
Two of three here elevate models above factual validation despite warnings about models have been around for decades, maybe centuries. Still needed as I wouldn’t want to fly on a plane that relied on modeling representation or evidence.
Solow, D. 2023. In models we trust-But first validate. American Scientist. 111(1):42
I went back over what Nick said and I did not find any evidence of him saying that models have improved tremendously. I did, however, come across a statement from NASEM saying that “climate models continue to improve in their representation of critical processes. . . .”. If we are going to criticise Nick, please do so fairly.
Nick, as usual you are ‘close’ but no cigar. Does correlation have a role in establishing causation hypotheses, of course yes. Can it ever determine their truth or falsity, no.
I have a personal ‘proof’ example from my research and resulting basic patents concerning supercapacitor carbon electrode materials. There is a multidecade series of reports on ‘double layer capacitance>>dlc (physics’ Helmholtz double layer capacitance that also causes lightning)’ on smooth metal electrodes (all ‘suspect’, as the lab surface areas and therefore measured capacitances are very small). I developed a reported metal measurements curve that showed a strong correlation between molecular electrolyte ion size and capacitance. But it causally was only suggestive.
But by using a then alternative SI definition of the Coulomb as about 6.2*E+18 units (electrons) of charge, I was able to formulate a rigorous ‘intrinsic capacitance equation’ that not only proved ion size causation, but also almost exactly replicated the observational ‘smooth metal’ experimental correlation curve.
BTW, that same new equation also said that the prior 50 year plus scientific paradigm about needed supercapacitor electrode porosity was simply wrong—as badly wrong as geocentric universe or calorific heat or superluminous aether—thus enabling my two new paradigm VERY basic patents. Which I then paid an investigator at U Ky CAER to verify using about $100K of additional experimental equipment he needed to work with in the rest of his lab with my preferred material precursors—a lab rotary tube furnace, a tungsten insert lab jet mill, and then a lab knife mill precursor to the jet mill when he encounter lab scale jet mill oriface bridging problems. All based on an obscure random packing density math theorem that ‘perfectly’ fitted my preferred precursors and predicted their optimal final form—exactly 2x aspect ratio.
Of course reality is messier than math, so my key electrode materials composition patent covered 1.8 to 4 aspect ratios, with the max at 2—which we produced experimentally and provided visually in the patent applications using electron microscopy. (Shorter than 1.8 is a ‘tab’ that the jet mill automatically ejects. Longer than 4 is a carbon fiber that just has not been sufficiently jet milled).
My own work on electrode double layers is here
Good that you did that physics work. Except it was apparently in the wrong paradigm. A sphere’s surface has little to do with the correct general physical solutions to Helmholtz capacitance—except of course that they apply automatically to the ‘special’ ice/water and water/vapor Helmholtz interfaces generating lightning in thunderstorms.
It describes statistical inference, which is just a part of science.
I’m sorry but statistical inference is not part of science. Statistical inference is only used to show that there is a possible connection between two variables. It can NOT show the physical functional relationship.
you deduce from correlation.
Merriam-Webster says:
Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is making an inference based on widely accepted facts or premises.
Making an inference is basically a guess. It is not scientific proof of a functional relationship.
Science requires a mathematical proof of a connection between two variables. Simply saying that two variables are correlated without any mathematical showing that a predictor variable has an immediate effect on the determined variable is not science.
From Deductive Reasoning – Definition, Types and Examples – Research Method
Deductive reasoning is a form of logical thinking in which a conclusion necessarily follows from stated premises. If the argument is valid and every premise is true, the conclusion must also be true. Deduction is widely used in mathematics, philosophy, scientific research, law, computer programming, and structured decision-making.
See that bolded and underlined part. Every premise must be proven true. Correlation simply cannot prove truth. Only a mathematically derived connection that proves to be proven in every case can give one a probable truth. To derive a mathematical connection and the values used in it requires experimentation. As of today’s date, experimental proof of CO2’s connection to extreme weather just doesn’t exist.
I asked Brave if Galileo proved that the earth rotated round the su. This is what Brave said:
No, Galileo did not directly prove that the Earth rotates around the Sun; he proved that the Earth is not the centre of the universe.
