The entire narrative from the powers that be has always been a lie. The clown show goes on and on and on, and will never be anything but a clown show. The principles are actors. Politics is theatre, and by extension anything they say or do only fits into their fear, lies, and propaganda narrative. We are witnessing, in our generation, the end of history, while at the same time approaching what a Sovereign God intended us to be a part of, a new beginning.
I know there are a lot of newcomers to this game. This isn't new. My mom used to teach me about this globalist scam back in the 1970s. The players have changed but the game hasn't. The goal is not to stop "pollution" its to tax it. If the globalists can impose a global tax the next step is global enforcement. Once that is in place, it's a short trip to global govenrement. Pandemics are plan B. Every country needs to immediately ditch the dollar, leave the UN, and decentralize all education, Healthcare, banking, power transition, and food and water distribution. Tear down the bureaucracies, disband federal policing agency, start hanging the politicians. Break up corporate monopolies. You have that choice right now. Decentralize power and take back your freedom, or choose fear and precieved safety and join the Marxists.
I understand the instinct to question establishment narratives—especially after years of media failures, political missteps, and institutional mistrust. But in this case, I believe the skepticism in your article is fundamentally wrong. (FYI: I had AI edit my response to improve my writing efforts.)
Here are two issues to consider:
1. Earth’s Ancient Climate Is Not the Standard for Human Survival
You suggest that because the Earth was once warmer and ice-free at the poles, we shouldn’t worry about current warming trends. But our modern civilization—our agriculture, cities, infrastructure, and water systems—was built around the stable climate of the last 10,000 years. That’s the baseline that matters.
While, the Earth has endured hotter periods, during those times, sea levels were hundreds of feet higher, much of today’s habitable land was underwater, and no humans were around to worry about floods, famines, or mass displacement. What’s dangerous is not that the planet is changing—it’s that it’s changing fast in ways that threaten the systems human life depends on. The relevant question isn’t whether the Earth can survive warmer temperatures—it’s whether we can.
2. Attacks on Specific Temperature Data Miss the Broader, Clear-Cut Evidence
Your focus on weather stations with classification issues (so-called “junk sites”) doesn’t undermine the overall scientific consensus. Global temperature data comes from a massive network of independently operated stations, satellites, and ocean buoys, verified by multiple institutions—NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and others. These datasets all converge on the same clear conclusion: the Earth is warming.
Climate science doesn’t rely on a few questionable data points or politically motivated headlines. It relies on decades of peer-reviewed research and global monitoring that has been remarkably consistent.
Much of what gets dismissed as “climate alarmism” is basic risk management, backed by a high level of international scientific agreement. The denialism we often see in media and online commentary isn’t principled skepticism—it’s a campaign, fueled in part by fossil fuel interests with billions at stake.
Unfortunately, global warming is measurable, accelerating, and already harming ecosystems and economies.
Thanks for reading, and I hope you’ll take a fresh look at the actual data—beyond the noise and conspiracies. I think if you do, the picture becomes hard to deny.
The real issue is not whether climate change is "real" but whether anything can or should be done about it.
The fact that the government is so interested in it is because it provides another opportunity to expand its scope of control, and that should be a red flag to everyone.
To be sure there are the pubic true believing "useful idiots" but those behind it all who stand to gain power or money don't give a damn.
Any unconstitutional reach for power by the government should be viewed critically and probably opposed.
I usually enjoy your articles, John. They are very thoughtful and interesting. But this one is very misleading. You are right that the Earth has been much hotter in the past than it is today, but there were not any humans around during those periods. Archaeologists estimate that homo sapiens have only been around for about 200,000 years and the earliest hominid species only go back about 3.5 million years. So humans have only been around at the extreme right side of your temperature graph (blue section). In fact we know that if the temperature is sustained at 95 degrees or higher with 100% humidity most humans will die within about 3 days. The body can't cool itself. Ask someone who lives in New Orleans or the Caribbean coast of Colombia how long they would last in the summer without air conditioning? Lots of people in those areas that don't have air conditioning already die every year from the heat. So many areas in the tropics will become uninhabitable for humans if the planet gets much hotter. And the planet is getting warmer and apparently at a much more rapid rate than has ever been seen in the geographical record. Human industry in the last 175 years has raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere from 180 to 430 ppm and still rising. It is a scientific fact that this makes the atmosphere hotter. This is not just speculation. We have a problem, no matter how much we would like to deny it. Dave Heath
I am a physics graduate who specialised in climate measuring and have continued to read and stay somewhat informed as climate science moved from fringe discussion to the mainstream. As with all things statistical the devil is in the detail. I'm sure you can appreciate that John! Some of the other commentators on this post make good points, particularly regarding how carbon doesn't actually lead temperature increases it lags Fact. Errors such as these have done much to discredit the notion that humans are to blame for the warming we now see. A famous example being Al Gore polemic 'An Inconvenient Truth'. For sure climate science, like all science is just one more area where misinformation can lever governments to coerce ever more sums of money towards dubious 'fixes'. This does not mean the substantive arguments behind anthropogenic climate change are wrong. Here's my addition to this debate. Nobody can argue that we sit in the middle of a rather wide range of temperatures and indeed towards the lower end. Nature does not have an ideal temperature. Nature is adaptive through evolution. Herein lies the problem. Global temperatures normally evolve on geological timescales and evolution thus has plenty of time to adapt. The issue is that the recent RATE of change of global temperatures far exceeds anything seen in the last 500 million years by at least an order of magnitude. Nature cannot keep up and in such circumstances ecosytems break down. I will post the summary that chatgpt gave when I put this point in and referenced the graph you cited. It seems a good jumping off point for further discussion.
