We should return to Michael Crichton’s way of thinking — Part 1

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.  Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton (1942-2008) wrote 26 novels, many of which were made into movies such as Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain, The Terminal Man, WestWorld and The Great Train Robbery. More people may know him as the creator and producer of the highly acclaimed TV series ER. He graduated Harvard Medical school in 1969 but never practiced medicine. Instead he used his medical and biology knowledge to create stories related to much of his training.

Crichton showed an early writing talent having published an article in the New York Times at age 14, so it was not surprising to his family that he chose to pursue this career. During it all he was a true advocate of REAL science untarnished by the politics that tends to guide it today. He exhibited this passion in a series of lectures from 2003 to 2005 and in his book “State of Fear” published in 2004 challenging the global warming fraud in a gripping fictional presentation.

This series of articles at CFACT is drawn from the following three lectures: Aliens Cause Global Warming presented at California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, Environmentalism Is A Religion, presented to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on September 15, 2003 and The Case For Skepticism on Global Warming presented on January 25, 2005 to the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

His title at Cal Tech sounded humorous but it paved the way to describing questions with no physical evidence. He believed that there was an emerging crisis between science and politics which distorted the science he grew up with. That science extended life spans, fed the hungry, cured diseases and shrunk the world with jet planes and cell phones. He had expected “science to banish the evils of human thought, prejudice and superstition”. In this lecture he made the case for how science has been “seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity”.

He chose to focus on the many ways science wasted its resources investigating things with no physical data to support it. He first attacked the delusion involved in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, known as the SETI project. A sound was heard at the National Radio Observatory in West Virginia in 1960. While it proved to have been incorrectly interpreted, it led people to make equations relating to the number of stars in the Milky Way and how statistically they could point to intelligent life sending us messages. None of the terms in the equations could be known or tested, so it was an adventure in guesses. SETI was never science but did become a religion for many. The comparison to everything that followed in the global warming delusion is amazing. Yet it has been long forgotten by most of you reading this article remembering the intellect of Michael Crichton.

What Crichton recognized then was how SETI being accepted among so many scientists in unrelated fields was opening a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks.

He then jumped a decade into the 1970s and took on the false fear mongering government reports on the so-called “nuclear winter” that could result from a nuclear war. Reports written with no data, only speculation. Ultimately groups of scientists showed up with equations once again having terms that could only be guessed at. Sadly the well known astronomer Carl Sagan signed on with doom and gloom predictions in a field he new nothing about. Dozens of appearances on the Johnny Carson show appeared to swell his knowledge of EVERYTHING. This lead to Sagan co-chairing a conference with that most famous charlatan Paul Ehrlich in Washington,DC on the long term consequences of nuclear war.

As destruction of all agriculture was considered a given, a questioner pointed out that while scientists thought nothing would grow at Hiroshima and Nagasaki for 75 years after the1945 Atomic Bomb explosions, a large melon crop grew the next year. Ehrlich brushed the question aside and said “what we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”

It was here in Crichton’s lecture that he made a statement that everyone in the world today should read and learn.

He said, “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.” Sound familiar.

He went on to say “the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science on the contrary requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has the results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. In fact the greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus”.

This has occurred all through the search for medical cures and in physics as well. Einstein responded to the book 100 German Scientists Who Disagree with Einsteins Theory of Relativity by saying “It should only have taken one to prove me wrong”.

A major point Crichton made in this speech was that as the 20th century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. The rise of specialized advocacy groups was now effective at shaping policy without scientific data. Contributing to this has been the complacency among the scientific profession and the lack of good science education among the public. Additionally he said the decline of the media as an independent assessors of facts has been unfortunate. Newspapers now mix editorial opinion and factual content on their front pages.

Crichton questioned when the term “skeptic” became a dirty word requiring quotation marks around it. He spoke of the growing obsession with computer models back in 2003 which we all saw fail in the projections of the pandemic virus in the past year. Where models were supposed to process data they now create data to process. He said in this speech that “the arrogance of model makers is breathtaking” and who could disagree.

He warned that thinking back to the SETI project, the Nuclear Winter and on to global warming there comes one clear message; we can expect more and more serious problems of public policy dealing with issues where people care passionately on all sides.

Crichton pointed to the disgraceful manner that Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg was met with the publication of THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST. It conjured up thoughts of Galileo’s arrest for claiming the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the churches belief in the opposite.

He closed this first of three prescient lectures concerned about what science has become. He quoted the late Philip Handler former president of the National Academy of Science, who said “scientists best serve the public by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference – science and the nation will suffer.”


This article was published on April 7, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.

9 Crazy Examples of Unrelated Waste and Partisan Spending in Biden’s $2 Trillion ‘Infrastructure’ Proposal

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Just roughly one-third of the money goes to the kinds of spending people would usually associate with infrastructure.

The Biden administration on Wednesday released a comprehensive $2+ trillion spending proposal ostensibly focused on infrastructure. But there’s much more to this plan than meets the eye.

A glance at the proposal reveals many items that appear only tenuously related to infrastructure. In fact, several don’t appear to be related to infrastructure at all.

Here are 9 of the most suspect items in Biden’s “infrastructure” proposal, taken directly from a fact-sheet on the plan the White House released.

1. $10 Billion to Create a ‘Civilian Climate Corp’

The Biden administration proposes spending $10 billion to create a “Civilian Climate Corp.” The White House claims that “This $10 billion investment will put a new, diverse generation of Americans to work conserving our public lands and waters, bolstering community resilience, and advancing environmental justice through a new “Civilian Climate Corps.”

The proposal sets aside a whopping $20 billion—more than the latest COVID package spent on vaccines—for “a new program that will reconnect neighborhoods cut off by historic investments and ensure new projects increase opportunity, advance racial equity and environmental justice, and promote affordable access.”

Electric vehicles: A technological novelty so good it won’t catch on without hundreds of billions in subsidies. At least, that’s apparently what the Biden administration thinks, as its infrastructure proposal earmarks a “$174 billion investment to win the electric vehicle market.”

The spending will take the form of manufacturing subsidies and consumer tax credits, which historically have benefitted wealthy families most. For comparison, the proposal carves out more for green energy goodies than it does on the total $115 billion to “modernize the bridges, highways, roads, and main streets that are in most critical need of repair.”

When most people hear “infrastructure,” they think of roads, bridges, tunnels, and so on. But the Biden administration’s definition of the term is Olympian-gymnastics-level flexible. Apparently, the president considers it “infrastructure spending” to allocate $213 billion to build or retrofit 2 million “sustainable” houses and buildings. They also slip in $40 billion for public housing, stating this will “disproportionately benefit women, people of color, and people with disabilities.”

You might remember that the last “COVID” legislation had $128.5 billion in taxpayer dole-outs for public schools; much of the money will be spent years after the pandemic and there was no requirement that schools actually open. Yet this was, evidently, just the beginning. The Biden “infrastructure” plan includes another “$100 billion to upgrade and build new public schools.”

“Funds also will be provided to improve our school kitchens, so they can be used to better prepare nutritious meals for our students and go green by reducing or eliminating the use of paper plates and other disposable materials,” the proposal reads. (Emphasis mine).

One generally thinks of infrastructure and higher education as separate, distinct sectors. Yet the Biden “infrastructure” plan slips in $12 billion for states to spend on community colleges.

