CO2 Has Little Effect on the World's Temperature

An email that I received today from The CO2 Coalition organization provides four plots of global temperature versus either CO2 emissions or the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that send a clear signal that CO2 at the concentrations long found in the atmosphere has little effect upon the temperature.  I want to be sure that my friends and relatives have an opportunity to see this very important data.

The consequences of pursuing net zero carbon emissions are catastrophic economically.  In addition, without mankind pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the long term trend was CO2 atmospheric concentrations so low that plants could not survive.  In 1850, atmospheric carbon dioxide was so low that plant life was hanging by a thread.  As the CO2 Coalition has repeatedly pointed out, farm production has benefited greatly due to the increased CO2 emissions of mankind since WWII.  The failure to use coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power results in the cost of all activities dependent upon energy increasing.  The carbon dioxide emissions due to carbon-based fuel use decrease the cost of food because their emissions are fertilizer for plants in addition to decreasing many processing and delivery costs in food production.  With 8.2 billion people on this Earth, a net zero policy will result in mass starvation. 

One wonders at the severe consequences of the highly irrational policies of those supporting the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming. Some of these people know what they are doing and they do not care as long as they gain power, wealth, or damage the capitalist system and the private sector.  Others have adopted policy beliefs without fulfilling their responsibility to understand what they are doing before they undertake actions with catastrophic consequences, commonly exercising force to make others comply.

 

The only climate change we need to fear is the start of the next Ice Age.

The Fake Climate Record

Tony Heller became a catastrophic man-made global warming opponent soon after he started looking at the US temperature records back in 2006.  His Real Climate Science blog has revealed many aspects of the fraudulent manipulation of data.  He recently recorded a video which provides an excellent overview on the fake temperature records used to change a slowly cooling US temperature trend into a rather strong warming trend.  I will summarize a few key observations he makes and add some discussion.

There is actual measured data at various times going back to 1895 from various subsets of the 1,218 weather stations in the US Historical Climatology Network and then there is the data reported to the public, which has been highly manipulated.  The manipulated data is reported for 1,218 stations, whether those stations existed or were active at the time or not!  First, consider the 1895 to 2023 average daily high temperature for the months June through August for those stations which actually measured the temperature:

The actual reported temperature measurements show a decrease in this summer maximum temperature of about 0.5 degree Fahrenheit from 1895 to 2023 using a least squares linear fit to the data.

Now, here is the data reported to the public based on both those stations that actually reported data and those that did not, but who have been phantom members of the US Historical Climatology Network over varying periods of time, often many decades.  Actual reported data has been manipulated and the data for non-reporting stations has been generated by computer models that assume that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes a 2 degree Fahrenheit temperature increase per century.  Also, the computer model actually propagates urban heat island temperature increases onto the non-reporting stations.

The final result of this massive temperature data manipulation is a least-squares linear temperature increase from 1895 to 2023 of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit.  A temperature decrease of 0.5 degree F to an increase of 1.2 degree F has been created to fuel the catastrophic man-made global warming fraud.

Tony Heller provides us with a graph showing the manipulated data minus the actual measured data in this graph:

The blue line shows that before about 2010, the temperature record was lowered relative to the actual measurements by as much as 1.5 degree F.  Through about half the total period, the temperature was lowered by 1 degree F or more.  Scientifically, if the actual measurements are so bad that adjustments of this scale are needed, then all of the data is meaningless and useless as far as the issue of whether there is or is not significant man-made global warming. If manipulations of this scale are needed, then the game is over and we have no historical record at all.  The clock is at time zero and a reliable and comprehensive climate station network needs to be constructed and maintained for a century to create the data to see if there actually is any trendline on US and on global temperatures.

At this point in time, a slowly falling temperature seems more believable than a temperature increase rate which is 2.2 times greater than the measured decrease.  I say this based on my belief in actual measurements, but also because I believe that carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations at anywhere near present levels do not cause significant temperature increases as the CO2 concentration increases.  Indeed, additional CO2 in the atmosphere may actually be causing a very slight temperature decrease at present levels.  The warming as a result of CO2 is mostly caused by the first few 10s of ppm.  I wrote about my concern about these cooling effects of carbon dioxide back in 2010.

As Tony Heller points out, the reporting of data for 1,218 stations when many fewer stations have commonly reported measured data is one of the most important degrees of freedom that the manipulators have to recreate a biased temperature record.  Here are the number of stations that reported June to August data historically:

From 1895 to about 1920, the number of stations increased very rapidly, allowing the manipulators to create much station temperature data that existed only in their fervent imaginations. The rate of increase in stations until 1989 was pretty substantial also.  Then after 1989, there has been a very rapid decrease in stations to about 805 stations.  The measured data that is presently going into the data manipulation mill operated by the US federal government is 66% of the stations assigned maximum daily temperatures for June to August.  34% of the stations are "reporting" completely fraudulent data from computer programs with a strong warming bias.  The data from the 66% of stations actually making measurements is also manipulated, though with smaller deviations from reality than that assigned to the non-reporting stations.

The federal government has invested hundreds of billions of dollars into what it calls Climate Science or efforts to mitigate a global crisis of its own invention.  Its funding of research into climate science has set real climate science knowledge back decades.  Its bias for a catastrophic man-made global warming crisis has corrupted the scientific method within this field of study.  Tens of thousands of research papers have been written which are laced with total nonsense.  Many of those papers have valuable results soiled by surrounding nonsense, which will mean that it will be very difficult to believe the valid results.  

But science has not been the only casualty.  The federal government has created a gigantic special interest group (industries, academics, media, environmental groups, and government agencies) seeking money and attention from federal, state, and local governments, not to mention frightened Americans.  Company after company, probably tens of thousands of them, have been created to address the fraudulent problems resulting from the falsified hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming.  The amount of mal-invested human effort is staggering.  The damage to our nation's productivity is a horrible tragedy.  And much of the cost of this will fall on Americans of lower income, many of whom have put too much trust in the leaders of American governments.

Should Joe Biden win a second term, this fraud will continue without abatement.  This grievous con game is strongly supported by the Democratic Party.  If Donald Trump wins a second term, this calumny will at least be constrained.  Trump did not do as good a job of this in his first term as he ought to have.  I sure hope he will do better in his second term, should he get one. At least he states clearly that he does not believe in catastrophic man-made global warming.

