Christopher Columbus

Columbus's legacy continues to be debated. He was widely venerated in the centuries after his death, but public perceptions have changed as recent scholars have given attention to negative aspects of his life, such as his role in the extinction of the Taíno people, his promotion of slavery, and allegations of tyranny 


From what I can tell, Columbus was a cruel person, engaging in torture and disfigurement to enslave a large number of people. 

Best wishes,

John Coffey


Life Between Now and 2030

Quotation of the day

In this age of political hysteria, we must all educate ourselves on the facts – the actual science. Unfortunately, there seems to be a total lack of awareness about important issues that scientists like myself – who aren't paid by research grants – are concerned about.

Instead, climate science is being used as a political weapon, and the voices of scientists like me are being ignored or even vilified. I was under the impression that in the United States, all voices and arguments should be heard. Climate science is not settled science. If it was, why would there be a continuous flow of money to research it? For example, is AOC aware that in the fossil fuel era, in spite of a four-fold increase in population, deaths have plummeted?


Perhaps we should pause and consider why none of the global warming models from two decades ago have come to fruition. Perhaps we should slow down and think about the consequences of allowing our adversaries to supply the world with cheap energy, because one thing is for sure – wind farms and solar panels won't get the job done.

The objective reader should examine all sides of the climate debate and should ask himself: Are the consequences of acting hastily worse than not acting at all? I think many are skeptical of rushing forward. We must rein in the political hysteria and fear-mongering that is driving the climate change agenda.

The Rich Really Do Pay Higher Taxes Than You - Bloomberg

It’s time to be scientific about global warming, says climatologist Judith Curry. | City Journal

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. 

Ross McKitrick: Hold the panic: Canada just warmed 1.7 degrees and … thrived | Financial Post

The warming we have had over the last 100 years is so small that if we didn't have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn't have noticed it at all

Climatologist Lennart Bengtsson


Aging world population

In 2018, for the first time in history, those aged 65 or older outnumbered children younger than five globally. And the number of people aged 80 years or older is projected to triple, from 143 million in 2019 to 426 million in 2050

The population aged 65 and older is growing faster than all other age groups, especially as the global birth rate has been plummeting since the second half of the 20th Century. According to the World Health Organization, fertility rates in every region except Africa are near or below what's considered the 'replacement rate' – the level needed to keep a population stable. In most high-income countries this hovers around 2.1 children per woman.


The Greatest Mass Murderer of the 20th Century


WATCH: Antifa Harasses Elderly Lady With Walking Frame

The Magic of Chess

Transcript: Trump's Ukraine Call Released By White House : NPR


I don't see a reason to dislike this president. The transcript makes the call look like the president is doing his job to fight the corruption of those who tried to get him impeached. If Biden were corrupt is the president suppose to ignore it? Even if he were looking for dirt, it would be far less than what his opponents did to him, and it is nothing out of the ordinary. It is business as usual. I'm proud of the way Trump handled this call. The political left takes absolutely everything and spins it in the worst possible way for their political advantage.

Best wishes,

John Coffey


Judge Pirro blasts Democrats' impeachment inquiry: 'This is a setup'

A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans


Another technology predicted by Star Trek


Cartoons of the Day | National Review

Trump-Ukraine story is what you get when the media imagines the facts

The Death of American Citizenship

How America Lost Its Religion

The Transcript Is Damning — To Biden, Not Trump

Graham: Pentagon Review, Not Trump, Delayed Ukraine Aid

Political Journalism is Dead

USA, Saudia Arabia, Iran: A New Conflict in the Middle East?

Goodwin: Nancy Pelosi will regret rushing into impeachment push




Aaron Eisenberg was brilliant on Star Trek Deep Space Nine.

The Worst Greenhouse Gas Might Surprise You


Since 1880, which is a frequently quoted benchmark, the average temperature increase has been less than .01 degrees celsius per year. Since 1970 is has been about 0.015 per year. Since 1880 the average CO2 level increase has been less than one part per million per year. The current rate of increase is about 3 parts per million per year. The current level of sea-level rise is about 33 millimeters per decade. Over the last 30 years, it has been 25 millimeters per decade.

Disaster is not happening any time soon. It has been stated that we will run out of most fossil fuels by the year 2100, which is about the time we are predicted to double the atmospheric CO2 from current levels. What bothers me is that they keep moving the goalpost. They used to say that we need to prevent a 5 to 6 degree temperature increase by the year 2100 because that would be disastrous, but a 2.5 degree temperature increase would be manageable. However, reality didn't meet up with their predictions of disaster ( https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/ ),  so now they are saying that we need to prevent a 2-degree increase by the year 2100, but 1.5 degrees would be manageable. They spout a catchy slogan, "Half a degree makes a difference." The IPCC recently proposed spending 122 trillion dollars to prevent that half-degree difference, which is just absurd.

The scientific community is by no means united on what the Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is. Past ranges were from 2 to 12 degrees celsius. The IPCC gives a generally accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, and they give 3 degrees as an average. Some people are still saying that it is over 5 degrees. The climate alarmism skeptics give a range from about 0.5 to 2.3 degrees with 1 to 2 degrees being the most common. If you look at the actual CO2 and temperature data from 1880, then you get a climate sensitivity of about 2.2 to 2.3 degrees. This assumes that CO2 is the only forcing factor. Some people are claiming that solar radiance plays a much bigger role than what the IPCC predicts, which minimizes the effect of solar radiance.

Most of the disagreement is over the feedbacks which are both positive and negative. For at least 20 years the skeptics have claimed that increased cloud cover will provide negative feedback to temperature increase. The IPCC claims that clouds will be a positive feedback. Nobody really knows for sure, and the IPCC has pretty much admitted that they don't know how to factor clouds. However, we are doing the experiment despite the best efforts of presumably well-intentioned people, so we are going to find out.

Nuclear Fusion will be a reality within 20 years, which will make this whole argument seem like much ado about nothing.

History will remember this as a time of mass hysteria. This hysteria has been driven by people who are pushing both a green and a socialist agenda. People have admitted that this is as much about changing the economic system as it is about protecting the climate.

The IPCC is by no means an unbiased organization. About 1/3 of the people on the IPCC belong to an environmental lobbying organization. The head of IPCC said that disastrous climate change was his religion. The IPCC has tried to censor papers written by skeptics, and skeptical scientists can't get funding. The Climategate scandal showed that they were trying to hide the big dip in temperature that happened in 2007. Scientists with skeptical views are getting fired or pushed out from universities.

Both NASA and the NOAA have taken past temperature data that has been known for decades and altered it to make the current warming look worse. They defend this practice. Up to half of all current temperature "data" are just estimates based on models. This distortion of science should be criminal.

Almost everybody is ignoring the positive benefits of CO2. Patrick Moore does the best job of talking about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWahKIG4BE4&t=1500s

Best wishes,

John Coffey