The proposal includes several billion dollars allocated to reduce supposed “racial and gender inequities” in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) research and development.

What this has to do with interstate infrastructure is not adequately explained.

Loosely lumped under the broad term “digital infrastructure,” the plan allocates $100 billion to “bring affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband to every American.” Interestingly, the proposal openly states that it wishes to promote government and NGO control of broadband and push out private sector providers: It “prioritizes support for broadband networks owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non-profits, and co-operatives—providers with less pressure to turn profits.”

The plan includes $25 billion “to help upgrade child care facilities and increase the supply of child care in areas that need it most.” According to the White House, “funding would be provided through a Child Care Growth and Innovation Fund for states to build a supply of infant and toddler care in high-need areas.”

The above list totals hundreds of billions in waste and unrelated partisan spending slipped into the Biden administration’s expensive “infrastructure” plan. But it should be stressed that this list is far from exhaustive; it’s what one reporter was able to find in a few hours of research.

By the time this proposal is translated into hundreds of pages of legislation (if not thousands) and subjected to Congress’s (and lobbyists’) influence, there will no doubt be even more waste and partisan policies slipped into it.

Yes, there is serious debate about the state of American infrastructure and the proper role of the federal government in addressing its deficiencies. However, of this plan’s more than $2 trillion in proposed spending, just $621 billion goes to “transportation infrastructure and resilience.” That’s right, just roughly one-third of the money goes to the kinds of spending people would usually associate with infrastructure, like repairing roads and bridges and modernizing public transit.

Can Biden get away with this?

Well, remember that only 10 percent of the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion in “COVID relief” spending was actually directly related to COVID-19, with much of it going to waste, politician pet projects, and partisan priorities. The president appears to have taken a similar approach to infrastructure spending.

Unfortunately, it’s not much of a surprise. As the American journalist and satirist PJ O’Rourke once said, “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

This article was published on March 31, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from FEE, Foundation for Economic Education.

Liberal Dark Money Network Is Behind ‘Grassroots’ Support for Dem Climate Bill

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The left’s biggest dark money network is behind a “grassroots” organization pushing Democrats’ $500 billion plan to fight “environmental racism.”

Rewiring America, one of many environmental groups that have endorsed the BUILD GREEN Act, is part of a massive dark money network run by the D.C.-based Arabella Advisors. The nation’s wealthiest liberal donors use Arabella’s $731 million activist networks to secretly fund a host of liberal causes.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y) cited Rewiring America’s support in a press release announcing the legislation. The bill’s cosponsors blame “corporate” interests for damaging the climate.

Rewiring America is powered by the Windward Fund, an Arabella subsidiary whose stated mission is to promote “community-based, grassroots grant making.” The Windward Fund and Rewiring America are not required to disclose their budgets, spending, or finances.

The legislation includes a call for the country to shift entirely to renewable energy and to replace all vehicles with electric cars. Rewiring America’s executive director Adam Zurofsky praised the legislation for “decarbonizing our economy and meeting the climate challenge.”

But many of the bill’s provisions are not related to the climate or the environment. The legislation would redistribute wealth to low-income and minority communities, as well as communities “facing environmental injustice.” It would also institute “strong labor provisions” for union workers and establish a $15-per-hour minimum wage.

Liberals frequently use “environmental racism” to justify a host of radical policies. The bill’s sponsors claim that “environmental racism” justifies everything from reparations payments to single-payer health care. The left-wing Sunrise Movement, which endorsed the legislation, supports abolishing “police and prisons” in order to achieve “climate justice.”

President Joe Biden invoked “environmental justice” on the campaign trail, pledging to have the Justice Department prosecute fossil fuel companies “to the fullest extent permitted by law.”

The legislation has also been endorsed by left-wing groups like 350.org, Greenpeace, and Zero Hour, which claims the world has less than nine years left until it’s made uninhabitable by global warming.

While it remains unclear how much these dark money groups have spent lobbying for the legislation, in January the Windward Fund hired AJW Inc., which lobbies for environmental groups including the Clean Air Task Force and the Environmental Defense Action Fund.

The legislation is Democrats’ latest attempt to usher in radical policies using climate legislation. Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal includes provisions to provide free health care and jobs to every American. In February 2021, Democrats introduced legislation that would declare a climate change emergency and give the federal government power to combat “environmental injustice” by promoting labor union membership.


This article appeared April 1, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research Center.

The Real Lessons of Fukushima

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

A decade has passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake, and the name Fukushima is etched into history. But few people know the truth of what happened. The phrase, “the lessons learned from Fukushima,” is well-known. But how do people implement them, if they don’t know what happened, or what lessons they should actually learn?

It was after lunch on 11 March 2011 that a giant earthquake occurred 72 kilometers (45 miles) off the Oshika Peninsula in Japan. It registered 9.0 on the Richter Scale, making it the largest ‘quake ever recorded in Japan. The undersea ground movement, over 30 km (18 miles) beneath the ocean’s surface, lifted up a huge volume of water, like an immense moving hill. Meanwhile, the ground shockwave traveled toward the land at high speed. It struck Japan and shook the ground for six terrifying minutes.

The shock wave traveled under 11 nuclear reactors, including two separate Fukushima complexes: Fukushima-Diani and Fukushima-Daiichi. (Diani means ‘Complex 1’ and Daiichi ‘Complex 2’.) All 11 reactors shut down, as they were designed to do, and no doubt all the reactor operators breathed a great sigh of relief. It was premature.

The mound of seawater was still traveling. As the water “hill” entered shallow water, nearer the land, it was lifted up into a towering wave as high as 40 meters (130 feet!) in places.  Then, some 50 minutes after the earthquake, the tsunami struck the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power station. Some kilometers away, when the water struck the Fukushima-Diani nuclear power station, it was “only” 9 m (30 ft) high, which was not as devastating as at Daiichi. Diani did not make it into the news.

The water jumped the protective sea walls at Fukushima-Daiichi. The sighs of relief from a half-hour before turned into concern and dread. Over at the Fukushima Diani power station, 12 km (7 mi) to the south, water also caused damage to machinery, but the reactors were not harmed. There was no risk of radiation release, so the Diani power station was of no interest to the international media. Diani was safely shut down to “cold shutdown” after two days.

As a result, over the past decade, any reference to “Fukushima” has meant only the Daiichi power station and not the other one.

The devastating tsunami swept up to 10 km (6 mi) inland in places, washing away buildings, roads, and telecommunication and power lines. Over 15,000 people were killed, mainly by drowning.

Although all the nuclear reactors had shut down to a state known as “hot shutdown,” the reactors were still very hot and needed residual cooling for many hours after the urgent fast shutdown. People instinctively know not to put their hands on the engine block of a car right after it has been switched off. Nuclear reactors are the same and need to cool down until they reach the safe state known as “cold shutdown.”

A nuclear reactor has pumps that send water through the reactor until it cools. But the Fukushima electrical pumps failed because the tsunami had washed away the incoming electrical lines. So the reactor system automatically switched to diesel-driven generators to keep the cooling pumps going; but the water had washed away the diesel fuel supply, meaning the diesels worked for only a short while. Then it switched to emergency batteries, but the batteries were never designed to last for days, and could supply emergency power for only about eight hours.