A Super Majority of America's Elitists Say They are Authoritarians

American elitists and registered voters in general were polled by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity on individual freedom, government, and environmental controls.  American elitists were defined as those "having a postgraduate degree, a household income of more than $150,000, and living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per square mile."  This group is about 1% of Americans.  Additional polling of Ivy League and other highly regarded university graduates was performed.  As defined, I am one of this group, though my principles differ with most of them greatly.

See the results of the survey in Evita Duffy-Alfonso's article on the Federalist Daily Briefing.

Key results summarized from Evita Duffy-Alfonso's article:

• Nearly 60% of Elitists think there is too much individual freedom in America.  This contrasts with nearly 60% of other registered voters saying there is too little individual freedom.
• More than two-thirds of the Elite want to ration food and energy to control the climate.  90% of the Ivy Leaguers supported such rationing.  Two-thirds of normal registered voters oppose such rationing.
• 72% of the Elites want to ban gas cars and 81% of those graduates of elite universities want to ban them.  Majorities of the Elite yearn to prohibit gas stoves, SUVs, private air conditioning, and non-essential air travel.
• 67% of Elites do not believe parents should decide what their children are taught.
• 70% of Elites trust the government to do the right thing most of the time.
• About 60% of the Elites have a favorable opinion of lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, and journalists.
• Three-quarters of the Elite support Biden

It is not just my opinion that Elites are authoritarians.  It is their own opinion.  They are proud that they are more qualified to manage the lives of the 99% than are the 99%.  They are so very smart and so willing to care for the 99%.  Yet somehow, the 99% suffer, while they manage to live the high life.  Then again, they do call most of the 99% The Deplorables.  Or clingers to their guns and religions.  Or lying dog-faced pony soldiers, or something like that.  Or MAGA extremists.

A Big Picture Reminder on Climate Change

We are in the brief warm period of the Pleistocene Ice Age called the Holocene.  We are constantly being told that a 1.5C temperature increase means the end of human civilization.  In order to prevent that, we must embrace a substantial decrease in our standard of living.  Let us examine the temperature record of the past and where we stand amid the temperature cycles of natural forces:

 

The claim that a 1.5C temperature increase means the end of humanity might be tempered against the catastrophe of a 8 - 11C temperature decrease that appears to await mankind in the not too distant future.  In comparison, the warming would be welcome.  Actually, such a warming would likely do more good than harm even compared to our present temperatures.

Should the natural temperature drop of past ice age cycles occur, mankind will find it most difficult to maintain a human population anywhere near 8 billion human souls as food production will surely shrink.  Let us have warmth as long as possible!

Phillip Pilkington: The green-energy bubble is about to burst — and thanks to Biden, taxpayers will suffer

Phillip Pilkington has written an admirably rational evaluation of the IRA, the fragility of the renewable energy industry, and the horrible consequences for the American people. I recommend reading his NY Post opinion article entitled The green-energy bubble is about to burst -- and thanks to Biden, taxpayers will suffer.

This calamity is perpetrated based on the failed hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. That hypothesis has made prediction after prediction that failed actual observation. By the scientific method, this means the hypothesis is itself false.

This is not surprising, since the physics behind the argument is wrong. Additions of CO2 to the atmosphere do not provide added warming at present levels of CO2, since its cooling effects are about equal to the warming effects at the present CO2 concentrations. Almost everyone ignores the cooling effects. Modest warming would actually be good. Added atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to plant growth and therefore to all animal life, including humans.

How can so many scientists and economists get so much wrong? But they sure have. Note that contrary to claims, there is no real consensus. Only warming projections get published, but even those projections do not agree well with one another. This is not consensus. This is confusion. It is proof of ignorance.

Independence Day Sullied by a Climate Change Lying Attack Upon Our Independence

The media has been abuzz with claims that this 4th of July was the hottest 4th of July ever.  Given the well-known heat waves of 1936 and 1966, along with memories of many other summers hotter than I have experienced in recent years, I was pretty sure this was one more in a long list of desperate lies to try and keep the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming alive.  It is that myth which the Biden administration, the Democratic Party in general, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and many a kleptocracy have been using as a justification for attacking the many and broad rights of the individual to promote a collectivist lowering of the standard of living of all mankind.  Independence Day is anathema to these people, so it must have been very tempting to turn it into an object lesson for catastrophic man-made (man guilty) global warming.

The vigilant CO2 Coalition has looked into the claims that this 4th of July was the hottest 4th of July ever.  Using the data available in the U. S. Historical Climatology Network, NOAA NCEI, for the Lower 48 US states, the maximum average temperature among the weather stations is for the 4th of July:

This chart does not have the 4 July 2023 data point yet, since NOAA apparently has not yet provided such recent data.  Let us suppose that 4 July 2023 actually was the hottest recorded US 4th of July, though I suspect that is not the case.  That would only be significant for the claim of catastrophic man-made global warming if it were part of a 4th of July warming trend.  Now, despite the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere throughout the period 1890 to 2022, the maximum average temperature on the 4th of July has been nearly constant over the 1895 to 2022 period of time.  The trend line has actually shown a small decrease with time!

The CO2 Coalition has provided us with another way of looking at the temperature record for the 4th of July:

This chart shows the percentage of the weather stations recording temperatures greater than 100F on the 4th of July from 1895 to 2022.  This percentage also has a downward trendline.  

If the temperatures of the U.S. 4th of Julys have a story to tell, it is that the U.S. is slowly cooling.  If CO2 is the thermostat controlling the climate, then the cooling effects of CO2 have become dominant over increased warming effects at the concentrations reached by about 1950.  This would imply that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 for which its warming effect reaches a maximum is about 310 ppm.  Above that concentration, additional atmospheric CO2 causes cooling. Of course, choosing a single day of the year is not the best way to determine whether the U.S. is warming or cooling over more than 12 decades.  But it is a much better indicator than the one single 4th of July of one year that the priests of catastrophic man-made global warming have offered the world as proof of global warming due to man's CO2 emissions.

The catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis has been proven false many, many times.  It is based on a misunderstanding of thermal radiation, the ignorance of CO2 cooling effects, poor surface temperature records, misguided temperature record manipulations, a wanton neglect of the benefits of atmospheric CO2, an overestimation of the economic harms of warming, and a fervor to reduce mankind's ability to use the resources of the Earth to improve the human standard of living.

Yet Americans continue to leave northern states for the warming climates of southern states.  Apparently, humans prosper in warmth.  Imagine that.

Washington Post: Climate Change is Fueling Super Hurricanes -- Is it really?

The Washington Post on 30 September 2022, claimed that "climate change is fueling the creation of super hurricanes."  The article says that "as waters warm, 7 super storms have lashed the U.S. since 2017."

The article argues that ocean water is warming, apparently due to global warming, not either warming or cooling climate change.  It argues that hurricanes draw their energy from warm water and therefore become stronger and more frequent.  Yes, hurricanes do draw their energy from warm water, but they also require wind shear to form as hurricanes.  Since global warming does not much affect the temperature of oceans in tropical regions due to the moderating effects of the water cycle, while it does increase temperatures in the mid-latitudes, the wind shear cause of hurricanes is actually reduced.  So what is the historic data on hurricanes?  Let us look at the record for hurricanes that had landfalls on Florida:

Maybe you can see the catastrophic increase if the data is plotted as curves rather than as bars?

I must confess that the frequency of major landfalling hurricanes does not appear to have increased, unless you only look at the timeline beginning about 1980.  It seems undeniable that the frequency of all hurricanes since the 1870s has decreased.  But, perhaps the focus on Florida is the problem.  Let us look at the data for hurricanes landing anywhere on the U.S.

Do you see a dramatic increase in hurricanes or in major hurricanes in this data?  Once again, it seems clear that the total hurricane frequency is actually decreasing.  The major hurricanes do not seem to be changing much at all.

Almost anyone at all serious about climate issues agrees that a five-year span of time is still just weather, while it takes a minimum of 30 years to be considered climate.  Note that the Washington Post article was claiming that a 5-year span of hurricane history was proof of man-made global warming, which they ridiculously call climate change.  Actually, 30 years is just enough to cover the shortest of the climate cycles, so any real climate argument ought to cover a period of quite a few 30-year cycles.

Let us examine the historic data on ocean surface temperatures, since the Washington Post argument says hurricane strength and frequency are just a function of ocean surface temperatures.

According to this data, the ocean temperatures have increased.  They did not change much from 1850 to about 1900.  There was a decrease in temperatures from 1900 to 1910, then an increase in temperature from then until the mid-1940s, then was nearly constant from then until the late 1970s, with another increase from then until about 2010.  Based on the Washington Post's claim that warmer water fuels hurricanes, the increase in water temperature from 1910 to the mid-1940s should have caused a significant increase in hurricanes.  Do you see that in the landfall hurricane charts above?  If the effect is there, it sure is small.  Then again, where is the major increase in landfalling hurricanes from the late 1970s through 2010 compared to earlier periods?

If mankind's use of carbon-based fuels is the cause of warming oceans, what huge increase in fossil fuels caused the warming from 1910 to the mid-1940s?  Europe was not producing very much for several years following WWI and then no one was during the 1930s.  Most of the world's population was not much more industrial than it had been in the 1800s.  So, how did this rapid ocean warming occur during this period?  I cannot see a good argument for it being due to man's use of carbon-based fuels.

Let us look at the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958 and see if we can see a correlation between the CO2 concentration and the ocean surface temperatures.

The catastrophic man-made global warming argument is that carbon dioxide is the thermostat for the Earth's temperature, presumably including the 71% of the Earth's surface covered by water.  Any claim that CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in the temperature has to acknowledge that the warming effect requires more and more carbon dioxide for a given temperature increase.  The actual increase in CO2 in this record is a bit faster than linear, but it is not exponential or at all close to it.  So, all ocean temperature increases ought to be gradual and constant (or even dropping off) from 1958 to the present.  Yet for much of this time, there was no increase in ocean water temperature.  Then in the late 1970s the temperature takes off a bit in the ocean temperature record, but where was the acceleration in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

One can only conclude that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 controls the temperature of the oceans and there is none that warming oceans are enough to cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.  Therefore, there is no reason to claim that man's use of carbon-based fuels is causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.

It is very strange that so many people claim to be scientific experts who yet believe in this nonsense.  It is also very strange that so many people who have no knowledge about such matters are nonetheless strong believers in the adamant claims of those who claim to know the science, without themselves believing they have any need to understand the science themselves.

Washington Post: Italian farmers are facing 'stomach-churching' heat and dryness

The erudite Washington Post, Protector of Democracy from Death in Darkness, reveals its environmentalist religious fervor in a front-page, above the fold article on a hot and dry spell in parts of Italy that is destroying the rice crop yields in the risotto heartland.

Note the secondary headline:  "Farmers in risotto heartland are facing 'stomach-churching' heat and dryness"

Yet in the fourth paragraph of the text, the Italian farmer says "It's stomach-churning."

No where in the article do the authors claim that this heat and dryness is the result of catastrophic man-made global warming.  There is actually a map in the article that shows that much of Italy is wetter than usual, just as much is drier than usual.  That map is not mentioned in the text at all.  The chef of a restaurant near the Rizzotti farm is quoted as saying, "As far as I am concerned, this is the beginning of a series of crises that will happen again and again."  She is perhaps implying that this event is due to catastrophic man-made global warming.

But, the authors wisely make no such claim.  This is the case more and more often I find.  The catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis has suffered such severe scientific failure that the religious environmentalists that want the idea to take firm hold of the minds of the people can themselves no longer risk their reputations on claiming it is scientifically validated.  Now, they set up cherry-picked articles for which they know the response of many people will be to assume that the ill event was caused by catastrophic man-made global warming.  This article is one such example.  It serves the political purposes of those who wish to return to the Medieval Period, however.

The article is a stomach-churning example of the stomach-churching environmentalists expressing their religious fervor for their irrational cause.  As the churches of the Medieval Period were in opposition to the scientific method, so too are the stomach-churching environmentalists.

