The right strategy wins the war Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and here!\
The Blogosphere
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Climate Change Hoax Exposed

Apocalypse now?

By Cal Thomas

Tribune Content Agency

Since the beginning of recorded history there have been end of the world predictions. In recent years we have had radio preachers, politicians and scientists declare with certainty that the world would soon end, either because of our decadent lifestyle, or because of “global warming,” now known as “climate change.”

Responses to these Chicken Little declarations have ranged from people hiding in caves to the most recent announcement by Costco that it has a doomsday meal kit for sale. The cost is $6,000. The online listing says the kit contains 36,000 servings of food that will feed a family of four for one year.

Marc Morano’s new book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” (Regnery Publishing) is just in time to refute the argument that “climate change” will destroy all life on Earth. It is a mark of Morano’s dark humor that he features as an “endorsement” of the book a comment by the liberal Daily Kos, which calls Morano “evil personified.”


The book is a point-by-point takedown of the predictions of disaster made by the climate change movement, none of which have materialized, but when one is part of a cult, facts don’t matter.

In the book’s foreword, the late John Coleman, who was a meteorologist, TV weatherman and co-founder of The Weather Channel, writes: “We meteorologists are well aware of how limited our ability is to predict the weather. Our predictions become dramatically less reliable as they extend into the future. When we try to predict just a few weeks into the future our predictions become increasingly inaccurate. Yet the ‘climate change’ establishment that now dominates the UN bureaucracy and our own government science establishment claim that they can predict the temperature of the Earth decades into the future.”

Coleman then gets to the heart of the issue: ‘Their global warming scare is not driven by science; it is now being driven by politics. So today anybody who defies the prevailing ‘climate change’ scare puts his career and his reputation into extreme danger.”

Among the facts revealed in Morano’s book are these: The world spends $1 billion a day to “prevent” global warming; A UN scientist says the “97 percent consensus” on global warming was “pulled from thin air,” presumably hot air from many politicians; scientific organizations claim climate change ‘consensus,’ but have not polled their members; climate policies are not helping, but “crushing the world’s poor”; The Paris climate accord theoretically postpones global warming by just four years, but will cost $100 trillion if fully implemented; climate change has been blamed for prostitution, barroom brawls, airplane turbulence and war; one climate activist is quoted as saying we should “protect our kids by not having them”; recent “hottest year” claims are based on statistically meaningless year-to-year differences; Antarctica is actually gaining, not losing ice; carbon dioxide levels today are 10 times lower than in some past Ice Ages.

Morano argues that the debate over climate change is not settled, as many claim. Science is never settled and apparently neither is the politics of climate change, which is being advanced by people who want more control over every aspect of our lives.

Real scientists who specialize in climate and related fields are quoted in the book. These are voices we rarely, if ever, see mentioned in the mainstream media because the media are part of the collusion.

Read this book and you will become an informed climate change denier, armed with arguments and facts to counter the propaganda being pushed by climate change fanatics. It will also save you $6,000 the next time you visit Costco.

(Readers may email Cal Thomas at

Posted on 03/15 at 08:10 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Delingpole: NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

See Global warming skeptic keeps his cool amid hysteria

Marc Morano’s “Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” uses humor to battle alarmists. See story here.


The Beast form the East - Siberian cold brought up the 3 feet of snow to the UK (drifts topping 8 feet near Dublin, Ireland).


See even the NYT could not ignore this.


This winter featured snow in North Africa where alarmists predicted warmth and expanding drought and desert. Instead colder temperatures and increasing precipitation and shrinking desert has been observed.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data. This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.

If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees.

Here is NOAA’s January 2018 chart for Northeast U.S. - an area which includes New England along with NY, PA, NJ, DE and MD.


You’d never guess from it that those regions had just experienced record-breaking cold, would you?

That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again - presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology - NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.

We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.

Homewood first smelt a rat when he examined the New York data sets.

He was particularly puzzled at NOAA’s treatment of the especially cold winter that ravaged New York in 2013/14, which he describes here:

The cold weather really began on Jan 2nd, when an Arctic front descended across much of the country, and extended well into March.

The NWS wrote at the end of the winter:

The winter of 2013-14 finished as one of the coldest winters in recent memory for New York State.  Snowfall across Western and North Central New York was above normal for many areas, and in some locations well above normal. This winter comes on the heels of two previous mild winters, making the cold and snow this winter feel that much harsher.

Temperatures this winter finished below normal every month, and the January through March timeframe finished at least 4 degrees below normal for the two primary climate stations of Western New York (Buffalo and Rochester)…

Relentless cold continued through the month of January across the region.

So why, he wondered, did NOAA have this marked down as only the 30th coldest winter (since 1895) on its New York State charts, with a mean temperature of 16.9F?

Homewood compared the local records for January 1943 and January 2014 - months which, according to NOAA’s charts, had very similar average temperatures.

What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards.


He concludes:

On average the mean temperatures in Jan 2014 were 2.7F less than in 1943. Yet, according to NOAA, the difference was only 0.9F.

Somehow, NOAA has adjusted past temperatures down, relatively, by 1.8F.

Now, Homewood has given the same treatment to the most recent Big Freeze - the winter of 2017/2018.

Yet again, he has found that NOAA’s arbitrary adjustments tell a lie. They claim that January 2018 was warmer in the New York region than January 1943, when the raw data from local stations tells us this just isn’t true.

So at the three sites of Ithaca, Auburn and Geneva, we find that January 2018 was colder than January 1943 by 1.0, 1.7 and 1.3F respectively.

Yet NOAA say that the division was 2.1F warmer last month. NOAA’s figure makes last month at least 3.1F warmer in comparison with 1943 than the actual station data warrants.

He concludes:

Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data.

And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the US is any better?

Well indeed. The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary. Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data.

One excuse NOAA’s apologists make is that weather stations are subject to changing environmental conditions. For example, when the station sited at Syracuse in 1929 was located at what was originally just a sparse aerodrome. Since then, however, as Homewood notes, it has grown into a large international airport with two runways servicing two million passengers a year. Its weather station readings therefore will certainly have been corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect: that is, its temperature readings will have been artificially elevated by the warmth from the surrounding development and aircraft engines.

So you’d think, wouldn’t you, that to compensate for this NOAA would adjust the recent temperatures downwards. Instead, for no obvious reasons, it has adjusted them upwards.

This is a scandal. NOAA’s climate gatekeepers are political activists not honest scientists and the U.S. taxpayer has no business funding their propaganda.

Drain the swamp!


Recall the story we posted a few years ago about NOAA shenanigans in Maine. The original USHCN data set was downloaded in 2011 for a presentation. It showed no statistically significant trend (slightly negative) since 1895.


When asked to reprise the presentation a few years later, we update the chart from Climate at a Glance and found a very large -2.3F/decade warming accomplished by cooling the past.


The local newspaper (Portland Press Herald) did a story on how Maine was warming faster than any other state.

Posted on 02/20 at 02:22 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, February 07, 2018
With Tax Reform Done, Trump Should Set Record Straight On ‘Climate Change’

By James Wallace and Francis Menton, IBD

When President Trump calls the alarm surrounding climate change a hoax, he is fundamentally correct: there is no valid scientific basis for climate alarm. Climate alarmism is made possible by equal parts data manipulation and worthless climate models.

Now that Congress and the president are done with tax reform, many expect spending cuts and debt reduction to be up next. Given the huge and still increasing economic costs being imposed on the nation for no scientifically valid reason, we suggest a renewed focus on rapidly eliminating destructive carbon dioxide emission regulations.

For those not familiar, in December 2009 the Obama administration issued a report (the EF) that claimed to find atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) pose a “danger” to human health and welfare.

Despite President Trump’s statement that climate alarm is a “hoax,” nearly everyone Pruitt talks to - holdover officials at EPA, legions of academics receiving government funding, lobbying organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, and even many energy industry executives - tells him that reconsidering the EF is a huge mistake because the scientific evidence supporting it is overwhelming.

Pruitt has proposed a year long, perhaps televised, Red/Blue debate to clarify the scientific situation. But before this lengthy process has even started, environmental groups and blue state AGs are already pummeling EPA in court with its own EF, winning victories that obstruct the administration’s efforts to grow America’s energy sector, and to enhance its economic and national security.

So, what is the actual science behind the EF?  We confidently assert that in any Red/Blue evaluation of the science, where the Blue team supports the EF, the Blue team will lose badly.

