Category Archives: Climate Alarmism

Solar Cycle 25 Predictions–National Weather Service and NASA See It Differently

While it is not unexpected that experts predicting how active Solar Cycle (SC) 25 will be compared to SC 24, the new forecast from NASA is significantly different than the National Weather Service  forecast.

A few weeks ago, I reported that the National Weather Service forecast for SC 25 activity would be slightly greater than SC 24.    They added:

“The expectation that Cycle 25 will be comparable in size to Cycle 24   means that the steady decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21-24, has come to an end and that there is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”

NASA’s prediction is different, really different.  Their expert says:

Research now underway may have found a reliable new method to predict this solar activity. The Sun’s activity rises and falls in an 11-year cycle. The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.

The NASA prediction did not discuss the possibility of a Maunder minimum.   However their prediction does not rule out a Maunder minimum in progress as it forecasts SC25 will not be the end of a steady decline in solar cycle amplitude.

Both of the predicting groups acknowledge that they are still far from a full understanding of how the Sun works. So, we will just have to wait and see.


Fake Science News: Review of Chernobly on HBO

Fake science news with respect to

“Chernobyl” on HBO.  This is why nuclear has to swim upstream.  provided this review of the HBO’s presentation “Chernobly.”

Nuclear sensationalism


HBO’s Chernobyl is great entertainment.  So is The Simpsons.  Sadly, the sensational way nuclear power is depicted in popular culture energizes the anti-science, anti-energy Left.

Nuclear energy is perhaps our best source of electricity. Nuclear also emits no CO2 (if that’s your thing).

Dr. Kelvin Kemm is an award-winning South African nuclear physicist.  Check out his detailed review of HBO’s Chernobyl at

As a nuclear scientist I can tell you that the fundamental story of the sequence of events during the portrayal of the Chernobyl accident were correct. Issues around governance and procedure as portrayed were essentially correct.

But the blood and skin peeling scenes were not. Sadly the producers lied – intentionally, to gain box office income. They succeeded in the income goal. But they insulted we nuclear scientists and insulted the intelligence of those viewers who knew a bit more science than most. They also led many other viewers down a twisted path to further ignorance and confusion, which certainly should not be the objective of a history documentary…

Human bodies do not become radioactive in a situation like that. What can happen is that someone, like a fireman, leaves the scene with radioactive dust on his clothes and maybe in his hair. Any radiation protection officer present would then make him take off all his clothes and take a good shower, before going home.

Firemen were not radioactively contagious, as portrayed by HBO. A fireman could not have irradiated his pregnant wife at home as HBO claimed. Her baby could not have died of heart and liver disease as a result. That is pure HBO bunk. Something like playing a tune on the aircraft fuselage in the Andes, using human bones as drumsticks. Very good for viewer horror, but very far from the truth.

Nuclear energy has a fantastic safety record and the latest designs could not be more impressive.

Germany, however, bowing to its anti-nuke Green movement, decided to scrap its nuclear power plants and invest a fortune on wind and solar.  The result?  Germany nearly tripled its energy prices, while remaining dependent on coal plants to provide the reliable electricity intermittent “renewables” can’t provide.  Although they spent a fortune, German emissions have not declined.

France, on the other hand, went nuclear.

German households now pay around 30 Euro cents per kilowatt hour for electricity while the French pay only 17.

Americans pay around 12.83 U.S. cents per kilowatt hour (11.82 Euro cents).  State energy prices vary widely with pro-energy states paying around a dime, while states with Green regulatory regimes such as California and the New England states paying from 19 cents per kwh to over 23.

Countries such as Germany, Spain and Denmark provide perfect illustrations of what not to do, unless driving people into energy poverty is your goal.

While entertainers have the right to exaggerate for dramatic and comedic effect, Chernobyl goes a step too far.  Frightening people away from clean, abundant, safe and affordable nuclear to sell a cable channel does the world a great disservice.

The facts reveal that nuclear power is a safe, smart, affordable way to generate electricity.

People need to know.

For nature and people too,



A Little Perspective on 2 Degrees Centigrade

The alarmists are telling us that the global average temperature must not exceed two degrees Centigrade.   I think a little perspective is in order. The 2º C is an anomaly. Here is what it would look like on your thermometer.