The SEC Proposes Rule on Infrared-Absorbing Gas Emissions and Climate Risk

The SEC wants to force publicly traded businesses to predict how climate change might harm their businesses and how they might be a cause of global warming themselves.  They proposed rules for such on Monday, 21 March 2022.

Few companies are themselves expert in predicting the future climate or future weather.  They are being asked to use the available scientific knowledge about future climate and future weather. They also have to use this available scientific knowledge about the role that emissions of infrared-absorbing gases, commonly called greenhouse gases, will have on these future climate and weather conditions.  What is more, they are to be forced to predict how governments in the USA will limit and condition their operations based on fears of climate change.  Still worse, they are to be forced to make predictions of how people and nations around the world will respond to fears of climate change.

All of these requirements are proposed within a framework of censored science and of poor science with a very wide range of predictions, most of which predict much larger effects due to infrared-absorbing gases then have actually been observed.  For instance, temperature increases and the frequency of bad weather events have consistently failed to live up to the predictions of the greenhouse gas climate scare-mongers.  How can a company predict what the effect of global warming and increased bad weather events will be on its operations when the published, rubbish science cannot predict what the relation between infrared-absorbing gas emissions and subsequent warming and nasty weather events will be?  The reality, which the Democrats who have proposed these SEC rules ignore, is that increased infrared-absorbing gases in the atmosphere has a very, very small effect in causing additional warming.  The requirement, however, will be that companies will have to make their predictions based on exaggerated warming and bad weather events in line with the climate scare-mongers.

The climate fright-masters will no doubt also require that companies make these exaggerated effect predictions based on exaggerated negative effects upon their own business.  These predictions will also have to be based on some exaggerated overall effects upon the US economy and on the world economy.  They will also assume that many nations will long continue to raise the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations due to lax regulations limiting their emissions.  Exaggerated individual company effects will justify further exaggerations of the general negative effects upon the US and the world economies.

The effort for a company to perform these predictions honestly would be tremendous.  Honest predictions have nothing to do with the purpose of the proposed SEC regulations, however.  Formulas will be adopted for this purpose, which the publicly traded companies will be forced to adhere to.

So why is this being done?  The reason is that every publicly traded company is to be made to appear to believe in catastrophic man-made global warming and to take it seriously.  This in turn is to rachet up the fear that Americans have of catastrophic man-made global warming.  The self-reporting of company activities that might be affected by bad and warming weather and of company gas emissions will also give the government further information it can twist into a story of future disaster.  That disaster story will then allow even more regulation of businesses, no doubt expanding far beyond those that are publicly traded.

Catastrophic man-made global warming due to adding infrared-absorbing gases to the atmosphere given its present composition is a failed hypothesis.  For Democrats and some Republicans, this is not a reason not to use the fear of it to justify ever-increasing governmental controls over our lives.  Governmental controls are always resisted by the people, unless they are afraid of something.  Catastrophic man-made global warming is another such fear-creating tool.  The claim that businesses generally want to do harm to people has long been such a tool and is still at play in this SEC proposed rule as well.

The Terror of Carbon Dioxide Induced Human Extinction and the Dismal Ideology

 Rasmussen Reports and The Heartland Institute conducted a survey of 2,000 likely American voters from 29 April to 3 May 2021 on the issue of climate change.  The poll found that 55% of likely voters believe that climate change is primarily caused by humans, while 45% believed it was primarily caused by long-term planetary trends.

Numerous Democrat politicians, bureaucrats, and media pundits have informed us for several decades that humans or the Earth face an existential threat if mankind does not cease to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere within 10 - 12 years.  To date, this existential threat has proven about as dangerous and catastrophic as a newborn puppy.

The Rasmussen - Heartland poll asked likely voters to identify themselves as Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, or the Not Sure category I hate, since one may be very sure of one's ideology but simply not fit into the other choices.  The poll found that 21% of likely voters who consider themselves to be Moderate and 21% who are Liberal believe that if global carbon dioxide emissions continue at a rate comparable to that of the last decade, then humans will become extinct or nearly extinct due to climate change within 50 years.  For Conservatives, only 12% believe this early demise for humans due to climate change.  OK, that 12% is still an absurd portion of Conservatives.  52% of Liberals believe human extinction or near extinction will occur within the next 100 years.  43% of Moderates agree, while 23% of Conservatives agree.

There are tens of millions of Americans who ascribe to each of these ideologies.  Even 23% of Conservatives are many millions of Americans who face the dismal prospect of human extinction or near extinction within 100 years.  Yet, how much more dismal is the ideology that has 52% of those ascribing to it in a state of terror, presumably, of human extinction within 100 years?  Would such believers want to have children even, or if they did, would they not be irresponsible?  Perhaps this belief is a meaningful factor in the falling birthrate of Americans documented by the last couple of census reports.  If it is, then the reproduction of Liberals should be significantly lower than that of Conservatives!

Further results of the poll show that Liberals are much more likely to exaggerate the amount of warming that has occurred since the late 1800s.  60% of them believe there has been more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit warming.  In comparison, 36% of Conservatives believe warming has exceeded 3 degrees.  Even NOAA's exaggerated warming since the 1880 to 1900 average is only 2.14 degrees Fahrenheit.  Such warming would be far more beneficial than harmful.  More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the present concentration has virtually no warming effect and is great for plant growth.  This in no catastrophe.

This is only one example of the many ways in which Liberals have a dreary, dismal worldview.  It fits nicely with a belief in other dismal viewpoints such as systemic racism, the belief that some ethnic groups are incompetent to manage their own lives, the denial of the ability of humans to improve their standard of living by living productive lives, and the believe that humans are always a threat to the environment in myriad ways.  It has to make a life miserable to be such an ingrained pessimist.  This goes way beyond seeing a glass as half empty instead of half full.  This is a determination to see the glass which is really full as being almost empty.  It is a consistent denial of reality.

 

Science Theory Unbound by Test -- The Story of the Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis

In 1988, James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, announced that NASA climate models indicated a tendency for heatwave drought situations in the Southeast and the Midwest USA in the late 1980s and the 1990s.  This prediction proved wrong.