“Warmists” claim a 97% scientific consensus regarding the hypothesized catastrophic impact of increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs. But this illusion of consensus has only come about through misrepresentation of global temperatures and research results plus rigid enforcement of orthodoxy and refusal to debate for some two decades.

In accordance with the scientific method, the EF has been shown to be invalid at least three separate times over the past two years. One of us (Wallace) is the lead author of three scientific research reports that, each in a unique fashion, invalidated all of the lines of evidence on which EPA claimed to rely for its EF.

All three of these reports meet two criteria fundamental to the scientific method: (1) the authors’ mathematical/statistical modeling work can be easily replicated since the model results are shown, and all of the data utilized are stated in the research reports to be available from one of the authors; and (2) extensive peer review, with the distinguished, highly credentialed reviewers being publicly identified.

By contrast, the vast majority of the work on which EPA relied for the EF does not meet these two criteria, and therefore would be excluded from consideration in a scientifically proper reconsideration. Most important, our findings have never been invalidated by the massive climate alarm community.

As an illustration of the relevance of these findings, our June 2017 Research Report sought to validate the estimates of current and historical global average surface temperature (GAST) from NOAA, NASA, and the UK’s Hadley CRU, using the best available empirical data.

These official GAST estimates are a necessary foundation for EPA’s “lines of evidence” for its EF and are also the foundation for frequent government claims of record-setting temperatures.  But this research found it impossible to conclude from the three GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.  Instead, the conclusive findings were that the GAST data sets are simply not a valid representation of reality.

More specifically, in this research report, past changes in the previously officially reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

And, it was nearly always accomplished by each entity systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

Given the magnitude of each of the three entities’ historical data adjustments, and their removal of the previous officially-reported cyclical temperature patterns, the officially-reported data are now totally inconsistent with very considerable current, published and credible U.S and other temperature data.

With GAST data set validity being a necessary condition for the EF, it too is invalidated by these research findings. Therefore, EPA’s 2009 claim that CO2 is a pollutant has been decisively invalidated. The same conclusion is reached based on separate analyses in the other two research reports.  Thus, the likelihood of this EF invalidation result being in error is nil.​

For there to be a real global warming crisis, it is necessary that rising atmospheric GHG concentrations be proven to have a statistically significant impact on GAST.  Collateral claims of danger from things like extreme weather events, droughts, floods, hurricanes and rising seas are fundamentally based on proof of that impact. But that proof has not been made.

The regulations based on the EF that President Obama imposed (e.g., the Clean Power Plan) cause huge and totally unnecessary costs to the economy in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

Given the vast economic costs to America of pursuing the suppression of fossil fuels, it makes no sense to insert a further one-year plus Red/Blue debate delay in granting reconsideration of the EF.  Instead, the Red/Blue exercise should be held as a prompt, on-the-record legal reconsideration of the EF.

When this exercise is over, the American people finally will have been shown the truth about the shoddy, tendentious, and unscientific mangling of data that’s necessary to sustain the cult of climate alarm.

Wallace, Ph.D., is the lead author of numerous papers and legal briefs regarding EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

Menton is a lawyer who has submitted a petition calling on EPA to reopen its Endangerment Finding.

Posted on 02/07 at 08:51 PM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Saturday, February 03, 2018
Attorneys Accuse California Cities of Bond Fraud After Climate Change Lawsuits Filed

Michael Bastasch on February 1, 2018

A libertarian think tank has notified the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) that California cities and counties may have inadvertently admitted to securities fraud in their global warming lawsuits against oil companies.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) attorneys pointed out that localities’ suing a group of oil companies for current and future damages allegedly caused by global warming may have misled municipal bond investors.

“A number of California cities and counties have recently filed lawsuits against several oil and gas companies, claiming that these companies failed to disclose the alleged risks of climate change,” CEI attorneys Sam Kazman and Devin Watkins wrote to the SEC.

“However, in these lawsuits the plaintiff cities and counties apparently describe these climate risks in ways that are far different than how they described them in their own bond offerings. In our view, this inconsistency raises serious questions of municipal bond fraud,” the attorneys added.

So far, nine U.S. localities have filed lawsuits against oil companies for damages from extreme weather and sea level rise, which the plaintiffs allege were made worse by manmade warming.

A handful California localities have sued, alleging that oil companies “knowingly” sold products that cause global warming all while trying to suppress the scientific evidence. Richmond became the most recent city to sue over the climate.

“After being warned by their own experts of the potential damage, the fossil fuel industry could have taken steps to transition to a lower carbon future, but they didn’t,” Richmond Mayor Tom Butt said in a statement.

However, ExxonMobil, one of the companies being sued, noted in its legal filings that California cities and counties suing over global warming didn’t disclose climate risks in bond offerings.

“[I]n their lawsuits many of the municipalities claim to be able to accurately be able to predict sea level rise caused by climate change,” Kazman and Watkins wrote. “However, some of the bond offerings of these municipalities state that such predictions were not possible.”

For example, San Francisco’s lawsuit predicts “0.3 to as much as 0.8 feet of additional sea level rise by 2030,” which could cost $5 billion in the long-term. But the city told investors they were “unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur, when they may occur.”

“Either the City can predict such sea-level rise, as it tells the court, or it cannot, as it tells investors,” CEI’s attorneys wrote.

Representatives for Sher Edling, the law firm handling six localities’ climate suits, did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.


The NOAA/ NASA data fraud

Francis Menton has been chronicling this very well in 17 posts on this can be found here.

In one of the posts he links to the below analysis from Icecap. The claims there are still valid. The ‘professional’ societies like AMS and AGU, NOAA and NASA climate agencies continue their lying crusade to validate their failing models. The Union of Concerned Scientists and other grant toting liberal university seat warmers who never made a forecast in their lives are given the keys to write the National Climate Assessments which are laughable. They continue to claim every weather event - heat or cold, wet or dry, no snow and blizzards, hurricane lulls and a rebound year are all due to warming from CO2. They have made AGW an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

They adjust data from surface stations, buoys and satellites and weather balloons to fit their models instead of rethinking their model theories as the scientific method requires when data conflicts.

What concerns it is it has supported bad policies like the one Michael Bastasch reports on above or the enviro writing campaign that blocked Northern Pass hydro power electricity to the northeast where we are already paying the highest electricity prices in the nation for electricity thanks to RGGI. this hurts families and industry.  These same people who fought first a natural gas pipeline and this past week the Northern Pass powerline (partially underground) because it would hurt the look of the beautiful scenery. Yet these same enviro fanatics favor wind power where the ugly and unhealthy wind turbines and all the power lines required to take the energy to the grid would be 1000 times worse in that regard criss crossing the mountains, never mind that the wind had been proven in Europe to not be there often when needed the most (on calm sub zero nights and hot sultry summer days) driving up energy prices 3 to 5 fold.

Here was a post from a few years back.

The data games - the transition from real data to model/data hybrids

You probably have been following the saga about USHCN data fabrication/estimation at WattsUpWiththat summarized here and illuminated by Judith Curry.

Anthony finds himself agreeing with Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller who deserves the credit for the initial findings including:


Anthony continues: “Paul Homewood deserves the credit for taking the finding and establishing it in a more comprehensible way that opened closed eyes, including mine, in this post entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas


Along with that is his latest follow up, showing the problem isn’t limited to Texas, but also in Kansas. “

It appears in summary:

Approximately 40% of the data has been estimated, even though they have a lot of good data in hand. The data isn’t making the migration for the RAW to the FINAL USHCN file due to some error in the data flag.

Also, there’s the issue of “Zombie weather stations” Closed stations like Marysville, CA that closed due to may expose’ in 2007 are still reporting data in the FINAL USHCN file because the FILNET program is “infilling” them with estimated data based on surrounding stations.


Since 80% of the network has compromised siting, the data used to infill is compromised.

It’s a real mess.

Anthony adds “So far just USA for this error, we don’t know about GHCN yet.”

ICECAP NOTE:  I have posted that I had downloaded from NCDC Climate at a Glance the Maine state Annual temperatures in 2013 for a talk and it showed no warming since 1895! (the trend was shown as -0.03/decade). Well after NOAA announced a transition to the CLIMDIV version of USHCN at the end of this brutal winter, I decided to download the new plot. The new CLIMDIV data was supposed to resolve issues with recent station moves, transition to airport, to new MMTS technology and UHI and siting issues with improvements late in the record, we were very surprised to see the biggest changes to the early data set.  1913 went from the warmest year in the record to the middle of the pack with a cooling of close to 5F!. The log term average dropped over 1F.  The long term trend rose to +0.23F/decade, the largest of the 50 states.