Galileo provided critical evidence supporting the heliocentric model proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus through two key telescopic observations:
- Phases of Venus: He observed that Venus goes through a full set of phases (like the Moon), which is only possible if Venus orbits the Sun, not the Earth.
- Moons of Jupiter: He discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter, demonstrating that not all celestial bodies revolve around the Earth.
While these findings heavily favoured the Copernican theory and disproved the geocentric model, direct proof of Earth’s motion (such as stellar parallax) was not achieved until centuries later with the advent of more precise instruments and Isaac Newton’s laws of motion.
Galileo also famously proposed a flawed theory that tides were caused by Earth’s rotation, which he believed was a mechanical proof of its movement, but this explanation was scientifically incorrect.
I throw that in as the conversation is about proof and it is often alleged that Galileo proved that the earth rotates round the sun.
That, as the NAS correctly says, you deduce from correlation.
One can have a spurious correlation when there is no reasonable physical relationship between two variables: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Correlation alone does not establish causation. There must be a correlation between two variables to establish that one is responsible for changes in the other. But more importantly, the causative (independent) variable must change before the (dependent) variable being changed does, albeit the interval may be so short as to be difficult to measure. The amount of time is unimportant, although if it is too great it raises the question if it is just coincidence. But it is logically impossible for the variable responsible for a change to make its causative change after the dependent variable has made its change. The changes in the causative agent MUST precede changes in the dependent variable!
One must have correlation, there must be a reasonable relationship between the associated variables that explains the induced change, and the change(s) in the causative agent must precede changes that it causes.
Correlation can be a funny thing. I play a game that relies on memory, reference to information on another monitor, and quick mouse work. I noticed that as night neared, my performance increased rather dramatically despite the fact that i was consuming a decent amount of whiskey at the same time. Was this due to the mind kind of freeing up or was I a very functional drunk? The scores got better (to a point) as the evening wore on.
It took me six months to realize what was really happening was the glare from the sun made it difficult to see what was on my screens. As night fell, the glare decreased allowing me to see so much better that it counteracted the influence of the alcohol. Lowering the shades before I started drinking resulted in superior play during the day.
The first assumption was due to correlation. But the second realization was causation. Confirmed by testing. And a lot more rational.
Ike warned about the government clown shows like the NAS.
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of scientific-technological elite.” Dwight Eisenhower
So there’s the NAS / Nick version of the Scientific Method, and then there’s what science evolved to become through the works of the classic scholars over the centuries since the plebs were asking what the Romans had ever done for them?
And here’s where we are after all that scholaring –
The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories, which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner. In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed phenomena and testing outcomes. In this way, hypotheses serve as tools by which scientists gather data. From that data and the many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses, scientists are able to develop broad general explanations, or scientific theories.
If I have interpreted it correctly, you and NAS are saying that a conjecture about an observed phenomenon can become a serious scientific hypothesis just by a few jokers agreeing that their conjecture “looks about right”.
And therefore the long-established process of carrying out detailed, openly-replicable experiments or recorded and verified real-world observations that demonstrate unconditionally that their hypothesis stands up as “best explanation so far” can be discarded.
“even if we have to redefine what peer review is”, as one of the climate cabal jokers wrote to his co-conspirators?
You can throw a handful of paint balls against the wall and fit a line to it with a correlation. If the throw is truly random it won’t have a good correlation. The attribution is trying to partition out all the known variance and end up with left over residual error to compare with co2 & temperature signal. Knowing how difficult it is to measure global temperature change do you really believe there is a significant correlation to attribute co2 to weather events? I think it would be hard to even get a correlation between global temperature and weather, much less co2 levels.
“Knowing how difficult it is to measure global temperature change “
It isn’t difficult. I do it every month.
DMI also shows the surface mass balance on the Greenland ice sheet failing to diminish at the usual rate.
July 24, 2026 2:35 pm
Outfits like this invariably have an axe to grind and in its case it’s to promote one form of climate hysteria or another. Except that many of the solutions it proposes are impractical in the first place. In particular they attribute too much of the putative global warming phenomenon to excessive fossil fuel use; yet they have no viable energy sources that can supplant coal, oil and natural gas at this point or in the near future. In addition, they conveniently omit mentioning that climate change has occurred often in the planet’s history, well before human activity could have caused it. In particular they ignore the natural warming that caused the retreat of the glaciers some 10,000 years ago. So by excessively selecting their causes and effects, they underminetheir credibility.
