Climate Change

it's not a lie if you believe it.

 

Well either Trump's lying or he is living in an altered state of reality. Either way, it makes him mentally unfit to serve

 

was his predecessor fit to serve?

 

At the end he wasn't. He should have stepped down. He was showing signs that shouldn't have been brushed aside. But, two wrongs don't make a right, and Trump should be impeached now, because 3 more years of having a President unfit to serve is inexcusable. One was enough. Don't you agree?

 

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/20/climate/water-bankruptcy-drought-united-nations
The world has entered a new era of ‘water bankruptcy’ with irreversible consequences

Regions across the world are afflicted by severe water problems: Kabul may be on course to be the
first modern city to run out of water. Mexico City is sinking at a rate of around 20 inches a yearas the vast aquifer beneath its streets is over-pumped. In the US Southwest, states are locked in a continual battle over the how to share the shrinking water of the drought-stricken Colorado River.

The global situation is so severe that terms like “water crisis” or “water stressed” fail to capture its magnitude, according to the report published Tuesday by the United Nations University and based on a study in the journal Water Resources.

“If you keep calling this situation a crisis, you’re implying that it’s temporary. It’s a shock. We can mitigate it,” said Kaveh Madani, director of the UN University’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health, and the report’s author.

With bankruptcy, while it’s still vital to fix and mitigate where possible, “you also need to adapt to a new reality… to new conditions that are more restrictive than before,” he told CNN.

 

i agree Biden should never have been president.

I don't believe Trump has done anything that merits impeachment.

 

Hold up, people still believe in "climate change"?


WOW

 

If anyone should never been President it's the sexual abuser, felon, and pathological lying bribery taker and con in the White House right now.

 

Only those who listen to scientists and experts vs guys like the orange idiot and his billionaire bribers in the fossil fuel industry.

 

good move:

Trump Administration Taps Data Centers for Backup Power Ahead of Snowstorm


https://www.wsj.com/business/energy...0?st=W4BcGb&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

Sounds like it might not be plausible on short notice , but not a bad idea

 

"Record Cold Wave expected to hit 40 States. Rarely seen anything like it before. Could the Environmental Insurrectionists please explain — WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING???"

- The Orange Idiot

Honestly, he's such a dumbass. He's beyond understanding anything related to science and meteorology. He just spews dumb sh*t constantly. It's not rocket science to know that Arctic warming weakens and destabilizes the polar jet stream, allowing frigid Arctic air to dip southward, even as overall global temperatures rise. Little does Trump know, but that disruption can cause more intense cold snaps and heavy snow events when cold air meets moisture, creating seemingly contradictory extreme winter weather.

 

On the other hand, Trump was also just saying in Davos that the reason for taking control of Greenland was largely due to "sea lanes opening up due to ice melting and China and Russia increasing military activity in the Arctic."

The move is largely driven by the opening of Arctic sea lanes (e.g., Transpolar Sea Route) due to melting ice, creating new, direct maritime routes between the Atlantic and Pacific.

Increasingly advanced capabilities give Beijing an edge in the scramble for the control of resources and shipping lanes that are being made accessible as global warming melts ice caps.

They also come with security implications for the U.S. and other Arctic countries. Knowledge of seabed topography, weather patterns and ocean currents could be critical as China looks to expand its military presence in Arctic waters, including potentially patrols of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines.

As summer lengthening thins the ice, China has sent more ships through the Northern Sea Route that connects Asia to Europe via Russia’s northern coast, where Chinese companies have expanded infrastructure investment to help build what it calls the “Polar Silk Road.”

At the January 2026 Davos World Economic Forum, President Donald Trump announced a "framework" deal for "total access" to Greenland, focusing on securing the Arctic against Russian/Chinese activity. This strategy emphasizes mining, missile bases, and controlling Arctic sea lanes as ice melts.

 

He's a walking around talking contradiction. The story changes depending on what he wants. That will never change.

 

Yes, we've wasted the last three decades and now it is more difficult than ever to take any meaningful measures. There is no place that will be immune from effects. Government action is not coming anytime soon. Still, every fraction of a degree matters and every failure we can contain with minimal damage is a win. Every cascading reaction we can prevent is a win.

 

The usual suspects will be ten feet underwater in Miami, and on a cold day in June will come with a "How 'bout that global warming?" zinger like they are clever and wise.

Frogs in the pot of slowly boiling water.

 

In not at all unrelated news:



If only read one of the quoted passages, read the last one.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5

If this is anywhere near accurate, we are in huge trouble as we seem intent not do anything to stop and decrease the amount of CO2, and in fact, we keep doing things that make it worse. You might even say we are cooked.

 

I wonder if, thousands of years from now, whichever species that arises or lands and eventually studies humans, develops some sort of favorite online persona cult. I bet it will be me. Thank you, aliens or insect/reptile/mollusk people, for your attention to my matter.

 

gift link no paywall

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/federal...6?st=obv3t1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

A Judicial Climate Science Scandal
How political actors hijacked an education manual for judges to serve the plaintiffs bar.
By The Editorial Board
March 13, 2026 5:43 pm ET

Follow the science, say the climate lobbyists who want to change American life on their policy terms. It turns out they also want to control the judiciary, so by all means let’s follow the climate science of what is a scandal at the Federal Judicial Center.

The FJC is the education arm of the federal judiciary, and we told you recently that it retracted the climate chapter of the Fourth Edition of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The manual is a tool to help judges make unbiased assessments about scientific testimony, but it was hijacked by progressive climate advocates.

***
The chapter’s named co-authors are Jessica Wentz, a senior fellow at Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, which “develops legal techniques to combat the climate crisis and advance climate justice”; and Radley Horton, a professor at Columbia Climate School, where he has taught on subjects like climate hazards and extreme weather events. But it gets worse.

In the climate science chapter, footnote 77 says “discussion of attribution research has been adapted, and, in some cases, excerpted from the authors’ prior publications on this topic.” A review by American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Roger Pielke Jr. noticed that one of those earlier publications was co-authored with a third person who wasn’t named as an author in the climate chapter.

Mr. Pielke says the mystery author is Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center. But here’s the shocker. He is also of counsel at Sher Edling, a plaintiff firm pushing climate-related lawsuits. The firm has promoted dubious legal theories, suing fossil-fuel companies for failure to warn about climate effects and public nuisance over the “cost of weather induced events.”

Mr. Burger’s Sher Edling bio says he works to “help public agencies hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the climate change related damage they knowingly caused.” Sher Edling’s website lists 25 cases against fossil-fuel industry defendants for “their decades-long campaigns of deception about the science of climate change.”

Getting the idea that Mr. Burger might not be an unconflicted student of unbiased climate science?

Mr. Pielke used AI to do a textual analysis comparing the climate chapter to a 2020 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law article, “The Law and Science of Climate Change Attribution,” on which Mr. Burger was the lead author. He found that “significant parts of the FJC chapter were taken from Burger et al.,” including 860 words of “word for word runs [equal to or greater than] 10 consecutive words” in a 5,042 word section on “extreme event attribution,” or 17% of the section.

Using what Mr. Pielke called an approximate “fuzzy match” raised the similarity to 47.8%. In other words, for all intents and purposes Mr. Burger was a third author.

We asked Mr. Burger if he approved the use of his work or saw the climate science chapter before publication. He responded that “the academic standards for authorship are well-established and well-known. My involvement here does not even come close to meeting those standards.”

But ghost writing in a scientific review violates ethical guidelines for attribution. The Council of Science Editors’ recommendations on publication ethics say ghost authorship is “ethically unacceptable” because it misleads readers about potential conflicts of interest. The nonprofit Committee on Publication Ethics says “authorship problems or misconduct can include a ghost author, someone who is omitted or deleted from an author list despite qualifying for authorship.”

After the FJC dropped the climate chapter, Ms. Wentz and Mr. Horton wrote a 10-page defense of their work to address objections raised by Republican state attorneys general. They say their presentation isn’t biased because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) and the United States Global Change Research Program “concluded there is ‘unequivocal’ evidence that human activities have warmed the climate.”

That’s a nondefense defense. The FJC chapter doesn’t merely refer to human influence on climate. It amounts to a sweeping brief intended to influence judges to think every harm from climate change is the result of fossil fuels.

In a letter to the Journal responding to our earlier editorials, National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt says the climate science chapter co-published with the FJC and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was rigorously reviewed by an oversight committee and reflects the “best available scientific evidence.”

That’s highly debatable, as Mr. Pielke points out, notably on the link between climate change and extreme weather events. Even the selection of Ms. Wentz and Mr. Horton as chapter authors should have raised questions about neutrality in a peer review. Ms. McNutt ignores the clear ideological and political conflicts of interest by the authors.

***
FJC director Judge Robin Rosenberg told us “the processes followed” in the development of the manual were “thorough, rigorous, careful, and free from improper influence,” including rounds of comments and external reviews. If true, she needs new reviewers.

The FJC’s manual is supposed to be a neutral guide for non-expert judges on scientific matters. The climate chapter was no such thing, and now we know why. It was an abuse of science by political actors who tried to hijack a tool of judicial education to serve the interests of the plaintiffs bar in the cause of bankrupting fossil-fuel energy companies.

This is a scandal for the manual’s authors and the FJC. Any judge who uses the manual in a ruling is taking distorted, biased material and serving up grounds for appeal.

Appeared in the March 14, 2026, print edition as 'A Judicial Climate Science Scandal'.


​