Basing government energy and tax policy on corrupted data ensures nothing but pain for only government gain.

Please help continue our work which has been pro bono. We are working behind the scenes to refute the false claims and comment back to the government oversight agencies and eventually the courts. Use the donate button in the left column. Any amount is appreciated.

Posted on 02/03 at 06:08 AM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, January 26, 2018
Can Anything Good Come from CO2?

January 29th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Global warming be damned - full speed ahead on the Maize Train.

USDA Corn Yield

The numbers are in from USDA, and 2017 saw a new record in average corn yield, with 176.6 bushels per acre.

In fact, the last four growing seasons (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) had higher yields than any previous years. The last time that happened was in 1964.

And compared to 1964, the U.S. is producing nearly three times as much corn per acre as we did back then.

There is no indication of a slowdown in the long-term upward trends in corn yields. While the 176.6 bpa U.S. average for 2017 is a huge increase compared to just 50 years ago, the latest winner for the highest yield produced by a single farmer has risen again to over 542 bpa, which is fully three times the U.S. average yield.

While the global warmmongers continue to wring their hands over rising temperatures hurting yields (the Corn Belt growing season has indeed warmed slightly since 1960), improved varieties and the “global greening” benefits of more atmospheric CO2 have more than offset any negative weather effects - if those even exist.

Globally, upward trends in all grain yields have been experienced in recent decades. Of course, droughts and floods cause regional crop failures almost every year. That is normal and expected. But there has been no global average increase in these events over the last century.

In his latest movie, Al Gore claimed just the opposite for wheat yields in China. While I hesitate to call him a liar, since I don’t know where he got his information - Gore was just plain wrong.

The sky is not falling. Life on Earth depends upon CO2, even though there is so little of it - now 4 parts per 10,000 of the atmosphere, compared to 3 parts a century ago. No matter how much we emit, nature gobbles up 50% of it.

Most of the evidence suggests that life is now breathing more freely than any time in human history, thanks to our CO2 emissions.


Dr. Neil Frank

As much of America remains frigid, media headlines shout far and wide that catastrophic man-made climate change is to blame.  But is it true?

What are the basic facts about climate that people need to know?  Four questions can aid in the understanding of this complicated topic.

First, is the Earth warming?

Second, if it is, what is causing the warming?

Third, assuming that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, what is the cost of mitigating its impact?

And fourth, if CO2 has little or no impact on the Earth’s temperature, can anything good come from future increases of CO2?

So is the Earth warming?  Yes!  The Earth is warming, and it has been for over 150 years as the world emerges from the Little Ice Age.  Atmospheric CO2 has also been increasing since WWI.

What causes the warming?  That is a matter of intense debate.

In the 1980s, meteorologists observed that the Earth’s temperature was increasing at the same time as atmospheric CO2 concentration was rising.

A group at NASA concluded that CO2 is driving the warming.  They developed a numerical model of the atmosphere that projected an alarming rise in the Earth’s temperature and made public announcements of an impending disaster.  All the alarmist statements from the 1980s until today are based on numerical models.

But beginning in 1998, the Earth’s temperature plateaued (currently referred to as the “pause") while CO2 levels continued to spiral upward.  This caused a number of scientists outside the “alarmist” community to undertake an in-depth review of what has become a serious controversy.

These “skeptics” are convinced that meteorological data overwhelmingly show that CO2 is not a major factor in the global temperature.  Their belief is based on three primary reasons.

First, the pause has lasted for nearly twenty years, while atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to rise.  Second, there is a poor correlation between CO2 and the Earth’s temperature, as evidenced by the current pause and the fact that what correlations exist often show that temperature changes before CO2 rather than vice versa.  And third, failure of the numerical models, which predict double and triple the warming seen in real-world observations, suggests that the CO2 terms in the models are wrong.

Nevertheless, assuming that the alarmists are right and CO2 is causing global warming, what would be the cost to mitigate warming driven by CO2?

This brings us to the meeting of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in December 2015, when 194 nations agreed to reduce CO2 emissions by unrealistic amounts.

It was recognized that developing nations would need financial help to achieve their goals.  The conference agreed to establish a “Green Climate Fund” that would be distributed to developing nations.  The goal was to have $100 billion in this fund by 2020.  Of the 194 countries, 46 agreed to be donor nations, which means there would be almost 150 receiver nations.

At the meeting, the 46 donor nations made an initial pledge of $10 billion, with 90% coming from six countries: England, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the United States, with the U.S. carrying the heavy load of $3 billion.  It was agreed that pledges would be paid in two years.  Yet, two years later, only $3.4 billion has been collected, with over one fourth of it from the U.S.

In 2017, however, President Trump announced that the U.S. would pull out of the agreement.  If we were to rejoin the Paris agreement, we would have to pay over $2 billion immediately to satisfy our pledge, and that would only be the beginning, because the goal is to have $100 billion in the “Green Climate Fund” by 2020.  Without billions of dollars from the U.S., the Paris Agreement is doomed.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates that it will cost the world $7.4 trillion by 2040, and Bjorn Lomborg estimates that it will cost from $70 to $140 trillion by 2100 if all nations comply with the Paris Agreement.

In addition, there have been billions of dollars spent domestically on global warming.  The Capital Research Center estimated the United States spent $166 billion on global warming from 1993-2014, and the budgets for 2015-2017 were around $20 billion per year.

What does all this money buy us?  Estimates assuming that CO2’s warming effect is large range to as much as a 1.5-degree centigrade reduction in global average temperature at the end of this century.  But the most credible figure, generously based on the IPCC’s own assumptions of CO2’s warming effect, seems to be under 0.2 degrees centigrade.  That is a lot of money for an insignificant result.

Finally, if the skeptics are right, and CO2 is not a major factor in the Earth’s temperature, warming prevented by the Paris agreement would be even less, though the costs would remain the same.

Meanwhile, can anything good come from expected future increases of CO2?  The answer is a resounding yes!

We have known for years that CO2 enhances plant growth.  Over 1,000 scientific studies on a variety of plants have documented this growth, but only recently has there been an attempt to put a monetary value on the increases.

Dr. Craig Idso, in a fascinating investigation, used the results of these studies to determine the growth rate of 45 plants for the period 1961-2011.  These plants produce 95% of the food for the world’s population.  He then converted this growth into a dollar value.  For the fifty-year period ending in 2011, growth of plants by CO2 resulted in an increase of $3.2 trillion for the world’s agricultural community.

Dr. Idso then projected these results forward to 2050, assuming that CO2 would continue to increase at the current rate.  The world could realize an astounding $9.8-trillion additional bonus!

The great news is that it costs nothing to achieve this goal.  All we have to do is continue using fossil fuels at today’s rate.

In summary, the alarmists’ policies will cost trillions of dollars in a largely ineffectual attempt to mitigate warming, with no proof that mitigation is necessary and with current attempts proven to be utterly dismal.  The skeptics’ solution will result in a return of trillions of dollars in increased agricultural growth and, more important, will allow developing countries to continue using abundant, affordable, and reliable energy sources - namely, fossil fuels - to rise and stay out of poverty and avoid the high rates of disease and premature death that invariably accompany it.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

P.S. If you liked this article you might enjoy our Cornwall Alliance Email Newsletter! Sign up here to receive analysis on top issues of the day related to science, economics, and poverty development.

Posted on 01/26 at 12:39 PM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, January 15, 2018
The Children’s Climate Lawsuit Against The Children



By Benjamin Zycher
Investor’s Business Daily

Litigation may be as American as apple pie, but some lawsuits are so destructive that they stand out even among the hugely expensive wreckage wrought by our legal system. The most prominent current example is the “children’s” climate lawsuit (Juliana v U.S.): A group of kids, including “future generations, through their guardian Dr. James Hansen,” claim that the government’s actions and failures to act have caused climate change, thus violating the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, and have failed to protect essential public trust resources.

I leave the numerous legal issues to the lawyers, although precisely how the ineffable Hansen came to be the “guardian” for future generations is a question both fascinating and amusing. Instead, it is crucial to recognize first that the fundamental policy assumption underlying this lawsuit - we can make “the children” better off by making them poorer - is preposterous.

More generally, the lawsuit is a blatant attempt to circumvent democratic processes, in terms of both the Congressional power to make policy and the authority of the president to implement it.

Climate policies- mandated reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - by and large are energy policies, and the constitution is silent on which such policies would serve the interests of future generations, or on the appropriate tradeoffs between the interests of “the children” and the adults alive in the here and now.