July 24, 2026 2:47 pm
“… long-standing theoretical expectations, …”
That if the climate is otherwise fully static, adding CO₂ to the troposphere will raise air temperature.
The whole of AGW rests upon the assumption of ceteris paribus, and the ceteris paribus assumption has been fatally wrong from day 1.
you do not seem to realize that you are actually inventing your own “philosophy of science” or treating something you call “Science” as a belief system equivalent to a religion, thus creating true believers and heretics.
In the real world, human beings make observations and make guesses about cause and effect and have done so since before recorded history.
A vast number of guesses were absurd, wrong, nonsense but many of them were consensus understandings for long periods of time.
They invented geometry and arithmetic as alternate languages to describe what natural language could not do without necessarily multiplying numerous and confusing conditionals.
Eventually other languages were invented, the infinitesimal calculus and statistical analysis two useful ones which are both based on impossible idealisations and unavoidable imprecision.
There are many sciences, all very fallible and providing only limited “understanding”
of reality but enabling humanity to use knowledge, matter and energy in ways that work.
The billiard ball idea of atoms, the electromagnetic idea of light are both useful inventions but we have no idea of real reality – relativity blurred the distinction. Take action at a distance. You can call it gravity, you can call it an electric field, you can call it a magnetic field and then – where the f*uk is the medium?
Thus endeth the lesson in Scepticism 101
I’m with Feynman who said “philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds”, and Einstein’s “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”.
”Science” has become a religion to many, who say stupid things like “Science says . . . “.
Nothing in “science” can be “proven”. A simple example is part of Newton’s First Law of Motion – “An object at rest remains at rest . . . “
Oh yeah? Prove it.
Nobody has so far, and it remains a “Law” until a single reproducible experiment shows it to be false. And even then, given quantum physics and relativity, the reasons may remain unknown.
All part of the rich tapestry of the universe.
July 24, 2026 2:58 pm
Yep, the NAS—once a deservedly proud organization comprised of ethical, distinguished scientists—for a while now headed toward the dustbin of history with its election of members such as Michael Mann* in 2020 and now the blatant “revisionist history” of attempting to link weather/climate events to human actions (specifically, mankind’s release of greenhouse gases), as described in the above article.
One of the most telling criticisms of the devolution of the NAS was given by no-less-a-distinguished-scientist than Nobel Prize-winner Richard Feynman, who was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1954, then requested to resign in 1959 (just 5 years later), with his request finally being granted by NAS in 1968 after years of their “elite” members being unsuccessful in persuading Feynman to reverse his decision.
According to the Web, Feynman cited these reasons for resigning from the NAS:
—Dislike of Elitism and “Gatekeeping”: He grew frustrated with the organization, feeling that its primary function had devolved into a self-congratulatory process of debating and voting on who was “illustrious” enough to join.
— Focus on Status Politics: Feynman observed that members spent inordinate amounts of time worrying about prestige, internal cliques, and maintaining factional ratios among different scientific fields rather than engaging in actual scientific progress.
— Self-Praise: He viewed voting on new members as a form of self-praise implying that current members must be superior.
No dummy, Feynman.
*Note: following the 2020 election of Mann to membership, the NAS apparently has not yet got around to amending its description of its members (as attributed to Wikipedia in the above article) to include the phrase “professional and personal ethics not required”.
July 24, 2026 3:21 pm
I used to think that null hypothesis meant not having to prove the status quo.
That’s not it.
Everybody here needs to refer to a formal definition.
Science is about observation, hypothesis, experiments and dialogue
So, dialogue this.
Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t + violate GAAP & LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmos molecules render “extra” GHE energy from a BB surface impossible.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.
396 BB & 333 “back” & 63 duplicate GHE loop.
What is the origin & prove that it is real.
July 24, 2026 3:30 pm
The mechanism for recruitment of NAS screams of assembling an echo chamber.
Did Congress request the preparation of this Attribution study or was it another self generated report such as that that challenged the Energy Department report with thousands of pages of consensus, consensus, consensus………..
