Two New Studies Find Fewer Clouds Cause Warmer Temps

“The Science is Settled”

The Washington Post ran a story today, which calls into question whether global warming is man-made.

Two new studies offer a potential explanation: fewer clouds. And the decline in cloud cover, researchers say, could signal the start of a feedback loop that leads to more warming.

Researchers are still unsure exactly what accounts for this decrease. Some believe that it could be due to less air pollution: When particulates are in the air, it can make it easier for water droplets to stick to them and form clouds.

Another possibility, Goessling said, is a feedback loop from warming temperatures. Clouds require moisture to form, and moist stratocumulus clouds sit just underneath a dry layer of air about one mile high. If temperatures warm, hot air from below can disturb that dry layer, mixing with it and making it harder for wet clouds to form.

But those changes are difficult to predict — and not all climate models show the same changes. “It’s really tricky,” Goessling said.

The scientific papers cited in this article document that reduced aerosol particulates in the sky appear to be causing a decrease in low-cloud cover. This is because water surrounds such particulates and causes cloud formation. So the decreasing cloud cover, particularly in warmer regions, is causing temperatures worldwide to increase.

*Albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects.

Another preprint study conducted by NASA confirms these findings. That study reaches back 23 years to the present, to verify their results.

Less air pollution could be the reason for global warming…

So although the peer-reviewed paper doesn’t clearly articulate why this is happening. According to the Washington Post, many scientists believe the most reasonable explanation is that less air pollution worldwide is causing less cloud cover, causing the earth to warm faster than predicted. Others believe it is a feedback loop from disturbed cloud patterns, which is causing the decreased cloud cover.

The Washington Post story hypes these new studies that suggest a counter narrative to CO2 causing global warming as just accounting for the last two years of increased global temperatures (on average). But this is not actually what these new papers show. Clearly, when Pravda on the Potomac is willing to publicly question the climate change narrative, we have reached a turning point.

The Cost of Another Out of Control Public Health Response:

After going back and forth with various AIs on how much money the US government has spent on climate change initiatives, a very rough estimate can be placed, almost half a trillion dollars since the “problem” was identified.

Whoops!

This was a half trillion dollars of our money to fight a problem that mainstream scientists now admit most likely isn’t caused by all the “usual suspects.”

To think that the US government, in their panic to combat global warming, has spent almost a half trillion dollars to hamper the US economy, restrict consumer choices, force EV and environmental mandates, and to force the stoppage of domestic drilling for a product that may actually reduce global warming.

It turns out the science isn’t so settled after all.

Of course, geo engineering involving cloud seeding will conveniently increase cloud cover. So, one hypothesis is that this is all about justifying high altitude cloud seeing/geoengineering programs.

When NASA scientists are publishing papers with information counter to the propaganda being deployed, I think it is safe to say that the real data no longer fit the hypothetical model. And no, it doesn’t take an atmospheric scientist to figure that out. Regardless, it is clear that the promoted narrative involving increasing CO2 levels driven by human activity, fossil fuel use, and cattle is no longer “settled” science.

Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Robert Malone

Thanks for reading Who is Robert Malone! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Up Next

The FDA is trying to shut down his successful cancer treatments. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s patients are outraged

Don't Miss

Is Our Five-Year Nightmare Finally Over?

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

What Pelosi “earned” after 37 years in power will shock you

Business / 28 mins ago

Ottawa should stop using misleading debt measure to justify deficits

National / 10 hours ago

New Canadian bill would punish those who deny residential indigenous schools deaths claims

Business

What Pelosi “earned” after 37 years in power will shock you

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Nancy Pelosi isn’t just walking away from Congress — she’s cashing out of one of the most profitable careers ever built inside it. According to an investigation by the New York Post, the former House Speaker and her husband, venture capitalist Paul Pelosi, turned a modest stock portfolio worth under $800,000 into at least $130 million over her 37 years in office — a staggering 16,900% return that would make even Wall Street’s best blush.

The 85-year-old California Democrat — hailed as the first woman to wield the Speaker’s gavel and infamous for her uncanny market timing — announced this week she will retire when her term ends in January 2027. The Post reported that when Pelosi first entered Congress in 1987, her financial disclosure showed holdings in just a dozen stocks, including Citibank, worth between $610,000 and $785,000. Today, the Pelosis’ net worth is estimated around $280 million — built on trades that have consistently outperformed the Dow, the S&P 500, and even top hedge funds.