The hot fuel could not be cooled, and over the next three or four days the fuel in three reactors melted, much like a candle melts.

The world media watched, and broadcast the blow-by-blow action. Japanese authorities started to panic under the international spotlight. The un-circulating cooling water was boiling off inside the reactors resulting in a chemical reaction between hot fuel exposed to hot steam. This led to the production of hydrogen gas. As the steam pressure rose, the engineers decided to open valves to release the pressure. That worked as planned, but it released the hydrogen as well.

Hydrogen, being light, rose up to the roof, where the ventilation system was not working, because there was no electricity. After a while some stray spark ignited the hydrogen which exploded, blowing the lightweight roof off the building right in front of the world’s TV cameras.  The Fukushima news just became much more dramatic. Authorities were desperate to show the world some positive action.

They progressively ordered the evacuation of 160,000 people living around the Fukushima neighborhood. That was a mistake. As days and weeks passed, it materialized that not one single person was killed by nuclear radiation. Not one single person was even injured by nuclear radiation, either. Even today, a decade later, there is still no sign of any longer-term radiation harm to any person or animal. Sadly, however, people did die during the forced evacuation.

So one of the lessons learned from Fukushima is that a huge amount of nuclear power can be struck by the largest earthquake and tsunami ever recorded, and nobody gets harmed by nuclear radiation.

Another lesson learned is that an evacuation order issued too hastily did harm and kill people.

World Nuclear Association Director-General Dr. Sama Bilbao y León said: “The rapidly implemented and protracted evacuation has resulted in well-documented significant negative social and health impacts. In total, the evacuation is thought to have been responsible for more than 2,000 premature deaths among the 160,000 who were evacuated. The rapid evacuation of the frail elderly, as well at those requiring hospital care, had a near-immediate toll.” [emphasis added]

She added: “When facing future scenarios concerning public health and safety, whatever the event, it is important that authorities take an all-hazards approach. There are risks involved in all human activities, not just nuclear power generation. Actions taken to mitigate a situation should not result in worse impacts than the original events. This is particularly important when managing the response to incidents at nuclear facilities – where fear of radiation may lead to an overly conservative assessment and a lack of perspective for relative risks.”

Thus, a decade later, we can contemplate the cumulative lessons learned. Above all, they are that nuclear power is far safer than anyone had thought. Even when dreaded core meltdowns occurred, and although reactors were wrecked, resulting in a financial disaster for the owners, no people were harmed by radiation.

We also learned that, for local residents, it would have been far safer to stay indoors in a house than to join the forced evacuation. We also learned that governments and authorities must listen to the nuclear professionals, and not overreact, even though the television news cameras look awfully close.

Fukushima certainly produced some valuable lessons. Governments, news media, and the public need to learn the correct lessons from them.


This article was published March 27, 2021 and is reproduced by permission from the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow.  The author is an award-winning nuclear physicist. 

The Godfather of Climate Skepticism Makes You a Book You Can’t Refuse

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

There are a lot of great books out there on why there is skepticism about climate, simply from a scientific point of view. This is not only warranted by the very nature of science itself, which is to question but makes effective counters to the settled science ideas.

The debate over the drivers of climate should be a scientific one, not agenda-driven. But alas, it is not that way today. As usual, and this ALWAYS COMES FROM LEFTIST THINKING, someone found some way to exploit something to try to push a top-down agenda that seeks control of individuals and conformity to a group-think mentality. It turns into a matter of the relative truths of people that wish to control, vs the absolute truths of Nature and Nature’s God. While doomsday predictions have been with us since the start of time, it is only now they have journeyed from a supernatural cause that involved religion, to a man-made cause that has been made in a way into a religion. Ironic isn’t it? They either deny God is in control, deny God, or say this is what God wants you to do. You can’t make this up.

One of the most amazing side issues here is that the people pushing this advocate for population control by various methods, and then turn around and tell people they are doing it because of concern with future generations. Providing they actually get born.

Phony? Fraud? Fill in your own word. No matter what, it comes out to deception, which is a tool of evil.

But I want to make sure that because I am not mentioning certain books here, that people understand how great those books are.

When I wrote The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War, I had no idea Marc was writing this book. I used the word “Phony” because it is a Phony War on 2 fronts. 1) That any person would think they are some kind of warrior that is going to save the planet, is an exercise in ego, arrogance, and ignorance. They actually think they are in a combat situation where someone in the act of defending their country, gets killed or maimed? Or even sees or hear of it. Just the act of commitment is beyond anything a bunch of wannabe warriors can even fathom unless they have been to war. I have not been. My wrestling coach at PSU was one of the first men on the beach in Normandy. He knew what was, I did not. Hence the Satiric cover

2) It is phony because it simply uses climate and weather to push an agenda that in and of itself is phony. Marc calls it fraud. One of the phony aspects is the idea that this leftist Utopia is actually progressive, leading to the advancement of man. Its opposite, it leads to the enslavement of man. 2) And this is why Marc’s Book has me overjoyed at its writing and release, it exposes the phoniness (fraud) of a Green new deal, which is neither geared toward Green and is nothing but a raw deal. And the way it is being pushed on people is emblematic of a tyranny that grows harsher by the day.The Godfather of climate skepticism makes you a book you can’t refuse 2

On this matter in a figurative sense, I feel like John the Baptist with my book, and its content preparing the way for Marc’s book. Check out the chapter list for instance:

I call Marc the Godfather, because, like me, his name ends in a vowel, and don’t throw in the towel when it comes to things we believe to be true. But in terms of really getting out there, Marc obviously is the man. Marc is a policy animal who knows and understands enough about climate and weather to put this together. The book not only wins, but it also wins big.

And he makes the point that this is not about either climate or weather in the very title of the book. Think about this. The idea that the earth is now Greener than it has ever been in the satellite era, and the name of the left’s push is the Green New Deal? How is it Green in the first place if its advocating policies that arguably try to lessen the very element that is causing the greening, co2? Because it is not really about that. And Marc lays it all out in the book, exposing and destroying their missive. It’s the perfect end game, again none of us knew we were writing our books, but somehow all of them tie in so that reading Marc’s book is the natural peak to focus you on how deceptive this all is.

I always try to avoid words like fraud in anything I do. But Marc is right. I think it is a phony “war”. There is no atmospheric Apocalypse coming (hence Michael Schellenberger’s title, Apocalypse Never). The very fact that people would label other people “deniers” of something that they use to improve their forecasts, understanding the variability of climate and weather inherent to the planet, should immediately raise red flags as to whether something is meant for truth or deception. Why would you say that about someone that has made a living using climate and its variability to help him with his forecasting? And why would you stop someone like Marc from using factually referenced items to weave his counters? If he is so wrong, you do not need to shut him up, his words will do it for you. And why do you make it a war?

The Chapter list is a great summary as to where a book is going to take you.

Marc’s Chapters

  1. The Green Raw Deal
  2. A History: Every New Crisis has the Same “Solution”: Expanding the Size and Power of Government
  3. Man-Made Climate Change is Not a Threat
  4. The Details of the Deal
  5. Europe is Already Enjoying Their Version of the Green New Deal and Its Not Going Well
  6. The Green New Deal Plagiarizes the Same “Solutions” from Previous Environmental Scares
  7. The Red New Deal? The Watermelon Cut Open
  8. Even Many Environmentalists Are Bailing on the Green New Deal
  9. The Costs to End All Costs
  10. Energy Mandate Fairy Tale (Michael Moore Shocks the Greens)
  11. The Covid-Climate Connection: Covid Lockdowns as a Dress Rehearsal for the “Climate Emergency”

Now, this is where our books intersect directly ( Remember Marc is more policy and result oriented, I am more supply evidence for why the weather proves our point). But you can see it Chapter 10 and 11 in my book:The Godfather of climate skepticism makes you a book you can’t refuse 3

  1. Exploiting the Children. (side note, I am shocked at the terror k-9 is instilling in our children. That is one thing that motivated me to write a second book)
  2. Identity Politics Invades the Climate Debate
  3. The Toxic Politics of the Green New Deal
  4. The Ultimate Achievement of the Political Left

How Serious is Marc? There are over 90 pages of Notes, a must when we have a media that won’t look at anything. The natural counter to Deception is referenced fact.

So it comes down to this. Are you serious about looking into this issue? Then Green Fraud is a must.

The most the left does with me or Marc or anyone that dares disagree is found some kind of sound bite they can rip. They have no idea what we really know because they assume we know nothing. Comes with the arrogance and ignorance inherent in agendas like this. Well, those who think they know what they know, don’t yet know what they ought to know. So for me, I go and read what people that oppose me are saying, so I can see where they are coming from. I do not fear discussion. If you want the weather counter, the spiritual and political idea behind this, linkage to Covid, and a solution, then mine gets in there. But more important and dare I say, the most important of the bunch is what Marc has just put out. It’s researched, and he nails this. There are over 300 pages chock full of the information you need to know. The references themselves are worth reading over, so you can see what the Godfather has been doing to make this a book you can not refuse. Look at that chapter list. My brief review can not do justice to the volume of information Marc has come up with. You will always have it there for you, ready to reference if called upon to explain the truth on this matter. Some of the leaders in this country that are supposedly trying to stop this steamroller would do well to make sure they had it ready to use. But it is up to you. So make sure you get your hands on this.

It’s crazy, isn’t it? Can you believe all this? But perhaps we were made for a time such as this. Marc’s book is. It’s a book if you are really serious, you can’t refuse.

Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse Than You Think, by Marc Morano


This article appeared March 21, 2021 and is reproduced by permission from The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

The Many Variants of Fauci’s Mutating Covid Advice

Estimated Reading Time: 9 minutes

In an explosive Senate hearing on March 18, Dr. Anthony Fauci clashed with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul over a subject that has characterized much of the White House health adviser’s recent commentary on Covid-19: the specter of reinfection, caused by one of the emerging variants of the virus.

Several recent studies suggest that both natural and vaccine-induced immunity to Covid-19 is robust at least for the medium term, and even those hinting at possible reinfections suggest it is a rare phenomenon mainly afflicting people with severely weakened immune systems.

Fauci nonetheless maintains that reinfections, particularly from the South African variant of the virus, are not only commonplace but justify maintaining a suite of restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing regulations – perhaps even for another year.

Paul pressed Fauci to cite the scientific literature supporting this claim, to no avail. Instead, Fauci deflected the question by repeating platitudes about masks and exaggerating a recent study about reinfections. According to Fauci, previously recovered people who “were exposed to the variant in South Africa” reacted “as if they had never been infected before. They had no protection.”

A Danish study that Fauci later referenced to justify this assertion made no such claim about reinfection being widespread. Quite the contrary, its authors concluded “that protection against repeat SARS-CoV-2 infection is robust and detectable in the majority of individuals, protecting 80% or more of the naturally infected population who are younger than 65 years against reinfections.”

They did further observe “that individuals aged 65 years and older had less than 50% protection against repeat SARS-CoV-2 infection” and recommended targeted vaccinations for this group to bolster immunity. But even this finding came with several acknowledged limitations, as the study was not designed to test for repeat infection among the vast number of mild or asymptomatic cases of the disease, or to directly verify whether suspected reinfection cases were the result of misclassified lingering infections.

The study did not, however, support Fauci’s contention that reinfections are becoming commonplace.

Last week’s hearing is not the first time in recent memory that Fauci has exaggerated the evidence around reinfection, specifically invoking the South African variant. In early February, a pair of studies produced evidence that reinfections from this strain were possible, although at this point they appear to be rare. The first confirmed one single case of reinfection from the South African variant after extensive testing to rule out a misclassified lingering infection.

The second, conducted as part of the Novavax vaccine trial, indirectly inferred that a tiny number of its participants may have become reinfected with the South African variant, “suggest[ing] that prior infection with COVID-19 may not completely protect against subsequent infection by the South Africa escape variant.”

In no sense did either study claim that reinfections are commonplace or widespread. If anything, they were measured scientific calls for further investigation of each possibility. Yet here is how Fauci described them in a mid-February interview with CNN: “[t]he experience of our colleagues in South Africa indicates that even if you’ve been infected with the original virus, that there is a very high rate of re-infection to the point where previous infection does not seem to protect you against re-infection, at least with the South African variant.”

This sort of overstatement is a familiar theme for the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) lead infectious disease bureaucrat, dating all the way back to his mishandling of the AIDS crisis in the early 1980s. Fauci has a bad habit of seizing onto a small kernel of scientific data, drawing sweeping inferences upon it through unfounded speculation, and then presenting his own exaggerated spin to the public as if it is a matter of scientific fact.

Fauci’s Mutating Scientific Commentary

All the more curious, Fauci’s recent exaggerations about Covid-19 reinfection place him in direct conflict with another “expert” assessment of the very same question: his own, at various points over the course of the pandemic in the last year.

On March 28, 2020 – just shy of a year before his recent tangle with Senator Paul – Fauci aggressively contested the likelihood of reinfection in an interview with the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah. “It’s never 100%,” he explained, “but I’d be willing to bet anything that people who recover are really protected against re-infection.”

The NIH administrator’s many credulous enthusiasts in the news media will likely respond to such contradictory assertions by claiming that Fauci is simply updating his assessment in light of new evidence. Yet his track record over the past year suggests a very different story. Far from incorporating the latest scientific findings, Fauci appears to selectively invoke or downplay the specter of reinfection based on whether or not it serves his political objectives of the moment.

Fauci’s claims about reinfection do not follow a consistent trajectory of emerging evidence about whether or how frequently it happens. Instead they vacillate between depicting the possibility as either an overblown fear, concerning only a few rare cases, or an imminent cause for alarm that could spread to the entire population.

During the first several months of lockdowns in the United States, Fauci repeatedly asserted that immunity from the virus would preclude reinfection among those who had contracted the disease and recovered. “It’s a reasonable assumption that this virus is not changing very much,” he explained on an early April 2020 webcast for the Journal of the American Medical Association. “If we get infected now and it comes back next February or March we think this person is going to be protected.”

Fauci repeated a similar claim in a July 2020 interview with NIH director Francis Collins, who specifically asked him about the possibility of reinfection. “I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a rare case of an individual who went into remission and relapse,” he explained, “But Francis, I could say with confidence that it is very unlikely.”

These early statements aligned with Fauci’s political messaging in the first few months of the pandemic. He was operating under the assumption that lockdowns would successfully contain the virus, even praising Europe at the time for “successfully” pulling off this strategy (the fall second wave would belie this claim, as well as the notion that lockdowns even minimally guard against the course of the virus). If the United States would only accept similar measures through the summer and perhaps fall, the pandemic could be tamed through NPIs. Meanwhile, reinfections remained a non-issue in Fauci’s eyes.

When medical researchers documented one of the first confirmed cases of reinfection last August, Fauci saw no cause for alarm. During a virtual address to the staff of the Walter Reed Medical Center on August 26, he dismissed the prospect as “purely rare and anecdotal.” Fauci continued: “In every anecdotal case I’ve seen, there could have been another explanation for that. So, I can say that although we have to leave open the possibility, it is likely so, so rare that right now with what we know, it’s not an issue.”

Keep in mind that this description could just as easily apply to the recent studies of the South African strain, which have only confirmed or suggested a tiny number of reinfections. Fauci simply interpreted these earlier studies with greater caution and restraint against exaggerating their implications.

Not long after his August 2020 remarks, Fauci’s messaging on reinfections shifted to an opposite tack. With the looming prospect of another round of lockdowns in the fall, a group of scientists convened for a weekend meeting at AIER. On October 4th they issued the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), challenging the efficacy of Fauci’s lockdown-centered strategy and calling attention to the widespread collateral harms it had inflicted on society. Instead, the GBD argued, we should adopt a strategy of “focused protection” for the most vulnerable until we built up herd immunity in the general population.

Herd immunity is a biological fact rather than a policy strategy. It comes about through the combination of naturally acquired immunity from recovered persons, and vaccine-induced immunity among the still-vulnerable. With anticipated testing and approval of the first vaccines in the late fall or winter, focused protection offered a viable pathway to reopening and thereby alleviating the widespread social and economic destruction caused by the lockdowns over the last year.

Suddenly Fauci began pivoting his messaging on reinfections. Shortly after the GBD came out, White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas endorsed “focused protection” as an alternative to a perpetual cycle of lockdowns. Fauci himself previously conceded the reality of herd immunity effects in the spring and summer when he pointed out that reinfections were anecdotal, rare, and unlikely. But now he saw his political authority being challenged by the GBD authors and by Atlas’s parallel recommendations.

On October 16, 2020 Fauci accordingly went on CNN with a new message of alarm about reinfections: “We’re starting to see a number of cases that are being reported of people who get re-infected, well-documented cases of people who were infected after a relatively brief period of time. So you really have to be careful that you’re not completely immune.”

Fauci’s statement implied that he had access to a growing body of new evidence on reinfection. In reality, he had a textbook example of the type of case he previously characterized as “rare and anecdotal” in August when he was trying to allay fears of the same phenomenon. A few days prior to the October CNN interview, a team of researchers in the Netherlands reported a single confirmed case in which an 89-year-old patient undergoing treatment for advanced cancer had contracted the disease, recovered, and then passed away after becoming reinfected with another strain. To Fauci however, the possibility of reinfection – once dismissed as an uncommon occurrence – became a political tool to ward off the GBD’s challenge to the lockdowns.

For the next several weeks, Fauci raised the reinfection specter whenever the subject of herd immunity came up. “We have seen specific instances of re-infection, people who got infected, recovered, and got infected with another SARS Covid-2,” he claimed in a C-Span interview that aired on November 12th. This statement came in response to questions about herd immunity from the NIH’s Francis Collins – the same person who asked a similar question in July. Recall Fauci’s answer then: “I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a rare case of an individual who went into remission and relapsed…But Francis, I could say with confidence that [re-infection] is very unlikely.”

On November 18th Pfizer announced the successful completion of its vaccine trial and intention to seek emergency authorization from the FDA within a matter of days. Fauci, who had been deprecating the herd immunity concept and hinting at reinfection only a week prior, pivoted his messaging yet again.

In a sense, he had no other option. The central premise of vaccination is to expedite reaching herd immunity in the population. As the GBD authors noted, natural immunity among the recovered and vaccination among the still-vulnerable work in concert with each other, bringing society above the necessary threshold for population-wide herd immunity. Initially, Fauci concurred, stating in an interview on November 22nd that “if you get an overwhelming majority of the people vaccinated with a highly efficacious vaccine, we can reasonably quickly get to the herd immunity that would be a blanket of protection for the country.

Within a matter of days, Fauci’s rhetoric shifted even further away from reinfection and toward touting the medium-term efficacy of immunity after vaccination. On November 27th he told McClatchy News: “From what we know of the duration thus far of immunity, I would be surprised if it turns out to be a 20-year duration, but I would also be surprised if it was less than a year. I think it would probably be more than a year.” A few days later, Fauci told Fox News that the country would reach herd immunity once about 70% received the vaccine.

Then the goalposts shifted

Faced with mounting political pressures to relax lockdowns and other NPI measures in the wake of the vaccine, Fauci began casting about for new rationales to extend their duration. In a now-notorious interview with the New York Times’s Donald McNeil on December 24th, Fauci bumped his herd immunity threshold upward toward 90%. The lower targets from the previous month, he now insisted, were part of an elaborate noble lie to coax the public into greater compliance with his own directives: “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

Throughout this period, the public discussion around Covid-19 refocused on the emergence of new variants of the disease caused by ongoing mutations of the original virus. Fauci’s messaging shifted as well, focusing again on the matter of reinfections with a clear message of downplaying the risk. That’s the argument he conveyed to California Governor Gavin Newsom in a brief webcast on December 31, 2020. The new UK variant, he insisted at the time, “doesn’t seem to evade the protection that’s afforded by the antibodies that are produced by vaccines…people who have been infected don’t seem to get reinfected by this.”

With each new strain however, Fauci’s message continued to pivot. By mid-February, as noted above, he was again raising the specter of reinfection from the new South African variant as a pretext for keeping mask mandates and social distancing requirements in place, even after vaccination. Fauci also pivoted away from setting target thresholds for herd immunity as vaccination numbers rapidly rose in the early spring. On March 15, 2021 he told a White House press conference that “We should not get so fixated on this elusive number of herd immunity” and should instead simply focus on vaccinating as many people as we can.

Fauci’s exchange with Rand Paul over the possibility of reinfections would take place later that same week, where he again engaged in unfounded speculation based on emerging evidence from the South African variant. While the aforementioned studies of this variant documented or inferred the possibility of reinfection, neither supported the claim that this was common or widespread.

Except Fauci’s depiction of them offered no such nuance. Instead, he offered Paul a sweeping generalization at the March 18, 2021 hearing. People with prior Covid-19 infection “had no protection” from the South African variant, according to Fauci. He doubled down on the exaggerated speculation the next day, telling CNN “I’m afraid, if people hear what Rand Paul says, and believe it, and you have an elderly person who has been infected, and they decide, ‘Well, Rand Paul says let’s not wear a mask,’ they won’t. They could get reinfected again and get into trouble.”