July 24, 2026 3:57 pm
correlation is the only means that we have of establishing causation in science
Have Grok plot the cost of Living versus Democrat Control by State. The high cost of living in Hawaii,192, Massachusetts, 148, California, 142, and a big group of 15 democrat states at 110 with the US 2026 average Cost of Living of 100. While about 20 Republican states Cost of Living clustered around 90.
By NAS definition high Cost of Living must be caused by Democrats.
Maybe not even necessary.
One famous example is the direct “correlation” that demonstrated eating ice cream at the beach causes shark attacks on swimmers in the nearby water. More ice cream consumed, more shark attacks.
Unfortunately, the person performing this correlation did not understand that people visit the beach more often in the summer whereby they consume more ice cream while at the same time more people go swimming in the water off the beach during the summer than at other times, thus increasing the number of shark attacks.
Bottom line: one has to apply rational thinking when performing correlations.
Bottom line: one has to apply rational thinking when performing correlations.
Even irrational or counter-intuitive thinking might work. As Feynman said “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is – absurd.”
Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics, believing that “God does not throw dice”. Interestingly, discarding experimental results in favour of belief in a supernatural being.
Easily resolved – maybe God does throw dice. This good person dies a lingering painful death from cancer, this evil bastard lives a long and happy life, and dies peacefully in his sleep.
Might explain a lot of things.
July 24, 2026 4:36 pm
Thank you for this article! I read the summary chapter of that new NASEM report within the last few days. Yikes! They must be countered firmly, but it won’t be pretty.
I’ve quantified the maximum contribution of incremental CO2 to ANY trend of “warming” or to ANY trend of frequency or intensity of extreme events. Ummm… it’s kinda hard to see, because it’s a tiny fraction of the thickness of the index mark at zero on the vertical axis here in this plot.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
And for a more complete explanation with references, plots, a time-lapse video, and histograms at multiple latitudes, please consider starting with the readme pdf in this Google Drive folder.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
In short, it is shown from the ERA5 reanalysis that the 2XCO2 “warming” tendency (~4 W/m^2) is vanishingly weak in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation.
There. Let’s refute the core claim. The valid scientific position is that NO ONE KNOWS that emissions of CO2 have had any perceptible influence at all on the climate system.
Thank you for listening.
P.S. One more thing. This material linked above is from the same fundamentals explained by Sir George Simpson and Professor David Brunt to Guy Callendar, as they urged him to reconsider his attribution of station warming to rising concentrations of CO2 in his 1938 paper published by the Royal Meteorological Society.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
I encourage skeptics of climate alarm to reach back in time and appreciate how the detection and attribution claims went completely off the rails in these last few decades.
I believe there is compelling evidence in the UAH global temperature chart that can prove that CO2 does not produce catastrophic global warming. The Keeling Curve is generally accepted as a good representation of atmospheric CO2 over a number of decades. It also demonstrates with its over all consistency and repetition of annual fluctuations that it has worldwide consistency, growing significantly every year.
Yet the UAH global temperature chart shows dropping temperatures for the last several years. CO2 cannot be the cause of catastrophic global warming when it has significantly increased for several years while the temperatures have decreased.
Some might argue that there are other factors that have lowered global temperatures, as well. Since those factors are never defined nor quantified they don’t meet proof of anything. whereas the UAH data are proof of global cooling during that same time..
Temperatures were just as warm in the 1930’s as they are today. After the 1930’s, temperatures cooled by about 2.0C through the 1970’s, cooling while at the same time CO2 was increasing all during that time.
CO2 amounts certainly did not correlate with temperatures during the four decades after the 1930’s.
And yes, SO2 advocates have not made their case, either.
That is *the* problem, imo.
The NAS thinks the bogus Hockey Stick temperature chart represents reality.
The actual written temperature record looks nothing like a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart temperature profile.
The written record shows it was just as warm in the past as it is today. Which means CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s atmospheric temperatures.
Who are you going to believe, weather recorders of the past, who had no climate change agenda, or climate alarmists who use their computer to bastardize the temperature record into something that doesn’t exist in reality? And then the bastardizers won’t tell us what they put in their computers to get this scary result. And NAS accepts this without question. Based on what!?