New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking–Part 1— Introduction


This posting will provide the Introduction to Mark Mills report titled “New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking”.

Mills is a scientist.  Most of the reports that say it is possible to eliminate fossil fuel’s use and replace them with wind and solar, seem to be written by economists.  I have nothing against economists as my daughter and son are economists.  It is just that I fear that the authors accept the alarmists visions then hang some economic words on that skeleton.  Let’s look at Mills’ VC:

Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, where he co-directs an Institute on Manufacturing Science and Innovation. He is also a strategic partner with Cottonwood Venture Partners (an energy-tech venture fund). Previously, Mills cofounded Digital Power Capital, a boutique venture fund, and was chairman and CTO of ICx Technologies, helping take it public in 2007. Mills is a regular contributor to and is author of Work in the Age of Robots (2018). He is also coauthor of The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (2005). His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Real Clear. Mills has appeared as a guest on CNN, Fox, NBC, PBS, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In 2016, Mills was named “Energy Writer of the Year” by the American Energy Society.

Earlier, Mills was a technology advisor for Bank of America Securities and coauthor of the Huber-Mills Digital Power Report, a tech investment newsletter. He has testified before Congress and briefed numerous state public-service commissions and legislators. Mills served in the White House Science Office under President Reagan and subsequently provided science and technology policy counsel to numerous private-sector firms, the Department of Energy, and U.S. research laboratories.

Early in his career, Mills was an experimental physicist and development engineer at Bell Northern Research (Canada’s Bell Labs) and at the RCA David Sarnoff Research Center on microprocessors, fiber optics, missile guidance, earning several patents for his work. He holds a degree in physics from Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada.



A growing chorus of voices is exhorting the public, as well as government policymakers, to embrace the necessity— indeed, the inevitability—of society’s transition to a “new energy economy.” Advocates claim that rapid technological changes are becoming so disruptive and renewable energy is becoming so cheap and so fast that there is no economic risk in accelerating the move to—or even mandating—a post-hydrocarbon world that no longer needs to use much, if any, oil, natural gas,  or coal. Central to that worldview is the proposition that the energy sector is undergoing the same kind of technology disruptions that Silicon Valley tech has brought to so many other markets. Indeed, “old economy” energy companies are a poor choice for investors, according to proponents of the new energy economy, because the assets of hydrocarbon companies will soon become worthless, or “stranded.”1 Betting on hydrocarbon companies today is like betting on Sears instead of Amazon a decade ago. “Mission Possible,” a 2018 report by an international Energy Transitions Commission, crystallized this growing body of opinion on both sides of the Atlantic.2 To “decarbonize” energy use, the report calls for the world to engage in three “complementary” actions: aggressively deploy renewables or so-called clean tech, improve energy efficiency, and limit energy demand. This prescription should sound familiar, as it is identical to a nearly universal energy-policy consensus that coalesced following the 1973–74 Arab oil embargo that shocked the world. But while the past half-century’s energy policies were animated by fears of resource depletion, the fear now is that burning the world’s abundant hydrocarbons releases dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. To be sure, history shows that grand energy transitions are possible. The key question today is whether the world is on the cusp of another. The short answer is no. There are two core flaws with the thesis that the world can soon abandon hydrocarbons. The first: physics realities do not allow energy domains to undergo the kind of revolutionary change experienced on the digital frontiers. The second: no fundamentally new energy technology has been discovered or invented in nearly a century—certainly, nothing analogous to the invention of the transistor or the Internet. Before these flaws are explained, it is best to understand the contours of today’s hydrocarbon-based energy economy and why replacing it would be a monumental, if not an impossible, undertaking.


The next installment of Mills’ report will be “Moonshot Policies and the Challenge of Scale”. That will be followed by “The Physics—Driven Cost Realities of Wind and Solar.

The numbers that appear at the end of some sentences  are references.  I will publish all those at the end of serialized report.


Fisking Of The Posting “If Trump And GOP Don’t Understand Climate Change, The Don’t Deserve Public Office.”

The following fisking is of an article posted on CNN Opinion, by Jill Flipovic  on August 21 2018 titled “If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office:.

I have added comments to Ms Filipovic essay in red.

The Trump administration’s latest efforts to undo more of Barack Obama’s efforts to slow climate change come as no surprise. Nothing gets this President more excited than trying to undo his predecessor’s legacy.

But his proposed new EPA rules — tagged with the laughable misnomer the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule — are not just vindictive, they are dangerous. The administration wants to allow coal-burning power plants to emit more deadly carbon and to give states greater leeway to allow big-money companies to pollute. The new rules would replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which is aimed at reducing carbon emissions.  

Several things wrong here. First “deadly carbon” is an ignorant thing to say.  Does she not know that virtually every living thing is composed of carbon?   The globe is greening due to the increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2).  Wheat and corn fields are becoming more productive as atmospheric  CO2 increases.   Secondly, her ignorance shows.  She is wrong if she thinks shutting down US coal plants will have any effect on the planet.  Using the warmers own formula for calculating the effect of reduced CO2 emissions by a shutdown US coal plants,  shows that any temperature decrease will be too small to be  measurable.
Thirdly the emission of CO2 from US coal plants is pretty small compared to China.  Her rant is  missdirected.  China is  adding a new coal plant every week. And guess who gave the Chinese  permission to continue doing this until 2030 —none other than forward looking savior Barak O.   Obama thinks we should close our coal plants down but its ok for the Chinese to keep building them.  Not just China , world-wide construction of coal based plants is on the rise.  Coal sales are on the rise.

The proposal reflects a longstanding and fundamentally damaging idea in right-wing politics: That climate change is a matter of opinion, not fact, and that people who have no interest in the facts still deserve to hold political office. 

It is obvious, she belongs to the church of unending climate catastrophes.  If she would look at actual recorded temperatures versus the computer PREDICTION, she might come down off her high horse. Paraphrasing the last sentence, Those who hold catastrophic climate change based upon religious beliefs  do not deserve to write ignorant opinion pieces.

The deluded perspective is not confined to America’s Republican Party. Conservatives in Australia have also latched on to the theory that climate change is debatable, and that efforts to fight it are a liberal conspiracy against big business.

 Well, Germany, and other European countries are increasing their CO2 emissions.  The third world is increasing their CO2 emissions. The Paris Agreement is a scam.  This is evading Ms. Filipovic.  She lives in a world of make believe.  Perhaps that shows that only the US and Australia are not hiding under the covers.

The GOP has long been in the pocket of polluters, who have who have made clear that they are quite comfortable destroying the planet for our children and grandchildren in return for getting rich now. The party has helped to make this denialism politically feasible by systematically undermining the public. 

Once again Ms Pilipovic seems to be ill informed.  What President Trump is doing is to make electricity affordable.   Go look at the reports from England and Germany, two nations that have gone head over heals in renewable energy, about the poor people that are dying because they can no longer afford electricity.  Every intelligent person knows that the people that will suffer the most as energy prices go skyrocketing are the poorest people among us. 

That the new Trump rules will cost thousands of lives — 1,400 every year by the EPA’s own admission — doesn’t seem to matter to this President and his GOP enablers, who put corporate profits first, ahead of citizens’ health. In this, they are joined by a base that seems willing to accept any lie, indignity or even undermining of health and life.

When you read about the deaths of 1400 every year, you may wonder where that came from.   Ms Pilipovic may know but my guess is that she doesn’t.  The Obama EPA knew that the coal plant CO2 emissions were insufficient to justify the “Clean Power Plant” plan.  They needed something else. So, they settled on 2.5-micron particles.  Too small for you to see, but they postulated that people are breathing them in and dying.  They had a problem.  All the test they had run as well as other groups outside of the EPA never found that the 2.5-micron particles were killing people.  So, they got a group of “scientist” to run these tests again.  Guess what.  They found out that it was a serious situation.  Two things are fishy here.  The first that they would not publish their test data.  Of course, no one could disprove their results without access to their data.   BUT the EPA accepted the results.  A new bill has been passed saying that the EPA can no longer use “secrete science”.  And the group of scientists that did this secrete science have amassed over $20, 000,000 doing studies for the EPA.  They know who is buttering their bread.