The Post found that while the Dow rose roughly 2,300% over those decades, the Pelosis’ reported returns soared nearly seven times higher, averaging 14.5% a year — double the long-term market average. In 2024 alone, their portfolio reportedly gained 54%, more than twice the S&P’s 25% and better than every major hedge fund tracked by Bloomberg.

Pelosi’s latest financial disclosure shows holdings in some two dozen individual stocks, including millions invested in Apple, Nvidia, Salesforce, Netflix, and Palo Alto Networks. Apple remains their single largest position, valued between $25 million and $50 million. The couple also owns a Napa Valley winery worth up to $25 million, a Bay Area restaurant, commercial real estate, and a political data and consulting firm. Their home in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights is valued around $8.7 million, and they maintain a Georgetown townhouse bought in 1999 for $650,000.

The report comes as bipartisan calls grow to ban lawmakers and their spouses from trading individual stocks — a move critics say is long overdue. “What I’ll miss most is how she trades,” said Dan Weiskopf, portfolio manager of an ETF that tracks congressional investments known as “NANC.” He described Pelosi’s trading as “high conviction and aggressive,” noting her frequent use of leveraged options trades. “You only do that if you’ve got confidence — or information,” Weiskopf told the Post.

Among her most striking trades was a late-2023 move that allowed the Pelosis to buy 50,000 shares of Nvidia at just $12 each — less than a tenth of the market price. The $2.4 million investment is now worth more than $7 million. “She’s buying deep in the money and putting up a lot of money doing it,” Weiskopf said. “We don’t see a lot of flip-flopping on her trading activity.”

Republicans blasted Pelosi’s record as proof of Washington’s double standard. “Nancy Pelosi’s true legacy is becoming the most successful insider trader in American history,” said RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels. “If anyone else had turned $785,000 into $133 million with better returns than Warren Buffett, they’d be retiring behind bars.”

Business

Ottawa should stop using misleading debt measure to justify deficits

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Based on the rhetoric, the Carney government’s first budget was a “transformative” new plan that will meet and overcome the “generational” challenges facing Canada. Of course, in reality this budget is nothing new, and delivers the same approach to fiscal and economic policy that has been tried and failed for the last decade.

First, let’s dispel the idea that the Carney government plans to manage its finances any differently than its predecessor. According to the budget, the Carney government plans to spend more, borrow more, and accumulate more debt than the Trudeau government had planned. Keep in mind, the Trudeau government was known for its recklessly high spending, borrowing and debt accumulation.

While the Carney government has tried to use different rhetoric and a new accounting framework to obscure this continued fiscal mismanagement, it’s also relied on an overused and misleading talking point about Canada’s debt as justification for higher spending and continued deficits. The talking point goes something like, “Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7” and this “strong fiscal position” gives the government the “space” to spend more and run larger deficits.

Technically, the government is correct—Canada’s net debt (total debt minus financial assets) is the lowest among G7 countries (which include France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) when measured as a share of the overall economy (GDP). The latest estimates put Canada’s net debt at 13 per cent of GDP, while net debt in the next lowest country (Germany) is 49 per cent of GDP.

But here’s the problem. This measure assumes Canada can use all of its financial assets to offset debt—which is not the case.

When economists measure Canada’s net debt, they include the assets of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), which were valued at a combined $890 billion as of mid-2025. But obviously Canada cannot use CPP and QPP assets to pay off government debt without compromising the benefits of current and future pensioners. And we’re one of the only industrialized countries where pension assets are accounted in such a way that it reduces net debt. Simply put, by falsely assuming CPP and QPP assets could pay off debt, Canada appears to have a stronger fiscal position than is actually the case.

A more accurate measure of Canada’s indebtedness is to look at the total level of debt.

Based on the latest estimates, Canada’s total debt (as a share of the economy) ranked 5th-highest among G7 countries at 113 per cent of GDP. That’s higher than the total debt burden in the U.K. (103 per cent) and Germany (64 per cent), and close behind France (117 per cent). And over the last decade Canada’s total debt burden has grown faster than any other G7 country, rising by 25 percentage points. Next closest, France, grew by 17 percentage points. Keep in mind, G7 countries are already among the most indebted, and continue to take on some of the most debt, in the industrialized world.

In other words, looking at Canada’s total debt burden reveals a much weaker fiscal position than the government claims, and one that will likely only get worse under the Carney government.

Prior to the budget, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised Canadians he will “always be straight about the challenges we face and the choices that we must make.” If he wants to keep that promise, his government must stop using a misleading measure of Canada’s indebtedness to justify high spending and persistent deficits.