Also in 1988, James Hansen, testified to our Congress that the Washington, D.C. area would go from 35 days a year warmer the 90F to 85 days a year in the next 50 to 60 years.  He also said the ocean will rise between one and six feet.  We are 32 years into that 50 to 60 years and so far the average number of days warmer than 90F has decreased.  According to NOAA, the rise in sea level from 1988 to 2020 was 9.81 cm or 3.86 inches. Once again, 32 years into that 50 to 60 year prediction, the rise of sea level is running way behind the low end of the prediction.

About the same time, James Hansen, told a reporter the West Side Highway running along the Hudson River on Manhattan Island would be underwater in 20 years.  The windows of Manhattan Buildings would all have tape across them due to the high winds.  I have been in Manhattan a number of times since the start of 2020.  Neither of these predictions have come to fruition.  

In June 2008, Hansen claimed there would be no Artic sea ice in the summer in 5 to 10 years.  Al Gore, not to be outdone, predicted that the entire North polar ice cap would be gone in 5 years. U.S. Navy scientists predicted the Artic could lose its summer sea ice in 2016.  In 2020 there was still considerable summer sea ice at the seasonal minimum, as there has been every year since 2008.  

In 2009, Prince Charles said we had 8 years to save the world.  Damn, we lost the world in 2017.

In 2014, the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, said we had 500 days to avoid climate chaos.

Joe "The Great Idiot" Biden, Hanoi John Kerry, the stark raving mad 8 years to doomsday AOC, and the entire Elite of the Democratic Socialist Party claim that man-made global warming is an "existential" threat to planet Earth.  Where Trump may have exaggerated his Inaugeration crowd, Biden told us the massive lie that there is an existential threat to the Earth due to our use of carbon fuels.  This existential threat requires him to drag us back into the Paris Climate Accord, though it is an unratified treaty.  Of course, these politicians are just shills and mooks who have zero understanding of the science of radiative heat transfer.

Supposedly, the principal claim that the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis is true is the claim that its effects have been modeled correctly in their many global climate computer models.  They recently claimed these models are good at predicting the surface temperature, but the science the models are supposed to represent makes predictions of the atmospheric temperature throughout the atmosphere, not just at the surface.  What is more, the surface temperature record has been strongly biased upward in recent times and downward in the past, making it a very unreliable temperature record.  The atmospheric temperature record is much more a global record and has not been manipulated and affected by urban heat island effects in the way the surface temperature record has been.  So once again, let us present this comparison of the model temperature predictions for the atmosphere and actual temperature measurements of the atmospheric temperature:

The supposedly science-based global computer models predict much greater temperature increases than have been found in the measurements.  The scientific method demands that we declare the hypothesis of  catastrophic man-made global warming a failed hypothesis due its long history of failed predictions.  In other words, the continued belief in catastrophic man-made global warming is anti-science because it has ignored a basic requirement of the scientific method.

Why are its advocates claiming this anti-science belief is justification for putting more than 10,000 Keystone XL Pipeline workers into the already massive pool of the unemployed?  Why are they denying the livelihoods of some already who earn a living extracting oil and gas from federal lands and offshore fields and many in the future whose oil and gas jobs will not be created as a result?  Why are they damaging the earnings of the many people who provide goods and services to these carbon fuel industries and their employees?  Why are they forcing transportation costs for all Americans to rise greatly?  Why are they causing the energy costs to run our businesses and to operate our homes to increase drastically?  Why are they pushing a future of electricity brown-outs and black-outs upon us?  Why are they advocating spreading solar panels and wind generators over huge acreages of the nation?  Why do they now no longer care how many birds and bats are killed by wind generators?  Why do they want to saddle us with electric vehicles with their massive purchase cost, limited range, inconvenient recharging requirements, and massive repair costs?  Why do they not care about the massive damage to our future economy and the many jobs which will be lost, the many jobs that will not be created, and the many advances in other areas of human endeavor that will never come about because of a very harmful energy policy?

The answer is the desire for the Great Reset.  These advocates want what the World Economic Forum is advocating, which is an end to capitalism, an end to personal property, an end to individual rights, and a complete dependence upon government controlled by a socialist Elite.  Biden plagiarized his Build Back Better campaign slogan from the World Economic Forum for a reason.  Biden is not a creative man.  He has never created or built anything.  His specialty is the destruction of things built and created by others.  Even in his speeches and writings, he has a long history as a plagiarist.  So, it is entirely to be expected that the kind of people who are behind the World Economic Forum have made him their point man, albeit with many socialist managers, for exercising the program of the World Economic Forum upon the USA.  This program is absolutely evil and absolutely un-American.  Carrying it through is massively unconstitutional.  It will be extremely deleterious to the Welfare of the People of the USA.  Yet, it is moving forward rapidly under the Biden Regime.

Sheldon Whitehouse's Climate Inquisition Continues by Paul Driessen

Senator Torquemada wants to jail those who dissent from his alarmist views on climate

Paul Driessen

Five years ago, I said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) behaves like Torquemada, using Inquisition-like tactics to harass “manmade climate crisis” skeptics, and threatening to prosecute them for racketeering. Tomas de Torquemada was the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition that interrogated, tortured, imprisoned and executed thousands for religious heresy.

The senator took great umbrage, and denounced me in Senate chambers where I once worked. But he didn’t change his ways. If anything, he has become more intolerant and vindictive.

He recently said Democrat control of the Senate would enable him and his colleagues to launch investigations, haul climate realists before committees (for star-chamber show trials), and even employ grand juries and criminal prosecutions – to intimidate, silence and punish climate crisis nonbelievers.

People could certainly conclude that the thin-skinned senator would feel right at home in Inquisition Spain, Stalinist Russia, Red Guard and Xi Jinping China, or book-burning pre-Holocaust fascist Europe. Their history of silencing dissenters, erasing them from history, and sending them off to gulags and salt mines (or worse) is legendary. Their economic and governing ideology is classic fascism:

an extreme, intolerant system, under which an authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries outright, but does dictate what they can make, do, sell and say – while controlling citizens’ thoughts, speech and choices – through intimidation, silencing, arrest, prosecution, and fear of being fined, jailed, fired, sent to penal or reeducation colonies, and being beaten or executed.

These tactics are reprehensible and dictatorial. They are un-American and anti-science. Indeed, science achieves no progress without dissent, discussion and debate. It requires not just hypotheses, theories and computer models, but solid, empirical evidence to confirm or disprove hypotheses, models and predictions.