It’s a sad state of affairs — but also a real and growing threat to a country experiencing wild weather mood swings, the largest wildfires in recorded history, floods, droughts and on and on.

The bible of the warmers is the IPCC reports.  These reports have consistently said that the “wild weather “is not a function of climate change.

In any reasonable universe, those who deny basic scientific facts that connect this grim reality to humans’ role in global warming would be deemed unfit to hold office.

Here we go again. Who is unfit to hold office is the catastrophic global warmers. Get this, James Hansen, the god father of the catastrophic global warming movement says their theory is all wrong.   Click here to read.

Imagine a congressman who questioned whether gravity was real, or a senator who insisted the earth was flat. We would rightly say that they’re intellectually deficient, and that their bizarre theories mean they probably shouldn’t be making vital decisions that affect millions of Americans (not to mention billions more people around the world).

Is this a mistake on her part?  Normally people would say Representatives and Senators not congressmen and senators.

But somehow climate change falls in a different category (along with, among a majority of evangelical protestants, for example, a disbelief in evolution).

This seems to be religious bias.  I was told that liberals never sank that low.

It’s one thing to be ignorant — and, to be sure, many non-climate-change-denying Americans don’t understand the basics of climate change either. But most Americans also don’t understand the details of how a bill becomes law, how our court system works, or how the national budget gets set — all things we expect of our nationally elected officials.

I think we have shown who are the Ignorant ones.

Politicians should similarly be expected to understand the basic science of climate change, and to listen to the scientific experts instead of seeking out the few outliers who confirm their own half-baked beliefs.

Oh yes, such people as Al Gore and Bill Nye are the biggest half baked, maybe only unbaked catastrophic global warmer educators.

Of course, Trump has appointed a series of cronies and amateurs to his cabinet, and he himself holds the highest office in the land, with zero previous experience for the job, zero intellectual curiosity, and zero ability to train his attention on just about anything other than Twitter and Fox News.

Gosh he only amassed several billions of dollars in his business career.  Of course  Barak Obama’s experience as a community organizer made him much more qualified than Donald Trump. (sarc)

Again, showning who the ignorant one is.

His presidency makes full mockery of the theory that those in charge should know anything at all. And with this latest green light to polluters and contaminators, all of us are again paying the price for that unapologetic greed and ignorance.



Computer Predicted Global Temperature Show Man-Made Global Warming To Be A Lie

Frankly, I don’t get it. The actual data is ignored by dedicated warmers.  In the period that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the warmer’s authority on all things related to climate science, the forecasted temperatures have greatly exceeded the actual recorded temperatures.  All one must do is look at the following chart:


The forecast temperatures, generated by a banks of computers, are well above the measured temperatures.  The satellite and balloon actual measurements confirm one onther, And the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is higher than the warmer computer operators expected so the gap between real and computer forecast temperatures should even be greater.  If this gap had only existed for just several years, one might say that we should wait a while because It might possibly start to get smaller. But that is not been the case. As the years go by it has grown larger.  The chart shows the satellite and balloon temperatures  as rising in this chart. That was caused by the El Nino. Those temperatures are now trending down.  Overall, the measured global temperature as shown is rising, but this is  due to natural forces with only a minimal amount due to CO2.     

Temperature is the driver for their forecasts of all the catastrophic thing they imagine will happen.   Melting glaciers, disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, sea level rise of many meters, droughts, floods, tornados, hurricanes, loss of species, massive migrations, diseases moving in a polar direction etc. are all a function of the very high projected global temperatures. 

They keep teasing you by telling you that there is “tipping point” that if reached will result in an uncontrollable ramp-up of temperature that will have catastrophic results.  Can we really believe this as their prediction batting average is not very good? 

I used to be a frequent contributor of “letters to the Editor”.  Most of my letters asked why the media continued to publish these outlandish forecasts that did not come true. That they should review the history of what they have published and that they would see the prediction’s failure rate was very high. Aren’t the media supposed to be skeptics?  Not necessarily about just global warming but everything?  They are not fulfilling their obligation to their subscribers.  And that is reflected, obviously, by the decline of subscribers and their withering loss of credibility which has them now rated near the bottom of the polled lists.

To summarize, if the actual temperature is not skyrocketing, the warmer catastrophes are not going to happen. All their bloviating is just that, blovating.  They must keep you worried so they can continue to get money from you and the government to keep them alive.



Some of you may have noticed that my postings have almost been non-existent for many months.  I have had some health setbacks that have kept my posting near zero.  Trigeminal neuralgia is a nasty thing to have. I am on my second bout with it. About 14 years ago, I had my first encounter.  As Trigeminal sometimes does, it went into remission after about a year.  But now it is back. Medication allows me to have mostly pain free days. Having compared notes with my niece who has had Trigeminal longer than I have and much worse, we both find that moving your neck in the ways that one does when typing and reading, really aggravates this damned condition.  I think I am now in condition to continue my blogging- I hope.


“EPA Endangerment Finding Endangers The USA”

My previous posting discussed the need to eliminate the endangerment finding (EF) and to do it quickly.   This posting will be a reposting of an essay by Dennis Avery from WattsUpWithThat, titled “The EPA CO2 endangerment finding endangers the USA”.   Avery  really captures the danger that the ER imposes and an overview of how wrong it is. 

My next posting will look at the “lines of evidence” upon which the EPA based the ER and how these “lines” have been invalidated.




The EPA CO2 endangerment finding endangers the USA

By Dennis T Avery with a foreword by Paul Driessen

October 2 2017

President Trump must reverse EPA’s climate change “Endangerment Finding”

Foreword by Paul Driessen:

The Obama EPA’s infamous “Endangerment Finding” declared that carbon dioxide and methane from fossil fuel operations cause global warming and climate change that pose imminent dangers to the health and wellbeing of every American. In this insightful article, climate history author Dennis Avery explains why this finding is based on bad science and should not be the basis for bureaucratic regulations or court decisions.

As Avery notes, computer climate models have predicted far more warming than has actually occurred in the Real World. Contrary to EPA claims, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have not become more frequent or severe. Natural forces and phenomena explain the various climate and weather fluctuations we have observed over the centuries – and demonstrate that CO2 is only a “bit player” in determining these changes. Moreover, new research convincingly shows that solar activity determines the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth, and thus the extent of low-lying clouds that periodically cool the planet … and at the other end of the cycle bring sunnier skies that warm it.

Guest opinion by Dennis T. Avery

Nine years ago, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency issued an “Endangerment Finding.” It claimed that methane leaks from natural gas production and pipelines, and manmade carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, cause dangerous global warming that poses an imminent danger to the health and wellbeing of Americans. However, the Finding was based on computerized climate models that couldn’t even successfully hind-cast the weather we’d had over the past century – much less forecast Earth’s climate 100 years into the future. In fact, Earth’s climate has changed frequently, often abruptly.

EPA essentially asserted that the 80% of our energy that comes from coal, oil and natural gas caused all our planet’s recent warming and any more warming is a long-term threat. Obama’s team thus bet in 2009 that Earth’s warming from 1976–98 would continue. But it didn’t. Never mind all those recent NOAA and NASA claims that 2016 was our “hottest year” ever. Satellites are our most honest indicator, and they say our planet’s temperature has risen an insignificant 0.02 degrees C (0.04 degrees F) since 1998.

That 20-year non-warming clearly shows that the models are worthless for prediction. But the Federal Appeals Court in Washington nevertheless recently cited methane emissions to block regulatory approval for a new natural gas pipeline. The ruling will encourage radical greens to keep thinking they can regulate gas and oil production and transport into oblivion. Alarmists across the country are already citing the new precedent in other cases, in effect demanding re-hearings on Trump’s entire energy plan. Continue reading

The Endangerment Finding Needs To Be Repealed Quickly

Probably the most important environmental action the Trump administration can take is to eliminate the Endangerment Finding (EF). The EF was used to have CO2 and several other so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs) inserted in the Clean Air Act.   That action has allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enact regulations without any input from Congress.  Giving the EPA free reign has given the radicals in that Department the leverage to try to regulate fossil fuels out of existence.


As recently as 30 January this year, just a little over a month ago, EPA Director Pruitt said in a Congressional hearing that he was reviewing a challenge to the EF.   Red teams, blue teams and all that but not one to my knowledge has been formed. Nothing seems to be getting done. It is over a year ago that the Pruitt was named Director.

Posting of that hearing by USA Today, reported:

“Pruitt spent much of the hearing touting some of the priorities he sees as important: aggressively cleaning up Superfund sites, modernizing water systems tainted by lead and cleanup of abandon mines.”

Good objectives but minor league compared to the EF.  And that list of his priorities will eventually be done as both parties want them done.  He needs to concentrate on getting things done that the Democrats will not do if they get back in power.

Continue reading

Most Revealing Chart Part 2–Failed Warmer Predictions


The previous posting shows that the warmer’s forecast “average global temperature” is way off from the actual measurements.  These alarmists use that erroneous forecast as the basis for their pronouncement of future global catastrophes that will come about if we don’t join their quest to remove CO2 emissions and switch to renewable energy.   

The alarmist’s forecasts of catastrophes get maximum coverage in the media.  It is obvious that the media never checks to see if the previous forecast have proven correct. And the following will demonstrate that the media never ever question an alarmist prediction and never ever goes back to check out the previous predictions.

There all kinds of alarmist’s forecasts, some of which I covered in an earlier posting titled” CAGW PREDICTIONS—ZOMBIE AND OTHER”. Almost all of them are embarrassingly wrong.   I encourage you to click on the link and have some good laughs.

The awful forecasts that follow are from scientists, science organizations and many from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)— a UN organization. This assembly of failure was posted by Javier on The Blog WattsUpWithThat with an intro by Andy May.  Andy takes a little liberty with Javier’s posting by adding on a section that highlights obvious predictions that the alarmists should have made.

An outline of the failed predictions are as follows:

·        Warming rate predictions

·        Temperature predictions

·        Winter predictions

·        Snow predictions

·        Precipitation predictions

·        Extreme weather predictions

·        Wildfire predictions

·        Rotation of the Earth predictions

·        Arctic sea predictions

·        Polar bear predictions

·        Glacier predictions

·        Sea level predictions

·        Sinking nation predictions

·        Climate refugee predictions

·        Climate change predictions

–and Andy May’s failure to predict list—

·        Greener planet

·        Increase in forest biomass

·        Carbon sinks increase

·        Slowdown in warming


All the above list can be read by clicking on the WattsUpWithThat posting

“Some Failed Climate Prediction”.



Most Revealing Chart Part 1 Computer Forecasts versus Actual Temperature Measurements.

The graph below is probably the most revealing of all the graphs used when discussing man-made global warming.  John Christy presented it to a US Congressional hearing in 2017.  The graph’s X axis shows years and the Y axis is global atmospheric temperature  anomalys in  degrees Centigrade.   (“Anomaly” degrees, is the measurement of the change in temperature rather that the actual temperature.  The actual temperature is somewhere  around 15C.  The exact temperature can be contentious.  So the anomaly is usually charted.)

The red line is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate model runs.  The man-made global warming theory doesn’t have one model.   They had 102 models all churning out forecasts of the future global temperature. All with different assumptions of what will the future look like.  All of them show rising temperature based  primarily the  amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  The forecast spread is all over the place based upon a number of other assumed forces.  Christy averaged the forecasts and that is  source of the red line.

Then Christy added the atmospheric  temperatures that were  MEASURED,  by satellites and weather balloons.

So, stating the obvious, we have actual measured temperatures versus forecast temperatures. One can note that over the time, the separation between actual and forecast has gotten greater and appears that trend will continue



These forecast high temperatures are what propels the catastrophic man-made global forecasts of sky high sea levels, melting glaciers, mass migrations,  mass extinction of species, terrifying  severe weather, and deadly heat.  The media revels in these forecast disasters and gives them top billing.  But why would you believe this will be the Earth’s future?   Surely if everyone knew this or have just learned it, why would they be persuaded to foist these irrational conclusions upon us?

You may be thinking that only one model would be necessary if they really could forecast average global temperatures.