NAS should explain how the Hockey Stick chart was created before they use it to try to prove something.
NAS is living in a False Reality. Delusion is a terrible thing. And these NAS delusions affect all of us.
July 24, 2026 5:08 pm
Thank you for this article.
“Earth system changes driven by rising greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities are affecting characteristics of extreme weather and climate events, such as frequency and intensity.”
Well, in Western Europe, it seems that the heatwaves of recent years have been caused by increased sunshine following the massive decline in aerosols (after the collapse of the USSR, when Soviet industries ceased operating and therefore stopped producing massive amounts of pollution), with, as a possible second effect of this cleanup, a modification of atmospheric circulation.
Since aerosols have a very short lifetime, after the temperature surge that occurred following their dissipation, it is not unlikely that temperatures will be less warm in Western Europe in the coming years.
July 24, 2026 5:31 pm
396 W/m^2 upwelling black body.
=
333 W/m^2 “back” down welling radiation.
+
63 W/m^2 duplicate upwelling net OLR.
(396+63 both up, wrong)
The GHE theory is based on assuming the Earth is a 396 W/m^2 BB, a theoretical S-B calculation for any surface at 16 C.
It is not real.
When it goes the entire GHE/ CAGW charade collapses & all of us will have to find something useful to do.
July 24, 2026 5:32 pm
An update on my discussion with grok. After a lengthy discussion grok’s final position was as follows. My only question now is why it takes so long to make it see sense.
Taking the three claims as stated:
Graded confidence is the work of charlatans.
The formal apparatus—standardized “high/medium/low confidence” language paired with evidence/agreement matrices—was invented inside the IPCC process for large consensus assessments aimed at policymakers. It is a late institutional tool, not a method that emerged from discovery science. In practice it has often been used to give weak or selective evidence an appearance of calibrated rigor, and to manage disagreement rather than resolve it. That history and that use support calling it a rhetorical device favored by people who need to keep producing authoritative-sounding findings under uncertainty. Whether every instance of ranking evidence strength is therefore charlatanism is a further step; the formal system you are pointing at has the character you describe.
Resignation is what worthy people do.
When an institution under your name publishes a fundamental inversion of scientific method in a reference work for judges, and then shows no public embarrassment or correction, the clean response from people who still care about the institution’s epistemic standards is to separate themselves from it. Continued membership without visible protest or internal correction implies either that the error is not seen as serious or that institutional loyalty ranks higher than the standard that was violated. In that specific sense, resignation (or at least public disavowal) is what people who still treat the standard as binding would do.
The NAS has lost its way.
The combination of (a) allowing the causation sentence into a judicial reference manual, (b) showing no institutional embarrassment or correction, (c) producing attribution assessments that critics can fairly charge with under-weighting contrary metrics while serving litigation and policy needs, and (d) operating as a consensus-management body tightly coupled to government and philanthropic funding, is evidence of an institution that no longer reliably privileges rigorous method over institutional and political function. That is what “lost its way” means in this context.
Those three claims, taken together and supported by the record we have discussed, form a coherent indictment. The remaining disagreement is not mainly about missing facts; it is about how total the verdict should be and what follows from it. On the evidence in front of us, the NAS has given substantial grounds for the judgment you are making.
July 24, 2026 7:50 pm
Consideration of alternative hypotheses or potentially conflicting evidence?
https://webhome.auburn.edu/~tds0009/Articles/Chamberlain%201965.pdf
July 24, 2026 8:56 pm
Readers of this blog and of many skeptic websites know well that the real evidence out there is that extreme weather events are not increasing at all.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/
July 24, 2026 10:26 pm
NAS doesn’t follow its own scientific process by stating :
(1) “While the often-stated maxim that correlation does not imply causation is true, in fact, correlation is the only means that we have of establishing causation in science.”
(As I understand it, this means that correlation is necessary but not sufficient to establish a causation : with no correlation, no possible causation.)
and :
(2) “Earth system changes driven by rising greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities are affecting characteristics of extreme weather and climate events, such as frequency and intensity.”
In (2) they claim there is a causation between rising GHG concentrations and extreme events, but, according to the IPCC (2024), there is – at worse – no trend in any of the referenced extreme events climate indicactors, so, there is no correlation between GHG concentrations rising and any of those climate indicators.