In just under a year’s time, Fauci’s messaging on reinfection and herd immunity has now mutated across dozens of variants of its own, each conveniently aligning with his political messaging of the moment. Although reinfection from new strains continues to be an avenue of research and investigation, the evidence we currently have suggests it remains uncommon. That hasn’t stopped America’s “leading infectious disease authority” from indulging in wildly irresponsible speculation from a national stage though, invariably appealing to alarmism as a pretext for continuing the same failed lockdown policies he has been peddling for over a year now.


This article was published on March 23, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from the AIER, American Institute for Economic Research.

China is outplaying President Biden on Climate

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Talk is cheap; the familiar saying goes – especially from dictatorial nations about climate change.

The United States “Special Envoy” on climate, John Forbes Kerry of Martha’s Vineyard, met virtually yesterday with his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, the head of China’s environmental protection ministry, and more than 30 other nations’ representatives at the Ministerial on Climate Action summit. This annual event is set to monitor implementation of the Paris Climate Accord.

For government careerists like Mr. Kerry, multilateral meetings are always sold as progress, even as real world actions tell the opposite story.

Last fall, China’s dictator, Xi Jingping, said his nation would achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 – about forty years away. This is one of many indicators that China is unserious about climate change, regardless of its verbal “goals” and platitudes. Rather, China’s ambition is to surpass the United States to become the most powerful and wealthiest nation on the planet. More solar and wind energy won’t get the Middle Kingdom to regional and global supremacy.

Before the meeting, Mr. Kerry urged the “kumbaya” approach to diplomacy by stressing the need to “join hands in a cooperative journey” for a cleaner climate and not “point fingers.” At yesterday’s Climate Action meeting, the U.S. and China agreed to form a “joint working group” on climate change.  Swell.

Can Mr. Kerry be this credulous? How many more coal-fired power plants must China build at home and abroad before U.S. diplomats figure out they are being played?

John Kerry, who reflects President Biden and Vice President Harris, is exactly who China wants sitting across the diplomatic table as it pursues great power competition. He has a history of being a useful idiot for America’s adversaries. When he was Secretary of State for President Obama, Kerry negotiated the one-sided Iran nuclear deal, which gave that terrorist nation everything it demanded, including crates of cash secretly transported in a cargo plane for use by its terrorist proxies.

Messrs. Obama and Kerry were similarly obsequious toward China, desperate for it to sign the Paris Accord. China “signed” on the condition that nothing was required; hence, China is not mandated to reduce carbon emissions before 2030.

Paper-thin diplomatic agreements with America’s adversaries have not changed the facts on the ground, and new climate diplomacy being pursued this week by the Biden administration will have the same non-impact on China’s real objectives.

Rather than climate change becoming an issue of “cooperation” between China and the U.S., the Chinese will continue to exploit climate issues as a means to compete with and surpass the U.S. in technological, economic, and military dominance.

Energy is the lifeblood of a nation’s economy and of global power politics. China’s diplomatic pledges on climate are a means to coax the U.S. to continue surrendering its energy and economic advantages, without impeding the expansion of its own fossil fuel capacity.

While the Biden administration closes off domestic energy production, including shutting down the Keystone XL Pipeline, and bars new energy leases on federal lands, China continues to construct coal-fired power plants to support its economic growth and military expansion. As discussed by Mark Mathis of the Clean Energy Alliance, China has at least 200 gigawatts of coal-powered plants in development, which will add to its more than 2,300 plants in operation.

Coal is a cheap way for China to increase its industrial and manufacturing capacity, and build alliances with other nations. Coal produces more electricity in China than exists in the U.S. from all sources. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been steadily closing coal plants to the point of soon having fewer than 200 nationwide. All this puts the U.S. at a greater competitive disadvantage as more manufacturing jobs shift to China.

While the Biden administration urges international institutions and banks to refuse financing of needed fossil fuel projects in the developing world, China is delivering investment to more nations, including building coal-fired plants in Africa and other Asian countries. For every pointless executive order by President Biden to reduce fossil fuel development, China is expanding the same by a much greater amount.

China also is continuing extensive mining domestically and abroad for essential minerals such as lithium, cobalt, copper and nickel. That means greater dependence by the U.S. on China for “renewable” energy materials, including for wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicle batteries. Biden’s hollow promise of “Green jobs” will end up more in China, not here.

Like the Soviet Union’s bad faith during the Cold War, China’s diplomatic niceties on climate amount to vacuous commitments to reduce emissions. China’s fake diplomacy also is belied by its actions to expand readily accessible fossil fuel energy to increase its economic and military power worldwide.

President Biden and John Kerry need to understand we are in a new Cold War and should shelve their obsession with carbon emissions in the futile hope that curtailment might cool the planet by a degree Celsius in the next 30 years. China is having none of it, no matter how many climate meetings it attends.


This article was published on March 24, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from  the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow at CFact

America’s light usage reveals insanity of relying on weather-dependent wind & solar

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The U.S.A. Light Usage Map demonstrates that most of America’s population is East of the Mississippi which represents areas most susceptible to erratic weather patterns, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and ungodly amounts of rain and snow and frigid temperatures extremes, which perpetuate the unreliability of any intermittent electricity attainable from wind and solar.

The northern hemisphere turns on bitter winters – getting wind turbines and solar panels to turn on during one, is another matter. Wind chills below zero from a nor’easter have recently hit much of the country.  The push to go Green at any cost would leave America dependent on weather-dependent intermittent electricity from wind turbines and solar panels.  This would be an energy disaster.

The wild weather swings around the world have been supported by continuous uninterruptable electricity generation from zero-emission nuclear generation, natural gas-powered generations, and coal-fired power generation.

Interestingly, coal-fired power plants continue to be dominated by China and India for abundant, reliable, and AFFORDABLE electricity. Today, neither China nor India, the two fastest-growing sources of GHG emissions, have committed to make reductions by 2030.

Today, a few wealthy countries like German, Australia, Great Britain, and America are wishing to go ‘green’ via wind turbines and solar panels for intermittent electricity. Under ideal weather conditions, these “renewables’ have yet to perform under perfect weather yet alone under severe weather conditions. Freezing Germans, desperate for coal-fired power, are probably having a good, hard think about their obsession with ‘green’ energy.

The same wealthier developed countries that have access to continuous uninterruptible electricity from coal, natural gas, and nuclear, also have access to heating, air conditioning, and insulation that has virtually eliminated weather-related deaths. In the last 80 years, climate-related deaths have gone down by a rate of 98%. Globally, the individual risk of dying from weather-related disasters declined by 98 percent from a high of almost 500,000 deaths in 1920 from floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures.

The Democratic platform loves California and wants to clone its policies and regulations for the other 49 states. The Democrats should open his eyes to what is going on in California, before cloning it for the other 49 states. To meet its electrification goals of the state, California, with some of the most temperate climate in America professes to be the leader of everything but has become the State that imports more electricity than any other state, through its dysfunctional energy policies, as renewables have proven to be a failure in replacing those reliable generating plants that have been, and are being shuttered.

California has achieved the dubious record of having the least reliable electrical power system in the nation. Between 2008 and 2017, California was the leading U.S. state for individual power outages with almost 4,297 blackouts in the ten-year period, more than 2.5 times as many as its closest rival, Texas. Power outages are now commonplace in California.

As a result of California following the failures of the green energy programs in German and Australia, California’s energy policies of phasing out nuclear and natural gas power plants, and pioneering a system of subsidies for industrial wind and solar have made the state’s electricity and fuel prices among the highest in the nation which have been contributory to the rapid growth of “energy poverty” for most Californians including the 45 percent of the 40 million Californians that represent the Hispanic and African American populations of the state, i.e., 18 million.

In recent years, California continues to downsize its natural gas fleet. At the same time, the state’s “green” religion remains adamantly against coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro power plants. In the near term, California has five more power plants to shutter in the crosshairs – the last nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon and four more natural gas power plants. Renewables in the temperate climate of California has failed to fill the void of the shuttered electricity generation.

To compound the dysfunctionality, ramifications from Governor Newsom’s recent Executive order to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035 will be devastating to the state’s economy and environment, as the Governor wants to add more electrical charging demands onto a dysfunctional energy program. The state has already sacrificed reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against global warming.

Reliance on intermittent electricity from wind and solar is promoting a reversal of the climate-related fatalities as few other states have a temperate climate like California. The state of California can survive on dysfunctional energy policies as the growing outages are not impacting the public and businesses like they would in other states with much harsher weather inclusive of tornadoes, hurricanes, and ungodly amounts of rain and snow and frigid temperatures extremes, which perpetuate the unreliability of any intermittent electricity from wind and solar.

Yes, getting-off-fossil fuels would reduce those fossil fuel emissions, but it would also drastically impact the lifestyles that we have become accustomed and would result in reverting to extensive diseases and weather-related deaths, which fossil fuels and electricity from natural gas, nuclear, and coal have virtually eliminated.

With the nor’easter storm that recently hit much of the country, maybe we should learn something about Europe’s experiences with wind and solar during those harsh times when continuous, uninterruptible, reliable electricity is required to maintain the basics of living in extreme climate conditions as chaotic wind and solar collapses are threatening an entire Europe-wide blackout.

The current trends to shutter continued uninterruptible electricity generating plants are revealing the insanity of relying on intermittent electricity generated from weather-dependent wind and solar. While intellectual infants continue to babble about our ‘inevitable transition’, the grown-ups can see the looming and inevitable disaster, with remarkable clarity.


This article first appeared on March 9, 2021, is reproduced with permission from The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. 

Where Is Global Warming’s Missing Heat Coming From? Part-3

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

LET’S RECAP: In Part-1 of this three-part series, we presented the latest findings and data that show how the Earth’s internal nuclear furnace may play a major role in the changes in the Earth’s climate. We demonstrated the enormous impact that the El Nino warming cycles have had on the global satellite temperatures of the past 40-years.

In Part-2, we highlighted that NASA/NOAA and the UN/IPCC only consider the Sun’s Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in calculating the Earth’s Energy Budget. In July 2011, NOAA told Scientific American and Nature Geoscience that the Earth’s nuclear core could be supplying as much heat as it gets from the sun. We estimated that as many as 3 million volcanoes could be hidden from sight and our instruments in the deepesWhere is global warming's missing heat coming from? Part 2 1t oceans. Some are buried under major glaciers contributing to some melting. Lastly, we focused on one volcano, the Axial Seamount, heating the Pacific Northwest from Alaska to northern California.

In this Part-3, we identify the significant causes of the global warming in the past 50-years and then forecast what to expect in the next 30 to 50 years.


NASA/NOAA says it’s all about CO2, but let’s put that myth to rest first by summarizing what the two most brilliant minds in the field have to say about it. Dr. Fred Singer demonstrated that even if radiative forcing somehow became atmospheric heat, 95% of that Greenhouse Effect is produced by natureWater vapor is over 95% and CO2 accounts for 3.5%. Human-made CO2 is barely 0.12%. This is true because CO2 can only absorb a small amount of the available shortwave Infra-Red in the 15 Micrometer range. The latest estimates suggest that the first 200 to 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere captures nearly 100% of this energy. After that, CO2 can double and double again, but there’s no shortwave IR left to energize it.

Dr. Will Happer says: data suggest that higher global temperatures will cause increased atmospheric water vapor. More water vapor means more and bigger clouds that reflect more of the sun’s energy to outer space. The assumed 30% sun’s TSI reflected heat might increase to 31% or 32%, resulting in the Earth’s net cooling. Secondly, when water vapor condenses to rain or ice/snow, it releases enormous amounts of heat, most directly to outer space, thus cooling the Earth. Could these combined effects result in a net cooling of the planet? No one yet understands how to calculate the impact of these changes.

In a stunning report published just weeks ago on February 12, 2021, Zoe Phinii effectively questions the entire concept of the result of the greenhouse effect on global temperature. She analyzed NASA’s satellite data from 2003 to 2019. Contrary to what NASA had been saying about greenhouse effect warming, the report concludes with this quote: “The standard greenhouse effect narrative is that infrared absorbing gases prevent radiation from reaching space and this causes warming at the surface (thus more radiation). Well, we clearly see that’s not case. If clouds (water vapor + aerosols) hardly changes outgoing surface radiation, then the whole hypothesis is in error. Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn’t cause surface heating and thus more radiation from the surface, despite the increase in downwelling radiation.”

In conclusion, she says increased CO2 made zero contribution to modern warming.

The sun and Earth’s core account for nearly 100% of Modern Warming. But how it does bears no resemblance to the NASA/NOAA cartoon image of the Earth’s Energy Budget and the CO2 delusion we have lived with for decades. We now discuss the sun’s natural cycles and the sun’s relationship cycles with the Earth that cause real climate change.

  • We start with the astronomical cycles, also called the Milankovitch cycles. These natural cycles determine how much of the sun’s energy is received by the Earth and where and how it’s distributed over the Earth. For example, the Earth is about 90 million miles from the sun, but that’s an average. The Earth’s orbit is ever-changing, going from as close as about 83 million miles resulting in more heating and as far away as 120 million miles providing less heat. This is the primary cause of the 100,000-year Ice Age cycles. Second, there is the tilt of the Earth towards the sun continuously changes over 41,000 years. This changing tilt distributes less heat to the Northern Hemisphere and more to the Southern Hemisphere, making it the primary factor in a 50,000-year Ice Age cycle. Other lesser orbital cycles exist like the planets causing the sun to wobble around a 5-million mile distance from the Earth. But, none of these long-term astronomical cycles contributed to Modern Warming.

  • Solar Magnetic cycles are a significant cause for the Modern Warm and the Modern Cold.Where is global warming's missing heat coming from? Part-3 1

    • The sun’s activity varies over 11-year periods, increasing for 5 to 6 years, then decreasing for the next 5 to 6 years. During high activity, the sun sends powerful solar winds and magnetic fields to Earth and all the planets in our solar. These winds significantly reduce the number of galactic cosmic rays entering our atmosphere. This reduces the Earth’s cloud cover and the Earth warms a bit more. But during low activity, more cosmic rays penetrate and increase cloud cover resulting in a cooling of the Earth.

    • Figure-2 shows a typical 11-year cycle, and we readily distinguish the active phases by an increased number of sunspots and increased/bright solar flares. These cycles are a significant contributor to Modern Warming. These cycles change over time. Figure-3 shows the historical solar activity level as measured by Total Solar Irradiation (TSI), in Watts per square meter. During the 1600s, a period of very low TSI activity corresponds to the Little Ice Age, the coldest temperatures on Earth in the last 10,000-years. Now take note of the increasing TSI from 1900 to 1999 (black arrow) when Modern Warming was increasing the most. Since 2000, note the downward trend in TSI and temperatures by the blue arrow in Figure-3. Dr. V. Zharkova predicts that the next 3 to 4 solar cycles will continue to decrease over the next 40 years, producing a return to the colder temperatures seen in the 1800s (known as the Dalton Minimum).

    • Where is global warming's missing heat coming from? Part-3 2

  • The heat from beneath as we have been saying for the past two weeks is the other major cause for Modern Warming. In Figure-4, we see the satellite temperature record from 1979 to January 2021. There are many very relevant pieces of information here.


Where is global warming's missing heat coming from? Part-3 3

    • Looking at the 40-year trend line (dashed green arrow), we see a temperature increase maxing out in 2016 at about 1.1 C, which we called the Modern Warming when the solar activities were high, until about 2000. The solid green arrow shows the Modern Cooling starting at 2000, with the temperature dropping about 0.4 C. Lastly, we see a dramatic drop of about 0.6 C (yellow arrow) in the past 5-years.

    • But, in Figure-4, we also see that something else is also going on besides the solar activity, especially the 7-yellow stars we’ve added. Each of these yellow stars corresponds to the most potent ElNino recorded. Especially note the two gigantic events in 1998/99 and 2015/16. Here we see the heat from the Earth’s nuclear furnace warming up the ocean waters adding additional global warming until about 2000. After 2000 we see that ocean volcanic heating continues and is now preventing the Earth from cooling as fast as expected based on the reduced solar activity alone.

    • This Earth’s Core heat also explains two other central mysteries: the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past 5-decades.

    • Deep ocean waters contain 45 times more dissolved CO2 than is in the atmosphere. When these deep ocean volcanoes and vents heat these cold waters, the oceans release gigantic amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. This confirms Singer’s statement that the human-made increase in global CO2 since 1755 is only 3.5%, while nature made the other 96.5%. The other mystery is what caused the modest global sea level to rise over this same 50-year period? A fundamental physical property of water is that as it warms it expands, and the warmer the water, the more it expands.

    • Finally, several theories have been put forth to see if there is some relationship between the sun’s magnetic activity cycles and the Earth’s volcanic activities. Much more research needs to be done before any one of them can be verified with data and scientific evidence. For this reason, we request that US Government agencies realign their research funding priorities and shift the research grants $billions away from the present 90% chasing the CO2 rabbit to 90% awarded to the real scientists of climate change.


  1. Humanity has NO control and NO influence on global climate change. (Irrigation and citifying can certainly change a small geographical area) Enjoy your fossil fuels until we can find a viable nuclear solution.

  2. The Global Warming and Global Climate Change of the last 50-years are caused by the natural-short term cycles described above and independent of what humanity does or does not do.

  3. Short-term climate change will continue within a relatively narrow temperature range for many hundreds of years to come. But some thousands of years in the future, the astronomical/Milankovitch cycles will take over, and there will be a return to the Ice Age. Hopefully, by that time, humanity will have advanced technology to the point where we might mitigate the damages.

  4. The increased atmospheric CO2, thanks to mother nature, has provided free natural fertilizer and stimulated/accelerated the greening of the Earth, and rewards all life with more plants and more food for all of nature’s creatures.

  5. NASA/NOAA must stop the analogy of the Greenhouse Effect in order to mislead the scientifically challenged citizens. Secondly, NOAA must remember what they said 10-years ago. They stated that the Earth’s core provided the planet with as much heat as the sun, but in the last several years, they appear to have forgotten all of that.

  6. Most importantly, US Government agencies, like NASA/NOAA, must find the courage and discipline to be truthful to the American people instead of catering to the CO2 industries and their lobbyists.


Portions of this article are excerpted from the 2020 book A HITCHHIKERS JOURNEY THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE by Terigi Ciccone and Dr. Jay Lehr. The book is the best source for parents and grandparents to explain climate change reality to their children. Additional readings are as follows.

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Effect of Clouds on Global Upwelling Radiation


This article appeared on March 10, 2021 is is reproduced with permission from CFACT.

Coral Extinction Crisis Canceled – New Study Documents Billions of Coral Colonies

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

A newly published study of coral reefs finds coral populations are staggeringly large and extremely unlikely to face extinction pressures anytime in the foreseeable future. The peer-reviewed study by scientists who had previously promoted alarm about coral populations deals a major blow to alarmist climate change campaigns that corals are on the verge of extinction.

The new study, published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, documents that there are more than 500 billion coral colonies in the southwestern Pacific Ocean alone. Still more corals and coral colonies exist throughout tropical and warm-water seas throughout the world.

The new study is the first to measure the number of corals in a large region. The new study observes that prior speculation by scientists and others that corals are in danger of extinction was based on “qualitative expert opinion” – in other words, speculative guesstimates.

The documentation of so many coral colonies blows away recent coral alarmism. According to the authors, “Remarkably, of the 80 species in our analysis that are considered by the IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] to have an elevated extinction risk (listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered), 12 have estimated population sizes exceeding 1 billion colonies.”

“Our population size estimates inform and refine earlier estimates of extinction risk in Indo-Pacific corals, which relied heavily on qualitative expert opinion. In particular, our findings call into question earlier inferences that a considerable proportion (one-quarter) of the estimated Indo-Pacific coral species could go globally extinct with the next few decades,” the authors report.

The authors explain that their estimates of coral population size “are several orders of magnitude larger than sizes that would put them at risk of global extinction.” In other words, global corals would not be at risk of extinction even if there were only 10 percent as many corals as there actually are.

Even under speculative assertions that coral populations have been in an accelerated decline in recent decades, “such rates of decline would nevertheless require centuries to reduce the population sizes of most Indo-Pacific coral species to levels at which global extinction risk becomes a substantial risk, even if one assumes that a decline of this magnitude has already occurred.”

Prior to the new study being published, climate activists and their media allies made coral reefs a poster child for the asserted climate crisis.

For example, CNN in February 2020 published an article claiming, “About 70-90% of all existing coral reefs are expected to disappear in the next 20 years due to warming oceans, acidic water and pollution.”

Also, the Asean Post published a 2019 article – which appears prominently in Google search results for coral reefs – titled “Coral Reefs Are Facing Extinction.”

Those articles were inspired in part by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) erroneously claiming, “Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius [from preindustrial times, which the UN claims is likely to occur within 20 years], whereas virtually all (>99 percent) would be lost with 2 degrees Celsius [which the UN claims is likely to occur by 2060].”

The good news reported in the new study, in addition to falsifying those alarmist claims, amplifies what science has already discerned about the status of corals and coral reefs. As reported in Climate at a Glance: Coral Reefs, “Coral require warm water, not cold water, to live. Coral cannot live outside of tropical or subtropical waters. As Earth continues to modestly warm, coral are extending their range toward the poles while still thriving at and near the equator. The primary reasons for bleaching events include sediment pollution from nearby coastal lands, chemicals found in sunscreen, and cold temperature events. Coral have existed continuously for the past 40 million years. Coral survived and thrived when temperatures were significantly warmer than they are today.”

Coral extinction crisis canceled.


This article first appeared on March 5, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Heartland Institute.