Opinion
Two New Studies Find Fewer Clouds Cause Warmer Temps
Robert W Malone MD, MS
“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.
Thanks for reading Who is Robert Malone! This post is public so feel free to share it.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
War Secretary Pete Hegseth is moving forward with a massive shakeup of military leadership, restructuring top commands and moving the U.S. focus away from Europe and the Middle East, according to a report out Monday.
Five sources with knowledge of the matter told The Washington Post the Pentagon is set to consolidate U.S. Central Command in the Middle East, U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command into a new larger combatant command, the U.S. International Command. Other commands would be similarly consolidated, reducing the total number of combatant commands from 11 to eight. The intended restructuring is designed both to reduce the number of admirals and four star generals and refocus the U.S. military on the Indo-Pacific and Western Hemisphere, according to the sources.
The plan would be one of the most significant changes to the military’s upper echelons in decades, and the move would bring the Pentagon more directly in line with the administration’s refocusing of priorities in the recently released National Security Strategy.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“As a matter of Department of War policy, we will not comment on leaked documents that we cannot authenticate and rumored internal discussions, as well as specifics of architectural discussion or pre-decisional matters,” a War Department official told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Beyond this, any insinuation there is a divide within the Department is completely false – everyone in the Department is working to achieve the same goal under this administration.”
The Post also reports the proposal was crafted under supervision by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, at Hegseth’s request. Caine will also be sharing two alternate proposals on potential restructures.
Hegseth has been looking for ways to reduce the number of four star generals in the Armed Forces, which has roughly the same amount of generals now as during World War II.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Steve Milloy
The Paris Climate Accord was adopted 10 years ago this week. It’s been a decade of disaster that President Donald Trump is rightly trying again to end.
The stated purpose of the agreement was for countries to voluntarily cut emissions to avoid the average global temperature exceeding the (guessed at) pre-industrial temperature by 3.6°F (2°C) and preferably 2.7°F (1.5°C).
Since December 2015, the world spent an estimated $10 trillion trying to achieve the Paris goals. What has been accomplished? Instead of reducing global emissions, they have increased about 12 percent. While the increase in emissions is actually a good thing for the environment and humanity, spending $10 trillion in a failed effort to cut emissions just underscores the agreement’s waste, fraud and abuse.
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
But wasting $10 trillion is only the tip of the iceberg.
The effort to cut emissions was largely based on forcing industrial countries to replace their tried-and-true fossil fuel-based energy systems with not-ready-for-prime-time wind, solar and battery-based systems. This forced transition has driven up energy costs and made energy systems less reliable. The result of that has been economy-crippling deindustrialization in former powerhouses of Germany and Britain.
And it gets worse.
European nations imagined they could reduce their carbon footprint by outsourcing their coal and natural gas needs to Russia. That outsourcing enriched Russia and made the European economy dependent on Russia for energy. That vulnerability, in turn, and a weak President Joe Biden encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.
The result of that has been more than one million killed and wounded, the mass destruction of Ukraine worth more than $500 billion so far and the inestimable cost of global destabilization. Europe will have to spend hundreds of billions more on defense, and U.S. taxpayers have been forced to spend hundreds of billions on arms for Ukraine. Putin has even raised the specter of using nuclear weapons.
President Barack Obama unconstitutionally tried to impose the Paris agreement on the U.S. as an Executive agreement rather than a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate. Although Trump terminated the Executive agreement during his first administration, President Joe Biden rejoined the agreement soon after taking office, pledging to double Obama’s emissions cuts pledge to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Biden’s emissions pledge was an impetus for the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that allocated $1.2 trillion in spending for what Trump labeled as the Green New Scam. Although Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act reduced that spending by about $500 billion and he is trying to reduce it further through Executive action, much of that money was used in an effort to buy the 2024 election for Democrats. The rest has been and will be used to wreck our electricity grid with dangerous, national security-compromising wind, solar and battery equipment from Communists China.
Then there’s this. At the Paris climate conference in 2015, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated quite clearly that emissions cuts by the U.S. and other industrial countries were meaningless and would accomplish nothing since the developing world’s emissions would be increasing.
Finally, there is the climate realism aspect to all this. After the Paris agreement was signed and despite the increase in emissions, the average global temperature declined during the years from 2016 to 2022, per NOAA data.
The super El Nino experienced during 2023-2024 caused a temporary temperature spike. La Nina conditions have now returned the average global temperature to below the 2015-2016 level, per NASA satellite data. The overarching point is that any “global warming” that occurred over the past 40 years is actually associated with the natural El Nino-La Nina cycle, not emissions.
The Paris agreement has been all pain and no gain. Moreover, there was never any need for the agreement in the first place. A big thanks to President Trump for pulling us out again.
Steve Milloy is a biostatistician and lawyer. He posts on X at @JunkScience.
Wayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
Western Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots
-
Great Reset2 days agoViral TikTok video shows 7-year-old cuddling great-grandfather before he’s euthanized
-
Daily Caller1 day agoChinese Billionaire Tried To Build US-Born Baby Empire As Overseas Elites Turn To American Surrogates
-
Alberta2 days agoSchools should go back to basics to mitigate effects of AI
-
International2 days agoAt Least 15 Killed In Shooting Targeting Jewish Community At Australia’s Bondi Beach, Police Say
-
International1 day agoTwo states designate Muslim group as terrorist
-
Digital ID1 day agoCanada releases new digital ID app for personal documents despite privacy concerns
-
Business1 day agoMajor tax changes in 2026: Report
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoNFL Ice Bowls Turn Down The Thermostat on Climate Change Hysteria