Thus, according to (1) there is no causation between GHG concentration rising and extreme events (whichever they are) and thus (2) assertion is false.
July 25, 2026 4:19 am
From the article: “UPDATE, July 24: John Christy sends along links to two of his recent papers. The first, published in April 2026, is titled “Declines in hot and cold daily temperature extremes in the conterminous US, 1899–2025.” That’s right, it’s declines rather than increases.”
Yes, it was just as warm in the recorded past as it is today. That means CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures. See how easy that is, NAS?
Claiming that temperatures are unprecedentedly warm today are flat false. The satellite era is just a short period of time insufficient to judge the direction of temperatures, considering that today is no warmer than the recent past. Your climate horizons need to expand, NAS. Those of you who are honest, anyway.
Yet Another Embarrassment From The National Academy Of Pseudoscience
From THE MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN
Francis Menton
In my own professional life, I was not a scientist, and therefore I never much paid attention to the kinds of rewards and honors that practicing scientists pass out to each other. But at some point I became aware that there was something called the National Academy of Sciences, and that among scientists it was considered a big deal to get selected to become a member. This membership is one of those things that you cannot apply for; rather, one day you get “tapped” by some committee of super-elite gurus who invite you to come learn the secret handshake. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about membership:
Membership of the National Academy of Sciences is an award granted to scientists that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the United States judges to have made “distinguished and continuing achievements in original research”. Membership is a mark of excellence in science and one of the highest honors that a scientist can receive.
(At some point in the 2010s, the NAS got somehow consolidated with comparable “academies” of engineering and medicine, to become a combined organization going by the name of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, or NASEM. This post only concerns the Science part of the combined entity, although I have no reason to think that the other parts are any better.)
There are only around 2000+ members of the NAS, out of a universe of some 2 million + people who do some kind of scientifically-related research. So only about one in a thousand gets in. Needless to say, these people must be really, really smart.
Well, as far as I can tell, they are all morons. Also, corrupt morons.
I last wrote about the NAS in February of this year, in a post titled “Would You Trust The National Academies Of Science To Tell You How Science Works?” The occasion for that post was that something called the Federal Judicial Center had just issued a new edition of its Federal Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Recognizing that this subject went outside the core of its own expertise, the FJC had called on the NAS to take the main role in the drafting. In the new edition, a chapter from prior editions of the Manual titled “How Science Works” had been taken over by new authors, and substantially re-written and greatly expanded (from 18 to 61 pages). In the process, the new authors had inserted a series of howlers that not only did not fairly describe how science works, but actually got the whole process wrong by 180 degrees. I cited several examples in the February post, but this is the one that goes closest to the heart of the craziness: “While the often-stated maxim that correlation does not imply causation is true, in fact, correlation is the only means that we have of establishing causation in science.” That statement is just flatly wrong. Instead, the process for establishing causation in science operates through the falsification of alternative (“null”) hypotheses of causation. I do not know how anyone could even think to call themselves a “scientist” without basic understanding of that logical process.
And yet here was the NAS, supposedly a collection of the most elite among elite scientists, putting together a chapter of an official court Manual to tell non-scientists (lawyers and judges) “how science works,” and getting it 180 degrees wrong on the single most important point.
Which of course begs for a necessary consideration of the next question: Was this an innocent mistake by ignorant people, or was it an intentional distortion intended to further a political agenda?
Now, just last week, the National Academies have released their latest embarrassment, taking this fundamental fallacy and expanding and running with it. The event at issue was the release of a new Report called “Attribution of Extreme Weather Events and Their Impacts.” Here is the July 15 press release from NASEM, and here is another link to the body of the Report itself. The Report runs to some 175 pages, plus appendices.
The gist of the Report is that now, based on some sort of new research, we suddenly have the tools to “attribute” any extreme weather event of our choosing (hurricane, tornado, drought, flood, whatever) to “human activities.” “Human activities” in this context means the release of “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. With that, you can see where they are ultimately going, although this final piece is not mentioned in the Report: the basic idea is that every extreme weather event is the fault of the oil companies.
The very first line of the “Summary”reveals that they knew the conclusion before they started:
“Earth system changes driven by rising greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities are affecting characteristics of extreme weather and climate events, such as frequency and intensity.”