Discussion, debate, dissent and evidence are especially vital in addressing the assertion that humanity faces an unprecedented manmade climate crisis. That assertion is being used to justify demands that the United States, Europe and [the] developed world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide over 80% of our energy, petrochemical and pharmaceutical raw materials, fertilizers and countless other benefits.

It is being used to justify demands that we replace this reliable, affordable energy and raw material base with wind, solar, battery and biofuel power. Not only are these alternatives intermittent, weather-dependent and far more expensive. They involve extensive mining, land use, wildlife, pollution and other environmental impacts. They are not renewable, sustainable, environment-friendly or climate-safe.

In the United States alone, we would have to replace some 7.5 billion megawatt-hours of electricity and electricity-equivalent fossil fuel use per year; replace enormous amounts of oil and natural gas raw materials; and overhaul our transportation, home heating and other systems. That would require millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of 1000-pound battery modules, tens of millions of acres of corn, canola, soybean and other biofuel crops – and tens of trillions of dollars.

Democrat urban population and voter centers will likely oppose those industrial-scale installations in their backyards. They would have little objection to locating them in what many ruling, media and Hollywood elites imperiously and derisively refer to [as] “flyover country” – western, Midwestern and southern states.

This “transformation” – under the Paris climate treaty, a Green New Deal or a Biden-Harris regulatory program – would massively disrupt America’s economy, jobs, living standards, health and wellbeing, especially for poor, minority, blue-collar, fixed-income and flyover country families and communities.

Climate alarmists insist that any lost jobs would be replaced with “green” jobs. But those would be mostly minimum-wage positions: hauling, installing, maintaining, dismantling, removing and landfilling turbines, panels and batteries. Moreover, most of those green technologies would be manufactured overseas, especially in China, because environmentalists battle any mining in the USA, and a climate-focused energy system would provide insufficient reliable, affordable power for factories.

Those huge and unprecedented amounts of mining and manufacturing would require fossil fuels. So the only thing that would change is where the fossil fuel use and emissions occur.

It would be mostly in Asia and Africa, in countries that are not obligated under the Paris climate treaty to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; countries that will build as many hundreds or thousands of coal and gas-fired power plants as needed to lift their people out of poverty  ... and make “green energy” technologies they will happily sell to America, Australia, Canada and Europe.

That means, even if the US went cold-turkey on fossil fuels, it would make no difference to global GHG emissions or global atmospheric concentrations. And that means, even if carbon dioxide is the primary factor in climate change, destroying US and other modern economies would bring no climate benefits.

The EU’s and UK’s unwavering belief in human-caused climate cataclysms is already hammering its industries, workers and families, as numerous articles attest: here, here, here and here, for instance.  

Thankfully, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that assertions of Climate Armageddon have been miscalculated, exaggerated or fabricated. Average global temperatures are rising far less rapidly than predicted by climate models: by at least a half-degree F.

Violent (F4-F5) US tornadoes have actually declined in number the past 35 years (1985-2020) versus the previous 35 years (1950-1984); and in 2018 not one F5 tornado touched down in the United States. For a record twelve years, from Wilma in 2005 until Harvey and Irma in 2017, no Category 3 to 5 hurricane struck the US mainland. Overall, there is little or no trend in tropical cyclone activity or intensity.

All that is not surprising in light of new research by Drs. William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden that strongly indicates even doubling carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in Earth’s atmosphere would have minuscule effects on global temperatures and climate (but would benefit plant growth).

Indeed, it is impossible to distinguish human influences from natural factors, fluctuations and cycles regarding temperatures, polar ice, storms and droughts. Some scientists certainly claim otherwise – and generally just blame humans. But they have little or no actual, empirical evidence to support their claims, predictions and models. They simply say the science is settled, and we must ban fossil fuels, so shut up.

With so much at stake for America and the world, this is completely intolerable. At the very least, those claiming we face a climate calamity must be required to present solid empirical evidence to support their assertions – and engage in in robust, transparent debates with manmade climate change skeptics.

That is precisely what Senator Torquemada seems determined to prevent and punish, while transforming “the world’s greatest deliberative body” into a Russian Politburo or Chinese National People’s Congress – and an integral part of the $multi-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex.

In that quest he would certainly be aided by the Big Media and Big Tech moguls who share his views on climate change, silencing scientists and evidence that contradicts climate cataclysm catechism, and blacklisting “climate heretics” in government, academic and corporate circles. 

People have been conditioned to kowtow to government lockdown edicts, to save humanity from Covid. Climate alarmists assume we will now be sufficiently compliant about banning fossil fuels to “save the planet,” when we’re trying to recover from Covid. Or their Torquemadas will make us compliant.

It’s time to reject politicized junk science, demand debate, and resist green climate and energy edicts. Perhaps most of all, the US Senate must assert its Advice and Consent responsibilities on the Paris climate treaty, the most far-reaching international agreement Americans were ever asked to ratify.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

My Comment:  

Actually Americans were never asked to ratify the Paris Climate Treaty.  It was never put before them in a national referendum.  The Paris Climate Treaty was never put through the treaty approval process of our Constitution, which requires that two-thirds of the Senators present concur with a treaty negotiated by the President.  Obama knew he could not get Senate approval so he pretended the Paris Climate Treaty was not a treaty, but somehow was still binding upon Americans.  This was literally the act of a dictator.

Dr. Driessen said: "Thankfully, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that assertions of Climate Armageddon have been miscalculated, exaggerated or fabricated. Average global temperatures are rising far less rapidly than predicted by climate models: by at least a half-degree F."

The link is to the data Prof. John Christy presented to the Senate in December 2015 which showed that the computer models that claimed man-made global warming was a crisis were already predicting temperatures 0.5 K or °C higher than those actually measured.  0.5 K is 0.9 °F.  The alarmist computer models within just a few years are greatly exaggerating the temperature increase.  The exaggeration over several decades will be several times this amount.

There ought to be no tolerance for such fools as Senator Whitehouse who call for the suppression of the freedom of speech of Americans, including those who argue against catastrophic man-made global warming.  He is un-American in doing this and should be a massive embarrassment to the people of Rhode Island.  Unfortunately, the people of Rhode Island have long been inclined to vote for politicians approved by the Mafia and corrupt to their cores.  This, of course, means they vote for the corrupt undemocratic Democratic Socialist Party.

Biden Promises to Destroy Fossil Fuels Industries in 4-year Transition Period Ending in 2025

Many people will say that he said no such thing. Literally, he did not say this. However, rational individuals will see that this four-year transition period is the implication of the things he said, but would never have the courage to say explicitly. 

What did he explicitly say? Let us list his key statements:

"I would transition away from the oil industry, yes."

"It has to be replaced by renewable energy over time, over time."

"I'd stop giving to the oil industry, I'd stop giving them federal subsidies."

"We need other industries to transition to get to ultimately a complete zero emissions by 2025."

"The point is, look, we have to move toward a net-zero emissions.  The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production, by 2050 totally."

Biden's energy plan does not literally call for shutting down the entire oil and gas and coal industries by 2025.  It calls for zero-emissions with a fantasy that one will develop a huge industry that will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  The cost of actually sucking carbon dioxide, plant food, from the atmosphere will be gigantic.  It will have a huge negative impact on farming as well.  The materials that will hold the carbon dioxide will have to be mined at great cost, or great caverns will have to be created to hold the removed carbon dioxide.  The sequestration of carbon dioxide will have major environmental costs itself.

How will the otherworldly costs of carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere be borne?  If it is to be borne by the American taxpayer, that would be a subsidy to the oil, gas, and coal industries, in the left's viewpoint.  Since Biden pledges no subsidies to the oil, gas, and coal industries, they will have to pay the incredible costs for the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  This will cause the costs of oil, gas, and coal to skyrocket.  Skyrocketing costs means much lower usage of oil, gas, and coal.  This means many, many oil, gas, and coal workers will become unemployed.  It means that many people who transport oil, gas, coal, and products made from them will become unemployed.  Those towns and cities which presently support these industries will have massive unemployment.  As West Virginia has suffered greatly from the travails of coal under prohibitive governmental mandated expenses, so will many other areas be devastated.  Western Pennsylvania, eastern and southern Ohio, North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana will be very hard hit.

All of this is to happen in a crash manner by 2025, according to what Biden said in the debate.  Some say he was confused and meant to say by 2035, the date he gave for zero-emissions in energy production.  Maybe he was confused and careless.  Maybe the differing dates are because the huge changes in energy production to create tens of thousands of wind generators, huge photovoltaic farms, bank after bank of batteries, and the means to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in massive quantities will cause the generation of a huge load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Making cement blocks huge enough to anchor those wind generators releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for instance.  Mining the materials for huge, sweeping banks of batteries, for the materials to make wind generators, and to make photovoltaic farms requires an incredible amount of energy use.  So, maybe Biden is saying the oil, gas, and coal industries must be zero-emissions by 2025, but the totally changed energy industry as a whole will not have to be zero-emissions until 2035.  That would make sense, if the U.S. economy could survive such wrenching changes in a 14 year period.  But it cannot do so.  Trump is right that this would cause our economy to falter badly.  We would be in for a never-ending depression.

Stop and think about the consequences of skyrocketing energy costs.  All of our transportation costs will go up greatly.  Manufacturing operations require considerable energy and they require that it be dependable.  A power outage can destroy all of the materials or products in a production process at the time of power failure.  A laboratory, such as mine, can lose many hours of time when an analysis process is stopped in mid-stream and a unique sample is destroyed.  The cost of virtually every product must go up as its production cost goes up and the transportation cost to get it to the customer goes up.  One of the reasons Americans have higher incomes than the vast majority of people around the world is because we have a lower cost of energy and a more dependable supply of energy than almost any other country.  Under Biden's energy plan, manufacturers will have no choice but to move many manufacturing and support jobs out of the U.S.  That situation will be even worse than it was under the Obama/Biden administration.  When manufacturing goes overseas, the support technology also goes overseas.  Engineering and science jobs in support of manufacturing disappear, along with the knowledge to make things.  The U.S. will lose the knowledge that has given us the very superior standard of living we have.

As I have shown in many posts on this blog, the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis has been proven to be wrong.  The Earth energy budgets that summarize the understanding of the so-called consensus violate physics.  The climate models based on their wrong ideas of physics, keep making wrong predictions about the temperatures in the atmosphere and about future temperatures.  Of course they do, because they do not understand the physics of thermal radiation, convection in air, and they even violate energy conservation.  Even if one does not understand the physics, as very few people do, the scientific method says the hypothesis is wrong because the model predictions have been wrong.

Of course the insanity of the Biden energy plan does not stand alone among his insane policy ideas.  Biden will hit the American economy with a slew of new regulations with a massive expansion of the Swamp Creature regulatory state.  Regulations are a huge expense burden on business already.  Small businesses cannot even know what the regulations are because they do not have the means to monitor the avalanche of new regulations and interpretations of regulations that occur each year.  Businesses that want to make large investments are afraid to do so, because the new operations they want to create may take years to be in place (in large part due to regulations) and then take years to make back their initial investment.  What arbitrary, irrationally expensive regulations relative to any benefits will come down the pike and wipe out their investment?  Politicians rarely think about the consequences of their actions, except as far as the next election at most.  A lifetime politician like Biden is not even capable of thinking about the destructive nature of his ideas.  The actions President Trump has taken to moderate the burdens of federal regulations are a much under-esteemed effect of his administration.

Another idiot's delight is a national minimum wage of $15 an hour, which was backed by Biden in the debate and has widespread support in the Democratic Party.  As I have previously written on this blog, the cost of living in the U.S. varies hugely across the country.  A business in NYC or one in San Francisco is much more likely to be able to justify paying an employee $15 an hour than is a small business in Okmulgee, Oklahoma or Arco, Idaho or Rising Sun, Mississippi.  The $15/hour Biden plan is a way to depopulate rural America and to force everyone into huge metropolitan areas where the cost of living is much higher, but one can also often earn more money.  Unfortunately, this actually tends to result in a real lowering of the standard of living of many people, especially the very poorer people that the $15/hour proposal pretends to help.  The resident of NYC with a mean income earns less real income than does the mean income earning American when you correct for the higher cost of living!  For a person of mean income, moving from Oklahoma to NYC actually lowers your standard of living, despite the fact you will likely be paid more.

President Trump understands the basic principles that allow our economy to flourish and that allow Americans to enjoy an increasing standard of living.  Joe Biden does not.

Biden Flies Across America to Rally with Ten People Causing Climate Catastrophe

For a man who tells us that the Earth and Mankind face an existential crisis due to the use of fossil fuels, Joe Biden does not hesitate to fly across the United States to give a "rally" for ten followers.  Our energy future is to be put on a starvation diet, while Joe Biden spews carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Is this just his megalomania, consistent with his belief that the American People do not deserve to know whether he will pack the Supreme Court?  Or does this mean Joe understands that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming theory is really just a scam for the Socialist Democratic Party to gain more power for the government, which is about to be "I am the Democratic Party" Joe Biden?

Because if Joe Biden is the Democratic Party, then rest assured that Joe Biden, if elected President, will be the Government.  There will be no more need for sharing power with the Supreme Court and the Congress then there is a need for Joe Biden to share power with multiple leaders, factions, and individuals in the Democratic Party.

Those Stubborn Climate Modelers Absolutely Insist on Being Wrong

The previous set of wrongheaded climate models, CMIP5, generated too much warming over the sea and in the tropical troposphere (the lower, most dense, layer of the Earth's atmosphere).  The current CMIPS6 models cause excessive warming all over the Earth in both the lower and the middle troposphere.  It has long been recognized that too much warming in the tropical troposphere causes greater latitudinal temperature gradients that would cause too much warming worldwide.  The errors of the CMIPS5 models were not addressed.  Instead, the bias of the modelers in favor of exaggerated man-made global warming has led to their creation of a new generation of models that actually makes the errors of the previous models worse.  Apparently, these "scientists" believe that when you are proven wrong, the job of science is to develop models and theories that are even more wrong.  These CMIPS6 climate models are supposed to provide the basis for the next UN IPCC report on how man's use of hydrocarbon fuels will cause catastrophic global warming.

A new paper by Dann M. Mitchell et al.,  examines the temperature trends in the troposphere and stratosphere in the tropics for 48 of the CMIPS6 climate models, each of which is supposed to represent the well-understood consensus climate science, despite the differences in their predictions.  The essence of the results of this analysis by Mitchell et al. is shown in this figure from their manuscript accepted for publication in Environmental Research Letters:

The overwrite on the right-most graph is part of the word manuscript on this pre-publication paper.  The vertical atmosphere altitude is given in terms of the pressure in hPa, where an hPa is 100 Pa.  The x-axis gives the change in temperature per decade in Kelvins (a change of 1 Kelvin equals a change of 1 degree Centigrade).  There is warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere in the left-most graph, so you can tell the pressure at which the stratosphere begins by looking for the intersection with the zero trend line.

The left-most graph is the measured (black) and the model (red and blue) change in temperature/decade for the period 1979 to 2014.  The black measurements are based on three sets of data: RICH1.5 radiosondes, RAOBCORE1.5 radiosondes, and the Reanalysis ERA5/5.1.  The red horizontal lines indicate the so-called 95% uncertainty range of temperature rate change of the models which try to predict the ocean surface temperatures.  The blue model results are for those models that assume the measured ocean temperatures, rather than trying to predict them.  The red models that try to predict the ocean temperatures increase their errors with excessively high warming rates over the oceans at the surface.  Then, on top of that, they predict increasingly larger warming trends as they climb upwards through the troposphere.  The predictions for the cooling in the stratosphere seem to be much better for these models in the 1979-2014 period, but this is scientifically illusory.

The middle and the right graph separate out the 1979-1997 and the 1998-2014 periods of time.  In the earlier period, the models gave too little cooling in the stratosphere, while in the later period they gave too much cooling.  Putting these offsetting errors together, produced a seemingly good agreement in the stratosphere in the combined period from 1979 to 2014.  However, it is clear from the shorter period results that the modelers did not really know what they were doing.  The actual measured rates show little to no cooling in the stratosphere after 1997, while the models insist on cooling rates similar to those for the 1979-1997 period.

From 1998 to 2014, the CMIPS5 models excessively warmed at rates of 4 to 5 times faster than did the actual temperature measurements.  The CMIPS6 models are not improved.  They are especially in error in the upper troposphere at pressures of about 200 hPa.  There is one especially wrongheaded model and it is the one the Canadian government relies upon for its policies on global warming.  It yields a tropospheric warming rate about 7 times the observed warming rate.  Those poor, poor Canadians!  Governmental energy policies based on a seven-fold exaggeration of a "problem" sure does create real problems.

There is also an evaluation of the CMIPS6 models by McKitrick and Christy which has been accepted for publication by Earth and Space Science.  These authors had found that there was a warming bias in the CMIPS5 models in the tropical mid-troposphere in earlier analyses.  Their new work demonstrates that the CMIPS6 models are even more biased towards warming.  This increased warming is seen in their predictions in both the lower and middle troposphere at all latitudes - the tropics and beyond.  They found that the models using higher Equilibrium Climate Sensitivities (>3.4K) warmed faster than those using lower values of the ECS, but both sets of models all predicted faster than the observed rate of warming.  The observed rate of warming in the lower troposphere is given as 0.15 K/decade, while the lower ECS value set of models with an average ECS of 2.7K gave a lower troposphere warming rate of 0.21K/decade.  The observed middle troposphere warming rate is 0.09K/decade.  To get the right rate of warming, the models would have to use ECS values in the 1 to 2 K range.

In conclusion, the climate modelers, whose models are the basis for man-made global warming, continue to show that they do not understand the science and that their degree of understanding is not improving.  Yet, we can rest assured that many governmental bodies will continue to determine their energy-use policies based on their failed understanding of the science.  There will continue to be claims that they represent the consensus on well-understood science.  It is pretty much impossible to understand the stubborn persistence in the belief in the failed catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis as a matter of science.

Their clinging to this erroneous belief is a matter of payoffs, environmental religion, and socialist politics lusting to wrest away more and more control of the management of our individual lives.