Those are policy questions, and this attempt to induce judges to interfere with Congress’ legislative powers is deeply destructive of our constitutional institutions. Should “the children” not be concerned about that? Why are “the children” not suing about, say, the national debt?

Second, the claim about the protection of “essential public trust resources” boils down to an assertion that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant.” No, it is not: A certain minimum atmospheric concentration of it is necessary for life itself. (Merely look at NASA’s time-lapse photo of the earth’s greening over the last 30-plus years.) By far the most important GHG is water vapor; does anyone claim that it is a “pollutant?” Obviously not, and not because ocean evaporation is a natural process; so are volcanic eruptions, and the massive amounts of effluents emitted by volcanoes are pollutants by any definition.

Third, consider a homo sapiens baby born in a cave some tens of thousands of years ago, in a world with environmental quality effectively untouched by mankind. That child at birth would have had a life expectancy on the order of ten years; had it been able to choose, it is obvious that it willingly would have given up some environmental quality in exchange for better housing, food, water, medical care, safety, ad infinitum. That is, it is obvious that people willingly choose to give up some environmental quality in exchange for a life both longer and wealthier.

In other words, the children’s lawsuit is inconsistent with actual interests of future generations, as the obvious underlying assumption is that future generations would prefer the purest possible environmental quality. That is not correct: Future generations want to inherit the most valuable possible capital stock in all of its myriad dimensions, among which environmental quality is one important component among many, and among all of which there are tradeoffs that cannot be avoided.

Is it the position of the attorneys representing “the children” that making energy more rather than less expensive unambiguously would make future generations better off? In order for future generations to receive the most valuable possible capital stock, the current generation must consume and invest resources most productively.

If regulatory and other policies implemented by the current generation yield less wealth now and a smaller total capital stock for future generations, then more resource consumption and more emissions of effluents currently would be preferred from the viewpoint of those future generations.

That is only the beginning of the problematic factual assertions and assumptions underlying the children’s lawsuit. The measurable effects of increasing GHG concentrations are far smaller than the climate models would lead one to believe. The degree to which recent warming has been anthropogenic is unsettled in the scientific literature; and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fifth assessment report (AR5) has reduced its estimated range of the effect in 2100 of a doubling of GHG concentrations from 2.0-4.5 to 1.5-4.5 degrees C.

There actually is little evidence of strong climate effects attendant upon increasing GHG concentrations, in terms of sea levels; Arctic and Antarctic sea ice; tornado activity; tropical cyclones; U.S. wildfires; drought; and flooding. IPCC in the AR5 is deeply dubious (Table 12.4) about the various severe effects often hypothesized (or asserted) as future impacts of increasing GHG concentrations.

One might assume that the facts underlying a lawsuit ought to be consistent with its central claims; one would be wrong. And wrong again if one assumes that the policy objective would make an actual difference: The Paris agreement with full U.S. participation would reduce temperatures by 2100 by seventeen one-hundredths of a degree. The U.S. contribution would be fifteen one-thousandths of a degree. Add another one one-hundredth of a degree if you believe that the Obama pseudo-agreement with China is meaningful.  (It is not.)

Precisely what is the children’s climate lawsuit trying to achieve? It cannot be protection of our constitutional principles, or protection of future generations, or environmental improvement. Only one possibility remains: It is part of the long-term effort by the environmental left to use any means possible to exert control over other people’s property, economic choices, and lifestyles. The plaintiff attorneys are happy to participate in a litigation process in which “the children” are irrelevant.

Posted on 01/15 at 10:48 AM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, January 05, 2018
Bomb Cyclone causes flurry of man-caused “climate change” blame

By Leslie Eastman

One man, in particular, was singled out for criticism. Guess who!

Professor Jacobson Walkway

The new year has certainly started with a blast...of arctic air.

From Maine to Florida, Americans are trying to fight off the effects of a “bomb cyclone”. The term has an interesting history, originating in the era of World War II meteorology.

Over the years, sudden, intense storms have sunk many ships in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. These storms are often mistaken for hurricanes because they an spawn 74 mph and faster, hurricane force winds.

In the 1940s some meteorologists began informally calling some of these storms “bombs” because they develop “with a ferocity we rarely, if ever, see over land,” said Fred Sanders, a retired MIT professor, who brought the term into common usage by describing them in a 1980 article in the Monthly Weather Review.

...Today, a bomb cyclone is an extratropical area of low pressure in which the central barometric pressure drops at least 24 millibars in 24 hours. Some storms have intensified as rapidly as 60 millibars in a 24 hour period. A few bomb cyclones even develop “eyes”, similar to the center of a hurricane.

Professor Jacobson had to shovel himself out of his Rhode Island home (featured image). But he is used to digging through a world of liberal snowflakes, so it didn’t slow him down much.

There are reports of massive flooding in Massachusetts:


Snow and icy conditions are being reported in many, unexpected place.

South Carolina:

This is less than half of the results from the bomb cyclone yesterday morning. I live in South Carolina.




Rare snow brings joy to ‘Sunshine State’. Tallahassee has snow for the first time in 28 years as a major winter weather system hits the US.

However, what is not unexpected are the assertions that this is all “climate change” caused by man.

In Scientific American, Jeff Masters, director of meteorology and co-founder of Weather Underground (leftist you think?), addressed the question of whether the super-storm was a product of global warming.

We would expect it to be playing some role, since climate change is fundamentally affecting the atmosphere and changing the base state in which storms arise. So potentially you would have more moisture available to this storm, just because the oceans are hotter because of global warming - and that could potentially increase the impacts of a storm like this. There-s also some question about weather global warming might be affecting the jet stream, which is an important trigger for this storm.

Icecap Note: Jeff your meteorological naivette continues to amaze me. Global warming theory suggests high latitudes warm more than low latitudes in low levels which would reduce the contrast and jet stream and make explosive development events like this rarer not more likely. We have had 26 such major impact east coast storms since 2006, not prior decade had more than 10..

One man, in particular, was singled out for blame.

“We knew a Trump Presidency would be an absolute shit storm, but no one could have predicted this shit bomb cyclone!”

“Makes sense that our first “bomb cyclone” would be when Trump is in office since everything now has to be...”

Ultimately, I suspect the term “bomb cyclone” was assigned to this particular storm to add extra media drama and is being used as click-bait. The storm is actually a nor’easter, which is a regular weather scourge of the North East (though super-sized in this case).

A major nor’easter packed with powerful winds unloaded more than a foot of snow across the New York City area Thursday, bringing much of the region to a standstill.

The region has been gearing up for the storm for days, with cities and towns getting snow removal resources in place. And it didn’t disappoint, prompting school closures, mass transit delays, flight cancellations and treacherous driving conditions.

The storm prompted states of emergency to be issued for parts of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, as officials warned people to stay off the roads.

While I hope everyone stays safe and returns to the regular routine soon, I would like to see that plans are being made to prevent future cold-related power-outages and other weather-related problems. As I noted in a previous post, it is suspected that a decline in sunspots means a decline in solar activity.

The mini-ice age, which occurred well before extensive fossil fuel usage by man, occurred during a protracted period of no sun-spots. The number of sun-spot free days are anticipated to be increasing through 2018.

Brace yourselves: Winter is here, and won’t be leaving anytime soon. (If we get the January thaw, winter will return.

Commenter gets it right:

tom_swift | January 5, 2018 at 9:18 am

There’s also some question about weather global warming might be affecting the jet stream

Which means there’s also a rather big question about the science being settled.

climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis.

This is what Max Weber’s writings about “falsifiability” meant. When anything that happens can be considered to verify one’s crackpot theories - Something happens, that’s proof! The same something doesn’t happen, that’s proof, too! - it’s a cult, not a science. Weber was originally writing about Marxism, but the principle is the same for all cults which claim some unique understanding of the physical world.


Thank God for fossil fuel.


Posted on 01/05 at 11:31 AM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, January 02, 2018
TV Science Guy: Economic Sanctions Coming for Climate Deniers

Mad Patriots

According to television’s Bill Nye, the Science Guy, conservatives in Republican-controlled states should “watch out” because Democrats in other parts of the country weren’t going to stand by idly and watch as the federal government ignored climate change. In an interview with MSNBC on Friday, Nye - who is not a scientist of any kind, much less a climate expert - said that blue states were ready to take it upon themselves to address global warming. He said that may even extend to punishing states that did not take measures to clamp down on the fossil fuel industry.