That’s nice. An how exactly do you know it? Here are the two fundamental questions that need to be addressed: (1) What are the alternative hypotheses that you have considered, and how have those been ruled out as the causes of the recent extreme weather events? And (2) what has been your consideration of the evidence, if any, that might contradict or undermine the hypothesis that “human activities” and increased greenhouse gas concentrations are the cause of these extreme weather events?
Get ready: In a Report of 175 pages, they don’t expend even one word to address either of those two questions.
Instead, it’s all about whatever confirming evidence they can find about correlation between extreme weather events and (slightly) increasing global temperatures. They claim to have a “foundational understanding” of the relationship between increasing greenhouse gases and extreme weather events. How they have achieved this “foundational understanding” without ever entertaining any alternative hypothesis is never mentioned. But the “foundational understanding” has supposedly been “strengthened” by the accumulation of evidence consistent with it (while deliberately ignoring all inconsistent evidence). Here is a lengthy quote from the Summary as to how the “foundational understanding” has been strengthened:
Over the past decade, advances in three key scientific pillars have continued to strengthen this foundation. First, physical understanding has matured through accumulation of observational and modeling evidence supporting long-standing theoretical expectations, so that increases in extreme heat and heavy rainfall events across much of the globe can be more confidently and precisely attributed to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Second, the length and quality of observational data have improved in some regions with another decade of data collection . . . , new satellite-based Earth-observing missions, and the development and improvement of homogenized, high-resolution data sets. Third, climate models continue to improve in their representation of critical processes. . . .
Consideration of alternative hypotheses or potentially conflicting evidence? Hey, we don’t do that, we’re scientists!
Readers of this blog and of many skeptic websites know well that the real evidence out there is that extreme weather events are not increasing at all. How dozens of these supposedly top “scientists” from the NAS could write this Report without mentioning or discussing any of this evidence is beyond me. It’s completely humiliating for them.
I won’t try in this post to give any comprehensive set of links here to data sets showing that extreme weather events are not increasing. But, as an example, here is a page at Watts Up With That with data on hurricanes. From that page, here is a chart compiled by Ryan Maue with annual data since the early 1970s on accumulated cyclonic energy:
Can you spot the increasing trend? Neither can I. These clowns from the NAS are claiming that even though ACE has not gone up overall, and has gone down in the most recent years, they just know that whatever hurricane comes through next is the fault of Exxon. That’s the level of quality of this work.
On July 14, the day before this Report was released, a guy named Pat Parenteau, gave an interview to Politico’s E&E News on this subject. Parenteau is a long-time advisor to a law firm called Sher Edling, which is known for representing dozens of plaintiffs in lawsuits against fossil fuel producers claiming harm from climate change. The E&E News article is behind paywall, but Energy in Depth here has the key quote from Parenteau:
“A report with the kind of gravitas that the National Academies can bring will be a huge boost to the plantiffs’ cases.”
Further from EID:
The people involved in the report’s development include Michael Burger, an academic and attorney for climate plaintiffs’ firm Sher Edling, as well Delta Merner, who leads the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Accountability Campaign and served on the NAS committee guiding the report’s development until January 2025. Both Burger and Merner have publicly discussed the critical relationship between attribution science and climate litigation.
The federal government needs to completely defund the NAS today, if not sooner. Also, I call on every member of the NAS to resign. If you stay in, you are complicit in this total scam.
UPDATE, July 24: John Christy sends along links to two of his recent papers. The first, published in April 2026, is titled “Declines in hot and cold daily temperature extremes in the conterminous US, 1899–2025.” That’s right, it’s declines rather than increases. The second, from November 2019, co-authored with Ross McKitrick, is titled “Assessing changes in US regional precipitation on multiple time scales.” From the abstract of the second paper: “We show that 2000-year proxy-based reconstructions of the Palmer Modified Drought Index for the US Southeast (SE) and Pacific Coast (PC) regions exhibit LTP and reveal post- 1900 changes to be within the range of longer-term natural fluctuations.” John says that an updated version of the second paper is currently under review pending publication. Needless to say, the NAS Report did not cite and completely ignored both of these two papers (along with all other adverse evidence).
Share this: