!?

Think about this for a moment. The U.S. Navy has operated nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines for over 60 years. There are 11 big deck nuclear-powered carriers and 71 submarines currently in service that, mind you, are largely operated by 18–30-year-old men. Yet, for some reason, the vast majority of “green” energy pundits I encounter online think nuclear fission is too dangerous to power society. My theory is that this is because nuclear guarantees an economically prosperous future. Most climate activists, who are on the left, want economic activities to cease to “save the planet” (or in reality, redistribute wealthy. They know deep down that modern industrial economies like the U.S. and China cannot run on solar and wind power alone. That’s why China isn’t decommissioning coal despite massive solar additions in recent years. Government-mandated solar and wind guarantees that the left achieve the economic policies they want. If they make it difficult for industries to thrive, they drive them out of business.

The science is settled! ✍️🤓🫴🧪 The New York Times reports today that the ongoing eastern U.S. heatwave is “virtually impossible without climate change.” That sounds pretty bad. I'm pretty worried. 😨 The NYT's Raymond Zhong writes, 🗨️ “𝘛𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 '𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦,' 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. 𝘎𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢.” 🔗nytimes.com/2026/07/03/clima… So, right off the bat, this analysis (which is executed by, you guessed it, World Weather Attribution) is questionable. For one thing, the heatwave just began and it will continue through Independence Day weekend. Even if you believe in this so-called “attribution science” (I'll address that further down), it is irresponsible to draw robust conclusions like this prematurely. You need to wait days or even weeks to gather all of the available data, then analyze it, plot it, and finally write about it. That's how things work in REAL science, which does not include WWA's witchcraft of climastrology. 🔗worldweatherattribution.org/… And not only is this analysis largely a modeling effort (and I ought to remind y'all that model output cannot count as evidence), but it's modeling stacked on top of more modeling because the WWA “scientists” (and I use scare quotes there) employed forecast data to arrive at their bold conclusion, completely ignoring the fact that many numerical weather prediction (NWP) models such as the Global Forecast System (GFS) and European (ECMWF) have warm biases (likely due to their lower resolution compared to, say, the NAM) and predict daily maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures that are too high compared to physical observations. Legendary meteorologist (and my good friend OR “crazy uncle” as he likes to be called) @BigJoeBastardi has pointed out multiple times this past week. In other words, this WWA analysis and NYT piece that promotes it is largely junk science. But I digress, let's continue. 🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 [WWA] 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺’𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 0.5 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥.” So, rather than assessing heatwave magnitude like has traditionally been done (i.e., examining the Tmax values), the WWA used a rather obscure metric that most people don't use, let alone understand, called the “wet bulb globe temperature” (WBGT), which is a composite index that combines the air temperature, humidity level, wind speed, the sun angle, and cloud cover. It was developed in the 1950s. 🔗weather.gov/tsa/wbgt The WWA examined WBGT over their study region, the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada, using the annual highest five-day averaged WBGT (WBGTx5x). To do this, they used the ERA5 reanalysis data, which integrates both physical observations and modeled simulations to produce a consistent, gridded, high-resolution dataset of atmospheric conditions globally going back to 1950. That's fine and all, I suppose, but it does not come without limitations. Unlike most of the handwritten 19th century weather observations (which Dr. John Christy and I are in the process of examining and homogenizing), which contained very detailed notes about cloud cover and wind speed / direction, daily U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) observations (~October 1890 to present) don't contain any data on local cloud cover, dew points, or wind speed / direction. The NWS now has that data (often in five-minute or hourly intervals) for ASOS sites, but said data only go back to the mid-to-late-20th century, at best. 1950 wasn't that long ago. Without an abundance of real observations to work with, I have doubts about the WWA's high levels of confidence in their conclusions. Cloud area fraction, dew points, and wind directions are mostly guessed by computer model interpolation from scattered observations (which are fewer and fewer the farther back in time you go). The NYT finally states, 🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙧-𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡.” And there it is. This analysis, if that's what you want to call it, has not been subject to rigorous peer review or published in an academic journal. Now, I personally don't care about that, but alarmists always like to point out that nothing their critics say to contest climate hysteria (such as this WWA analysis) matters unless it is published in a journal. So, why are they not holding themselves to the same standards? Why should preliminary findings that haven't yet been published be newsworthy? Other outlets have reported on this “flash study”, such as The Guardian and Reuters. 🔗theguardian.com/us-news/2026… 🔗reuters.com/business/environ… Notice that these stories all use roughly the same language. “A rapidly warming world.” “Caused by fossil fuels.” “Virtually impossible.” These are copy-paste stories built from a list of talking points that these so-called “journalists” received in an email. There is ZERO investigative journalism here. They don't question these findings as real journalists should. They don't ask any follow-up questions either. They just nod in agreement because they are paid to push climate propaganda. I should also regurgitate my point in other posts that I've made that climate change, by definition, is an outcome, not a cause or an accelerant. It describes a change in climate, the latter of which is a statistical description of the mean and variability of Earth's climate system. An increase or decrease in heatwave frequency / magnitude would be evidence of climate change, but climate change itself does not cause or worsen them. You could argue that mankind's slight enhancement of the greenhouse effect has, but that isn't the same as saying “climate change caused this event / made this event worse,” which is an outright false framing. If we really want to examine whether or not this July heatwave is unprecedented in the northeast, well, the metric used historically to evaluate heatwaves is the afternoon Tmax. On June 29th, 1853, Washington, D.C. reached 102°F. The following day, it reached 105°F, which is hotter than anything in forecast for D.C. this weekend. It was 106°F in Detroit that day. How did that happen in June of all months? Then, during this exact week in 1911, there was the hottest July 4th weekend on record in the U.S. On July 3rd, 1911, 13.1% of the country reached 100°F and nearly half of the nation was ≥90°F. Much of New England was also ≥100°F. During this week in 1901, much of the eastern half of the country reached 100°F (it was one of the deadliest in history). While we don't have any dew point data to infer what humidity levels were during these events, from a pure temperature standpoint, there is nothing unprecedented about this heatwave despite the fact the planet is ~2°F (1.3°C) warmer now than it was in 1850. There is no doubt it is hotter than a hoochie coochie this weekend, but this is nothing that hasn't happened several times before. It's summertime; if it were, say, May or mid-September, there'd be a leg for alarmists to stand on here. All of that to say that this is just another example of day-to-day and week-to-week weather, not climate. Stay cool with your A/C, don't leave your pets outside, hydrate, and rest easy tonight knowing that your Chevy Suburban did not cause this heatwave to occur.