“Only 40 percent of people in the U.S. think that Congress should be addressing this and that’s because certain conservative groups, especially from the fossil fuel industry, have been very successful in introducing the idea that scientific uncertainty, plus or minus two percent, is the same as plus or minus 100 percent.” Nye said.

Nye, whose Netflix show is a wasteland of liberal insanity, went on to say that climate change issues were a matter of constitutional independence from government.

“There’s a lot of emphasis from conservatives on what are writ-large states rights,” he said. “Just watch out, conservatives, if states rights include California, Illinois, New York - these places that, where people voted in a progressive fashion - watch out if all those places start to address climate change and then impose economic sanctions, either overtly or by default, on places that have not embraced the work that needs to be done. Then you’ll end up with this states rights working the other way.”

Uh-huh. Well, yes, each state certainly has the right to develop their own economic practices and no one is denying that to be the case. But if states like California and New York are going to penalize the use and manufacture of oil and gasoline, it won’t be conservative states paying the price by any means. Indeed, this appears to have all the makings of state-imposed economic suicide.

Nothing new for Democrat-run fiefdoms, though…

It is fascinating, though, to watch these Democrats - still SO ANGRY that they lost the 2016 election - increasingly support independence from the federal government. But you’ll note that they only support that independence insofar as they want to be free from Washington’s rules. They DON’T want to actually go the full mile and pay any economic consequence for their independence. When it comes to illegal immigration, climate change, and other areas of disagreement with the Trump administration, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Flaunt the federal government’s laws while accepting millions and millions of dollars in federal funds.

With rights come responsibility. If liberal America wants to declare its independence, let them take on the financial responsibility of doing so.


Bill Nye had a degree in Engineering. He i not a scientist. In fact his first job was as a stand-up comic. He then thought he could use his public exposure experience to become the modern day Mr. Wizard. 

The original Mr. Wizard, Don Herbert, was the creator and host of Watch Mr. Wizard (1951-65, 1971-72) and of Mr. Wizard’s World (1983-90), which were educational television programs for children devoted to science and technology. As Patrick kelley wrote in 2013 in the Emporia Gazette “Herbert’s approach to science was a welcome relief from the worshipful awe of scientists that followed the creation of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II. The public saw scientists as white-coated super-intellects who kept their cool gazes focused above the heads of the rest of humanity on a remote horizon that no one else could see. The atomic era seemed to widen the gap between scientists and the rest of humanity. Then Herbert showed up, friendly, accessible and smart, and showed children how the principles of science worked for everyone, not just for people with Ph.D.’s and lab coats.

Nye is an ideologue with disdain for anyone who does not share his political persuasion and who lets his ideology drive his position on the science unlike the true scientists like Feynman who was a champion of the scientific method. Bill is an embarrassment to real scientists.  Envirofacists are taking matters into their own hands attempting to and actually committing eco-terrorism - see .

Oh by the way Bill
Dr.Roy Spencer reports:

This morning at 7 a.m. EST, Monday the area average temperature across the contiguous 48 states was a frigid 11 deg. F. It was 13F Tuesday.

Here’s the high-resolution surface temperature analysis from NCEP, graphic courtesy of

Surface temperature analysis at 7 a.m. EST January 1, 2018.

Over 85% of the nation is below freezing, and nearly 1/3 is below 0 deg. F. The forecast is for cold air to continue to flow down out of Canada into the central and eastern U.S. for most of the coming week.

Posted on 01/02 at 09:19 AM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, December 18, 2017
Scientific peer review: an ineffective and unworthy institution

By Paul Homewood

h/t stewgreen

The Times Higher Education Supplement’s blog carries a damning indictment of peer review, which has very real relevance to the climate change debate:

Given the entirely appropriate degree of respect that science has for data, the ongoing discussion of peer review is often surprisingly data-free and underlain by the implicit assumption that peer review - although in need of improvement - is indispensable.

The thing is, the peer review of scientific reports is not only without documented value in advancing the scientific enterprise but, in a manner that few care to acknowledge openly, primarily serves ends that are less than noble. Peer review is widely assumed to provide an imprimatur of scientific quality (and significance) for a publication, but this is clearly not the case.

While the many flaws of peer review are clearly laid out in the literature, its failure to protect the integrity of the scientific enterprise is notable. An estimated cost of irreproducible biomedical research is $28 billion (20 billion pounds) a year and ‘currently, many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an estimated 85 per cent of research resources are wasted’, one paper found.

A prime example of the failure of peer review is the tainting of a significant segment of the biomedical literature by the use of misidentified and contaminated cell lines pointing, at best, to a culture of carelessness in cell biology research and the clear failure of peer review to discover and correct erroneous research.

There are many reasons why scientific peer review is ineffective. An important factor is the inadequacy of almost all scientific reporting; publications should contain sufficient information that all aspects of the work can be understood, permitting a published result to be reproduced from the original data, as well as independent replication of the study by others wishing to do this.

If these minimal standards are not met then critical information is missing and the reader has no way of assessing if the published research is correct or false in its claims and conclusions - even exact replication of a study is precluded. Reproducibility and repeatability require that all theory, methods, equipment, reagents, source code, computational environment, raw data and analytical and statistical methods be fully documented and openly available.

This standard is not enforced by peer review as currently practiced, with the result that most publications in most journals should be viewed by the skeptical reader as little better than advertisements that present the authors’ claim to priority but preclude straightforward and independent verification.

We are not the first to identify these problems, so we might ask why peer review retains its essentially unassailable status. We suggest a two-fold answer rooted more in socio-economic factors than the dispassionate review of scientific research.

First, peer review is self-evidently useful in protecting established paradigms and disadvantaging challenges to entrenched scientific authority. Second, peer review, by controlling access to publication in the most prestigious journals helps to maintain the clearly recognized hierarchies of journals, of researchers, and of universities and research institutes. Peer reviewers should be experts in their field and will therefore have allegiances to leaders in their field and to their shared scientific consensus; conversely, there will be a natural hostility to challenges to the consensus, and peer reviewers have substantial power of influence (extending virtually to censorship) over publication in elite (and even not-so-elite) journals.

Publication in the highest-profile journals reinforces the hierarchies of status in the scientific community and promotes very effectively the prestige-, career- and profit-driven motives of authors, journal editors, publishers and (less directly) universities. This state of affairs exerts a particularly baleful influence on interdisciplinary research.

Innovations in peer review (including dispensing with its traditional forms) are to be encouraged. It may be that open publication through servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv, along with public and signed post-publication comment, are the solution to the problems noted above.

However, for any innovations in scientific publication to succeed two conditions would need to be met. The first, as noted above, is the provision with a publication of all the information necessary for independent reproduction and repeatability of the research, and the second is the improvement in the culture of science such that less than rigorous work and deceptive publication practices are no longer tolerated.

With the scientific method itself at risk, the stakes could not be higher.

Les Hatton is a mathematician and emeritus professor at Kingston University. Gregory Warr is a biochemist and emeritus professor at the Medical University of South Carolina. Both have extensive experience as peer reviewers and journal editors.

See more here and here.

Posted on 12/18 at 05:36 PM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, December 17, 2017
Global Warming: Fake News from the Start

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change because it is a bad deal for America. He could have made the decision simply because the science is false, but most of the public have been brainwashed into believing it is correct and wouldn’t understand the reason.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and indeed the leaders of many western democracies, though thankfully not the U.S., support the Agreement and are completely unaware of the gross deficiencies in the science. If they did, they wouldn’t be forcing a carbon dioxide (CO2) tax, on their citizens.

Trudeau and other leaders show how little they know, or how little they assume the public know, by calling it a ‘carbon tax.’ But CO2 is a gas, while carbon is a solid. By calling the gas carbon, Trudeau and others encourage people to think of it as something ‘dirty’, like graphite or soot, which really are carbon. Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that it is actually an invisible, odorless gas essential to plant photosynthesis.

Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is arguably the most misinformed of the lot, saying in a recent interview, for example, that “Polluters should pay.” She apparently does not know that CO2 is not a pollutant.

And, like many of her political peers, McKenna dismisses credentialed PhD scientists who disagree with her government’s approach, labelling them “deniers.” She does not seem to understand that questioning scientific hypotheses, even scientific theories, is what all scientists should do. That is why the official motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius in verba,” Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it.” Ironically, the Society rarely practices this approach when it comes to climate change.

Mistakes such as those made by McKenna are not surprising considering that the entire claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was built on falsehoods and spread with fake news.

The plot to deceive the world about human-caused global warming gathered momentum following creation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). After spending five days at the U.N. with Maurice Strong, the first executive director of UNEP, Hamilton Spectator investigative reporter Elaine Dewar concluded the overarching objective of the IPCC was political. “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the global governance agenda,” wrote Dewar.

The political agenda required ‘credibility’ to achieve the deception. It also required some fake news for momentum. Ideally, this would involve testimony from a scientist before a legislative committee.

U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) was fully committed to the political agenda and the deception as he explained in a 1993 comment, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing...”

In 1988 Wirth was in a position to jump start the climate alarm. He worked with colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to organize a June 23, 1988 hearing where Dr. James Hansen, then the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), was to testify. Wirth explained in a 2007 interview with PBS Frontline:

“We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So, we called him up and asked him if he would testify.”

Hansen did not disappoint. The New York Times reported on June 23, 1988:

“Today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.”

Specifically, Hansen told the committee,

“Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming...It is already happening now”.

Hansen also testified:

“The greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now...We already reached the point where the greenhouse effect is important.”

Dr. John S. Theon, Hansen’s former supervisor at NASA, wrote to the Senate Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Hansen never abandoned his single-minded, unsubstantiated claim that CO2 from human activities caused dangerous global warming. He defied the Hatch Act that limits bureaucratic political actions, and, in 2011, was even arrested in a protest at the White House against the Keystone XL pipeline, at least his third such arrest to that point.

Wirth, who presided at the hearing, was pre-disposed to believe Hansen and told the committee:

‘“As I read it, the scientific evidence is compelling: the global climate is changing as the earth’s atmosphere gets warmer. Now, the Congress must begin to consider how we are going to slow or halt that warming trend and how we are going to cope with the changes that may already be inevitable.”

So, like Trudeau and other leaders duped by the climate scare, Wirth has either not read or not understood the science. In fact, an increasing number of climate scientists (including Dr. Ball) now conclude that there is no empirical evidence of human-caused global warming; there are only computer model speculations that humans are causing it and every forecast made using these models since 1990 has been wrong.

More than any other event, that single hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee publicly initiated the climate scare, the biggest deception in history. It created an unholy alliance between a bureaucrat and a politician, that was bolstered by the U.N. and the popular press leading to the hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools, and churches across the world.

Trump must now end America’s participation in the fake science and the fake news of man-made global warming. To do this, he must withdraw the U.S. from further involvement with all U.N. global warming programs, especially the IPCC as well as the agency that now directs it - the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Only then will the U.S. have a chance to fully develop its hydrocarbon resources to achieve the president’s goal of global energy dominance.

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
28 Tiverton Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6L5

Posted on 12/17 at 03:53 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Rebutting the claim that snowfall and snowcover is diminishing as the earth warms

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

See cable hour on hurricanes and snow here.

This is a brief rebuttal to claims made in the CSSR NCA released this year. We are preparing 21 such rebuttals to some bad science. Many organizations that are climate realists are doing this. This is done pro bono. We would appreciate your help as we at Icecap work with some of the nation’s top scientists. Our DONATE button is on the left. Small donations are welcome. We have to cover our maintenance fees for the site before we begin to cover our expenses. BTW we have done another cable show for HCTV reviewing this hurricane season and talking about winters including this one beginning. We will post the link and video when it is ready to go next week. By the way, the BHO posted our winter outlook on their website.

We thank you on this Thanksgiving weekend when we all give thanks for all we have, all the special people in our lives. Each year we recommit ourselves to make us worthy of your appreciation. We have surpassed 96 million page hits.



Snowfall and snowcover is diminishing as the earth warms

This is one claim that has been repeated for decades even as nature shows very much the opposite trend with unprecedented snows even to the big coastal cities. Every time they repeat the claim, it seems nature ups the ante more.

They have eventually evolved to crediting warming with producing greater snowfall, because of increased moisture but the events in recent years have usually occurred in colder winters with high snow water equivalent ratios in dry arctic air.

Snowcover in the Northern Hemisphere, North America and Eurasia has been increasing since the 1960s in the fall and winter but declining in the spring and summer. Methodology changes at the turn of this century may be responsible for part of the warm season differences.

Claims and a reality check

On March 20, 2000, the UK Independent, reported that “Snowfalls are just a thing of the past”. They quoted David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia “Global warming was simply making the UK too warm for heavy snowfalls. Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Similarly, David Parker, at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said that eventually British children could have only “virtual” experience of snow via movies and the Internet.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said in 2006 Scientists claim winters becoming warmer and less snowy. They published the results of the study on its climatechoices website: “Across the globe, and here in the Northeast, the climate is changing. Records show that spring is arriving earlier, summers are growing hotter, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming, an urgent phenomenon driven by heat-trapping emissions from human activities”

The IPCC and US government reports through 2007 had projected snows would become much less common as the climate warms especially in the cities. The UCS had a media workshop in the late summer of 2007 on Mt. Washington promising a dire future for the winter sports and maple sugar industries That next winter all time seasonal snow records were set for snowfall in the northeast from Concord to Caribou (and all through the western US up to Alaska).

The Technical Support Document for the EPA in 2009 (page 29) stated: “Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average (1961-1990) temperatures were close to 0C.”

The latest CSSR NCA had as a key finding:"There has been a trend toward earlier snowmelt and a decrease in snowstorm frequency on the southern margins of climatologically snowy areas (medium confidence). Winter storm tracks have shifted northward since 1950 over the Northern Hemisphere (medium confidence).”

Princeton Environmentalist Michael Oppenheimer and RFK Jr, in 2008 both bemoaned their children in the DC area would never get to enjoy sledding like they did as young in the 1960s.

That very next winter, the DC area and the entire Mid-Atlantic had record snowfall in what was called Smowmaggedon.


Starting in 2008, the UK and much of Europe and the Northern Hemisphere began receiving snow and cold at levels not seen since the days of Charles Dickens in the early 1800s. December 2010 was the second coldest December in the Central England temperature data back to 1659.


In the United States, the winter of 2013/14 was the coldest and snowiest ever in places since the 1800s in the Great Lakes. Along the east coast we have seen record setting snow years and 24 major impact snowstorms for the 10-year period ending 201/17. No other decade had had more the 10.


But the media continues to be oblivious to the real data as the hype machine continues to sell its story despite the failure. The New York Times had an article in February, 2014 titled ‘The end of snow.’ The article documented how snow soon was going to be a distant memory and our kids would never see it except in news reels.

The UCS from the UNH in January 2015 after the winter got off a slow snow start repeated their annual warning about the climate change induced death of the ski and maple sugar industries. But then 2014/15 set records for snowfall in Boston (back to 1872) and many other locations in the northeast into southeastern Canada. In 6 weeks over 100 inches of snow fell in the Boston area with 110.6 inches for the winter. It was also the coldest January to March period and in much of the northeast, February 2015 was the coldest month in history.

The recent snowy winters has the 10 year running mean snowfall in Boston at the highest in the entire record back to the 1880s.


It appears for the eastern areas, the 2014/15 winters snowblitz may have delivered the most snow since perhaps 1717.  That year, the snow was so deep that people could only leave their houses from the second floor, implying actual snow depths of as much as 8 feet or more.


The driver for the 2014/15 winter was the same as in the frigid winters of 1916/17, 1917/18, 1976/77 and 1977/78, 1993/94 and 2002/03 - a pool of warm water in the northeast Pacific extending south along the entire west coast.


Alarmists claimed increased snow is consistent with global warming because warmer air holds more moisture. In actual fact, only 1 of the 14 years with more than 60 inches of snow in Boston was warmer than normal.


Snow is favored in COLD winters and increases with cooling not warming. In the 39 days in the heart of 2014/15 winter when Boston had 100.2 inches of snow, the melted precipitation was 5.69 inches, a ratio of 17.6 to 1. Typical snow to melted precipitation ration is 10 to 12 to 1. The big snows in recent years have come with unusually cold temperatures. Seasonal snows are high in cold winters, low in warmer winters.

They also claimed that snowcover though is shrinking especially in the spring and summer. They neglect to mention the snowcover is increasing in the fall and winter.



The spring snow extent is diminishing. But some of this may be due to the change in the methodology for snow measurement - from a manual evaluation to an automated albedo (reflectivity) method which in 2000 had NOAA provide a user beware warning not to compare snow cover in the warmer months to values before 2000.


Posted on 11/22 at 11:00 PM
(3) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, November 06, 2017
Early rebuttals of the scientifically flawed NCA

As one might expect from a UN inspired report, especially one with such a weak team of Lead Authors, this one will set a new record for these reports for bad science. the key findings often do not reflect the material continued within much as was the case with the UN reports and prior government sponsored reports.

There are a few early responses.

2016 National Climate Assessment, a Self Falsifying Prophecy

Guest post by David Middleton on WUWT

There has been some recent “buzz” about the upcoming Fourth National Climate Assessment (NC4), including some moonbat conspiracy theories that the Trump administration will try to suppress or otherwise interfere with the scientific integrity of the report.  The New York Times has already been forced to essentially retract such a claim in a recent article.

If NC4 actually builds upon 2014’s NC3, EPA Administrator Pruitt’s Red Team will have even more material to work with.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Development of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) is currently underway, with anticipated delivery in late 2018. Below you will find information related to NCA4, including a list of chapters, explanation of author roles, and opportunities to participate in the process.

What’s New in NCA4

NCA4 will build upon the successes of the Third National Climate Assessment. Find out more:


“NCA4 will build upon the successes of the Third National Climate Assessment"… What success?

Here’s a link to the NCA3 overview.

The first “sciencey” graphic is titled:  Projected Global Temperature Change.


And then just enlarged the Epic Failure bits to get the Red Team’s QED:



Then there is Tony Heller’s attack on the temperature claims.

Very High Confidence Of Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

Katharine Hayhoe and her partners in crime have officially released their National Climate Assessment, which includes this graph, which claims “Record Warm Daily Temperatures Are Occurring More Often”.


The first thing I noticed is that the text in the report does not match the graph. They say :

The Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the peak period for extreme heat in the United States

Yet the graph right below it does not show the 1930’s as being hot.


Unfortunately for Katharine and her band of climate fraudsters, I have software which does this calculation. The graph below is the correct version. Their graph is more or less correct after 1970 - but the pre-1970 data is completely fraudulent. They removed all of the hot weather from 1930 to 1954.  NOAA does not make adjustments to daily temperatures, so they can’t use that excuse.


The report claims :

Record Warm Daily Temperatures Are Occurring More Often

That is an outright lie.  Record warm daily maximum temperatures have decreased sharply since 1930 - the start date of their graph.


The number of record daily minimums has also decreased.


The US climate is getting milder, with fewer very hot or very cold days.


So why the big spikes in 2012 and 2016?


This is a classic divide by zero error. Ratios become unstable when the denominator becomes small. The numbers are meaningless. No serious scientist would release a wildly flawed and dishonest graph like Katharine Hayhoe does on a consistent basis.

See Tonys video:

See one more detailed assessment by Judith Curry.

Posted on 11/06 at 08:21 PM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, October 09, 2017
Misuse of the scientific method has led to peer review failures with significant implications

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

See this excellent video from Tony Heller challenging the climate mafia and their continuing adjustment of data. No scientific method is being applied to the work of Government agencies and their cohorts like RSS.


The scientific method in science is a well established iterative process. The scientific method starts with a theory or hypothesis. The data needed to test it and all possible factors involved are identified and gathered. The data is processed and the results rigorously tested. The data and methods are made available for independent replication. Reviewers for the proposed theory must have the requisite skills in the topic and in the proper statistical analysis of the data to judge its validity. If it passes the tests and replication efforts, a conclusion is made and the theory may be turned into a paper for publication. If it fails the tests, the hypothesis or theory must be rethought or modified.

Astronomer Carl Sagan, Professor and Director of Cornell University’s Laboratory for Planetary Studies and host of the series Cosmos a Personal Voyage in a 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark explained the scientific method and encouraged critical and skeptical thinking. He emphasized the importance of recognizing the difference between what is considered valid science and which is in reality pseudoscience.

Sagan like fellow Cornell physicist/lecturer Richard Feynman argued when new ideas are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of skeptical thinking and should stand up to rigorous questioning. Feynman lectured;

“If a theory or proposed law disagrees with experiment (or observation), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what your name is.... If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Sir Karl Popper, an Austrian-British philosopher and professor is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favor of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.


It should noted a refutation of a previously accepted theory even one that has been published and widely accepted can follow the same route to review and publication as Albert Einstein observed:


The peer review process is failing due to political and economic pressures that have altered the scientific method to virtually ensure a politically correct or economically fruitful theory can never fail.

When the tests fail, instead of rethinking the theory or including other factors, there is an alarming tendency to modify input data to more closely fit the theory or models.


Also often, the authors and reviewers do not to have the proper understanding of all the factors involved and often the needed mathematical skills to properly evaluate the results.  And even if they do, the input data and methods are generally not made available to the reviewers for replication.  And in many cases, forecasts are made for many decades or even centuries into the future, so true validation is not possible, a luxury those of us who must forecast in shorter time frames (days to seasons) do not enjoy.

Also too often, the reviewers that then serve as final gatekeepers are often not only not fully capable of this kind of rigorous review, they are often biased and speed politically correct or economically beneficial work to publication while blocking or at least ‘slow walking’ work that challenges the so-called consensus science or their own often ideologically driven beliefs.

As Dr. Michael Crichton wrote “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc)”.


So when greenhouse climate models fail, they don’t revisit the theory but instead try and find the right data to fit that model. All data today is adjusted with models with a goal of addressing data errors, changes in location or instrumentation or addressing changing distribution or filling in for missing data or station closures. Once you start this adjustment process, it becomes increasingly possible to the find ways to mine from the data the desired results.

With the climate models there is an increasingly large divergence with balloon, satellite and surface reanalysis data sets the last 20 years. The one model that follows the temperature is a Russian model that has roughly half the greenhouse forcing and improved ocean modeling.


John Christy 2017 has shown models without greenhouse warming agreed perfectly with atmospheric (tropical) observations.


This kind of refutation should, if scientists abided by the scientific method, spark an effort to revisit the theory but that is too politically incorrect. This kind of ideologically or politically or economically driven thinking is pervasive across the sciences (atmospheric and medical).


There is increasing proof that the traditional journal peer review process is broken. This is true in the Medical and Scientific areas. 

See this example of one such falsified report that the author worries is a part of an epidemic of agenda-driven science by press release and falsification that has reached crisis proportions.

Other reports show an alarming number of papers having to be retracted.  Springer is retracting 107 papers from one journal after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews (here).

Result-oriented corruption of peer review in climate science was proven by the Climategate emails.

In the journals, there are a small set of gatekeepers that block anything that goes against the editorial biases of the journals. Conversely, these journals and their reviewers do not provide a thorough due diligence review of those that they tend to agree with ideologically.  They are engaged in orthodoxy enforcement.

In an essay ”Has Science Lost its Way?”, Michael Guillen Ph.D wrote about Science’s reproducibility crisis.

For any study to have legitimacy, it must be replicated, yet only half of medical studies celebrated in newspapers hold water under serious follow-up scrutiny - and about two-thirds of the “sexiest” cutting-edge reports, including the discovery of new genes linked to obesity or mental illness, are later “disconfirmed.” Though erring is a key part of the scientific process, this level of failure slows scientific progress, wastes time and resources and costs taxpayers excesses of $28 billion a year, writes NPR science correspondent Richard Harris.

The single greatest threat to science right now comes from within its own ranks. Last year Nature, the prestigious international science journal, published a study revealing that “More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.”

The inability to confirm research that was published in highly respected, peer-reviewed journals suggests something is very wrong with how science is being done.
The crisis afflicts even science’s most revered ‘facts,’ as cancer researchers C. G. Begley and Lee Ellis discovered. Over an entire decade they put fifty-three published “landmark” studies to the test; they succeeded in replicating only six - that’s an 11% success rate.

A major culprit, they discovered, is that many researchers cherry-picked the results of their experiments - subconsciously or intentionally - to give the appearance of success, thereby increasing their chances of being published.

“They presented specific experiments that supported their underlying hypothesis, but that were not reflective of the entire data set,” report Begley and Ellis, adding this shocking truth: There are no guidelines that require all data sets to be reported in a paper; often, original data are removed during the peer review and publication process’

Another apparent culprit is that - and it’s going to surprise most of you - too many scientists are actually never taught the scientific method. As graduate students, they take oodles of courses in their chosen specialty; but their thesis advisors never sit them down and indoctrinate them on best practices. Consequently, remarks University of Wisconsin-Madison biologist Judith Kimble: “They will go off and make it worse.”

This observation seems borne out by the Nature study, whose respondents said the three top weaknesses behind science’s reproducibility crisis are: 1) selective reporting, 2) pressure to publish, and 3) low statistical power or poor analysis. In other words, scientists need to improve on practicing what they preach, which is: 1) a respect for facts - all of them, not just the ones they like, 2) integrity, and 3) a sound scientific method.

The attendees of the so-called ‘Earth Day’ March for Science made a lot of noise about wanting more money and respect from the public and government - what group wouldn’t want that? But nary a whisper was heard from them or the media about science’s urgent reproducibility crisis. Leaving unspoken this elephant-sized question: If we aren’t able to trust the published results of science, then what right does it have to demand more money and respect, before making noticeable strides toward better reproducibility?

Michael Guillen Ph.D., former Science Editor for ABC News, taught physics at Harvard and author of “The Null Prophecy”.


Although well received and widely distributed, our recent press release and research paper hit a raw nerve with alarmists. The research sought to validate the current estimates of Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) using the best available relevant data. The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, which removed their cyclical temperature patterns, is totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.

Thus, despite current claims of record setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA, NASA and UK Hadley CRU GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. This means that EPA’s 2009 claim that CO2 is a pollutant has been decisively invalidated by this research.

We had shown in prior research reports here and here how even if you ignore the adjustments, the changes observed can be explained entirely by natural factors (ocean cycles, solar cycles and volcanism). If one considers the urban heat island contamination of surface date, the idea that temperatures may actually be declining since the 1930s in cyclical fashion, very much in line with record highs.

The media fact checkers, which serve often as enforcers of orthodoxy, could not meaningfully question the data or science presented but challenged the claim that it was ‘peer reviewed’ (in the sense the peer review process has been defined today by the ‘advocacy’ journals’ (really ‘pal review’wink.

Our research reports were rigorously peer reviewed by top scientists. The reports follow the approach long used in industry often for their own internal use. The reports were prepared by author teams with the requisite skills at proper data collection, a deep understanding of the scientific factors involved and statistical skills to evaluate what best explains the observed changes.

To abide by the scientific method, the work must be capable of being replicated. Our highly qualified reviewers who endorsed it are capable of evaluating the work scientifically and or statistically. They approval includes a willingness, even eagerness to endorse the work. The data and the methodology is available for others to replicate.

Our approach follows the long accepted application of the scientific method in a world where science is too politicized.

Posted on 10/09 at 07:30 AM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, October 02, 2017
Chief science adviser attacks academic ‘arrogance’ on policy

Times Higher Education

The chief science adviser to the prime minister of New Zealand has accused scientists of displaying “hubris” and “arrogance” when they comment on government policy.


Sir Peter Gluckman, who also chairs the International Network for Science Advice to Governments, leveled a series of sharp criticisms at researchers and science organizations during an event in Brussels that debated the role of policy and evidence in a “post-fact” world.

Working on an allotment

University rankings ‘must give greater recognition’ to engagement

He argued that scientists needed to appreciate that politicians made their decisions based on values as well as scientific evidence.

‘Individual scientists, professional and scientific organizations too often exhibit hubris in reflecting on policy implications of science,” Sir Peter told delegates at “EU for facts: evidence for policy in a post-fact world”, held on 26 September.

“This arrogance can become the biggest enemy of science effectively engaging with policy - the policy decisions inevitably involve dimensions beyond science.”

Scientists needed to appreciate that political ideology, financial and diplomatic constraints, and “electoral contracts’ also had to be taken into account by politicians, Sir Peter said. “It is important that [scientific] knowledge is provided [to policymakers] in a way that does not usurp the ability of policy process to consider these broader dimensions: otherwise trust in advice can be lost as it becomes perceived as advocacy,” he argued.

He also said that he avoided using the “somewhat arrogant” term “evidence-based policy”, preferring “evidence-informed” instead. Meanwhile, “too often academy reports are focused on academic demonstration rather than meeting policy needs or answering an unasked question”, he added.

Similar warnings have come from other figures in science. Last year, Jeremy Berg, the editor-in-chief of Science, said that academics have too often ventured into giving policy prescriptions rather than just explaining the evidence, for example in the area of climate change.

Although he named no names, Sir Peter also warned that “individual scientists” were now using their “scientific standing” to make claims “well beyond the evidence and their expertise”. Universities may also “over-hype” their science, he added.

In addition, the pressures of “performance measurement, bibliometrics, and the quest for societal and industrial impact” also have the potential to undermine public trust in science, he said, “due to perceived or actual conflicts of interest and the potential to affect the behaviour of individual scientists”.

At the same conference, Carlos Moedas, European commissioner for research, science and innovation, argued that to combat a “crisis of confidence” in science, there needed to be online “places of trust for scientific advice”, just as sites like Mayo Clinic or WebMD were trusted sources of medical advice.

Such sites would be “where citizens know that science is genuine. Where the process is explained. Where they can check the sources. Where they can access the data themselves,” he said.

“So I believe in the future there will be two types of internet. The one you trust and the one you don’t,” he added.


Prager University has excellent short videos on the topic:

Posted on 10/02 at 03:33 PM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, September 24, 2017
New York Times and Arctic Ice

The New York Times did a story on arctic ice this past week.

See in this video how Tony Heller responds to this story

See in this Icecap story how the changes are cyclical as Tony shows with data and news accounts including the New York Times.

We showed how the water from the Atlantic and Pacific enter the arctic underneath the floating ice. When the Atlantic and Pacific are in their warm modes, this leads to thinning ice and reduced summer coverage.


The UAF IARC showed how warm water in the Atlantic warms the arctic and reduces ice.


We showed how the Atlantic and Pacific combined warmth and coolness corresponds with arctic temperatures.


In the record-setting (since satellite monitoring began in 1979) summer melt season of 2007, NSIDC scientists noted the importance of both oceans in the arctic ice.

“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth.

Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss.

Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.”

Dr. Willie Soon shows a much better correlation of solar TSI and arctic temperatures than CO2.


Posted on 09/24 at 01:49 PM
(2) TrackbacksPermalink

Page 1 of 90 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Gary Sharp’s It’s All About Time

Watts Up with That?

Marshall Institute Climate Change

Raptor Education Foundation

AMSU Global Daily Temps

Redneck USA

CO2 Science

John McLean’s Global Warming Issues

APPINYS Global Warming

Energy Tribune

Climate Depot

Ross McKitrick Google Home Page

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint

Web Commentary

Scientific Alliance

Cornwall Alliance

The Inhofe EPW Press Blog

Analysis Online

Vaclav Klaus, Czech Republic President

Tropical Cyclone Blog of Ryan Maue COAPS

Carbon Folly

Climate Debate Daily

Middlebury Community Network on The Great Global Warming Hoax

World Climate Report

Ice Age Now

Warwick Hughes

Climate Audit, The Niyogi Lab at Purdue

Bill Meck’s Blog

Roy Spencer’s Nature’s Thermostat

Craig James’ Blog

John Daly’s What the Stations Say

Demand Debate

The Weather Wiz

Digging in the Clay

Dr. Dewpoint on Intellicast

Climate Police

Raptor Education Foundation

TWTW Newsletters

Carbonated Climate

The Cornwall Alliance

Where is Global Warming (Bruce Hall Collection)

Greenie Watch

John Coleman’s Corner

Joanne Nova- The Skeptic’s Handbook

Global Warming Skeptics

Dr. Roy Spencer



Climate Skeptic

Climate Cycle Changes

Earth Changes

Hall of Record

Finland Lustia Dendrochronology Project

The Resilient Earth

Climate Change Fraud

Dr. Roy Spencer

Metsul’s Meteorologia

Art Horn’s “The Art of Weather”

Climate Research News

Reid Bryson’s Archaeoclimatology

Gore Lied

Climate Debate Daily

Weatherbell Analytics

Global Warming Hoax

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Global Warming Scare


Blue Crab Boulevard

Tom Nelson Blogroll

Science and Environmental Policy Project

Junk Science

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Blue Hill Observatory, Milton MA


James Spann’s Blog

Climate Debate Daily

COAPS Climate Study US

Bald-Faced Truth

Anthony Watts Surface Station Photographs

Climate Resistance

Global Warming Hoax

CO2 Sceptics

Science and Public Policy Institute

Bob Carter’s Wesbite

The Reference Frame - Lubos Motl’s weblog

The Heartland Institute

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog

Tom Skilling’s Blog

Accuweather Global Warming

I Love My Carbon Dioxide

The Week That Was by Fred Singer

The Climate Scam

Right Side News


Wisconsin Energy Cooperative

Warmal Globing

Musings of the Chiefio

Science Bits

MPU Blog