Chat gpt says:
You're absolutely right to focus on the rate of change—that’s a key factor in understanding modern climate trends.
1. Context: Earth's Temperature History
Over the past 500 million years, Earth’s climate has seen major fluctuations between “greenhouse” (warm) and “icehouse” (cold) periods. These shifts were driven primarily by:
Plate tectonics (continental drift)
Volcanic activity
Changes in Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
Solar intensity
Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations
However, these changes happened over tens to millions of years, allowing ecosystems time to adapt.
2. Current Warming Rates vs. Historical
The rate of global warming over the last century—especially the last 50 years—is unprecedented in the geological record. Key comparisons:
Current Rate: Since the late 1800s, Earth has warmed by about 1.2°C, with the most rapid changes in the last few decades—about 0.2°C per decade currently.
Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ~56 million years ago): One of the fastest natural warming events in Earth's history. Estimated warming was 5–8°C, but over ~20,000 years. That’s a rate of ~0.025°C per century—at least 10x slower than today.
End-Permian extinction (~252 million years ago): Massive volcanic activity warmed the Earth significantly, but again, over thousands of years.
End of the last Ice Age (~12,000 years ago): Warming of about 4–5°C over 10,000 years, or ~0.05°C per century—still much slower than modern warming.
3. Why Rate Matters
Ecosystem Stress: Rapid changes don't give species time to adapt or migrate.
Sea Level Rise: Fast melting of ice sheets leads to rapid sea level rise, threatening coastal communities.
Agricultural and Economic Systems: These are built on relatively stable climates; rapid shifts cause large-scale disruptions.
4. Regarding the Argument that We're "Just Coming Out of a Cold Period"
Yes, the Holocene (~last 11,700 years) has been relatively stable and cooler compared to deep-time greenhouse periods. But that does not explain the extremely fast rate of warming we see today. Furthermore, climate models and data overwhelmingly attribute most of the modern warming to human activities, especially CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels.
Conclusion
There is no known period in the last 500 million years where the rate of global temperature increase has been as fast as it is today. Your intuition is correct: it’s not just where we are on the curve of Earth's history, but how steep that curve has suddenly become. That steepness is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, not just natural cycles.
Another substack writer tells that the nanotech particles of graphene been sprayed for years is in our bodies…likely to be used to monitor our health, our thoughts, our frequency. As well as that of soil, plants, animals…their agenda is still full steam ahead!
Dimming the sun is yet another to dim our health! Sunlight used to known as a cure for many ailments, incl flu. It helps you retain eyesight, no specs, etc etc. It will also dim the growth of our fruit and veges….just more of the same agenda
I will now explain why EVs - which are not in any way shape or form 'Green' - exist.
And why the Ministry of Truth runs endless hype campaigns promoting planet-saving EVs and why governments subsidize them to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Consider this statement: We are steaming oil out of sand, drilling miles beneath oceans for oil, drilling hundreds of thousands of holes in the ground, dropping in bombs - then sucking up the dregs. And we can’t wait to start mining the Arctic, one of the most inhospitable regions of the planet, for oil.
Surely, given we are completely reliant on fossil fuel energy to power our civilization we should be concerned that these methods of oil extraction appear to be to put it bluntly... desperate.
Surely any objective observer would look at this and think.... hmmm.... if there is so much of the easy stuff remaining ... why we do we steam oil out of sand?
This is where the lunatics (or trolls) chyme in and scream “oil is abiotic - the oil wells refill’ Except that they are not refilling and we continue to steam oil out of sand.
The thing is ... we are desperate.
Conventional Oil Sources peaked in 2008 and the Shale binge has now spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
Some key points from this Financial Times article.
So how do EVs fit into this equation ... and renewable energy... and what about climate change????
These are what I refer to as The Three Pillars of Bullshit.
It goes like this. The Men Who Run the World need their barnyard animals to remain productive... positive... happy. If the animals were to get wind of the desperate situation with respect to energy they would get spooked... in fact they would panic.
And panicked barnyard animals are NOT productive animals. If they conclude that the cheap and easy energy are on the downslope ... they fall into despair. They begin to believe there is no future. Why breed - why study - why invest? Alcoholism and drug abuse would explode. And the global economy (and civilization) would prematurely collapse.
Barnyard animals MUST believe the future is awesome --- they must believe their progeny will have the same opportunities to pillage and fill their garages lots and lots of stuff from Walmart. More is non-negotiable… a god-given right!
There's zero scientific evidence proving that the increased CO2 from industrialisation has caused the 1.2 degrees of warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. But given that the recent Little Ice Age was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years, it's highly likely what we're experiencing is a natural thaw. Increased levels of CO2 do not cause warming but oceans warmed naturally by the Sun and by undersea volcanic and tectonic activity does cause increased atmospheric CO2 due to the fact that warm water can hold less dissolved CO2 than cold water. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere also result in the greening of the planet and thus a higher sequestration of CO2. Nature has it all figured out. More CO2 is a net benefit to the sustainability of our ecosytem.
Climate change was started by Pierre Trudeau and Maurice Strong ( both pediphiles and good friends of Mao) in 1971 in Quebec, Canada. Both were members of the club of Rome!
The entire narrative from the powers that be has always been a lie. The clown show goes on and on and on, and will never be anything but a clown show. The principles are actors. Politics is theatre, and by extension anything they say or do only fits into their fear, lies, and propaganda narrative. We are witnessing, in our generation, the end of history, while at the same time approaching what a Sovereign God intended us to be a part of, a new beginning.
I know there are a lot of newcomers to this game. This isn't new. My mom used to teach me about this globalist scam back in the 1970s. The players have changed but the game hasn't. The goal is not to stop "pollution" its to tax it. If the globalists can impose a global tax the next step is global enforcement. Once that is in place, it's a short trip to global govenrement. Pandemics are plan B. Every country needs to immediately ditch the dollar, leave the UN, and decentralize all education, Healthcare, banking, power transition, and food and water distribution. Tear down the bureaucracies, disband federal policing agency, start hanging the politicians. Break up corporate monopolies. You have that choice right now. Decentralize power and take back your freedom, or choose fear and precieved safety and join the Marxists.
I understand the instinct to question establishment narratives—especially after years of media failures, political missteps, and institutional mistrust. But in this case, I believe the skepticism in your article is fundamentally wrong. (FYI: I had AI edit my response to improve my writing efforts.)
Here are two issues to consider:
1. Earth’s Ancient Climate Is Not the Standard for Human Survival
You suggest that because the Earth was once warmer and ice-free at the poles, we shouldn’t worry about current warming trends. But our modern civilization—our agriculture, cities, infrastructure, and water systems—was built around the stable climate of the last 10,000 years. That’s the baseline that matters.
While, the Earth has endured hotter periods, during those times, sea levels were hundreds of feet higher, much of today’s habitable land was underwater, and no humans were around to worry about floods, famines, or mass displacement. What’s dangerous is not that the planet is changing—it’s that it’s changing fast in ways that threaten the systems human life depends on. The relevant question isn’t whether the Earth can survive warmer temperatures—it’s whether we can.
2. Attacks on Specific Temperature Data Miss the Broader, Clear-Cut Evidence
Your focus on weather stations with classification issues (so-called “junk sites”) doesn’t undermine the overall scientific consensus. Global temperature data comes from a massive network of independently operated stations, satellites, and ocean buoys, verified by multiple institutions—NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and others. These datasets all converge on the same clear conclusion: the Earth is warming.
Climate science doesn’t rely on a few questionable data points or politically motivated headlines. It relies on decades of peer-reviewed research and global monitoring that has been remarkably consistent.
Much of what gets dismissed as “climate alarmism” is basic risk management, backed by a high level of international scientific agreement. The denialism we often see in media and online commentary isn’t principled skepticism—it’s a campaign, fueled in part by fossil fuel interests with billions at stake.
Unfortunately, global warming is measurable, accelerating, and already harming ecosystems and economies.
Thanks for reading, and I hope you’ll take a fresh look at the actual data—beyond the noise and conspiracies. I think if you do, the picture becomes hard to deny.
p.s. this brief summary of climate change myths is pretty good: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change
The real issue is not whether climate change is "real" but whether anything can or should be done about it.
The fact that the government is so interested in it is because it provides another opportunity to expand its scope of control, and that should be a red flag to everyone.
To be sure there are the pubic true believing "useful idiots" but those behind it all who stand to gain power or money don't give a damn.
Any unconstitutional reach for power by the government should be viewed critically and probably opposed.
I usually enjoy your articles, John. They are very thoughtful and interesting. But this one is very misleading. You are right that the Earth has been much hotter in the past than it is today, but there were not any humans around during those periods. Archaeologists estimate that homo sapiens have only been around for about 200,000 years and the earliest hominid species only go back about 3.5 million years. So humans have only been around at the extreme right side of your temperature graph (blue section). In fact we know that if the temperature is sustained at 95 degrees or higher with 100% humidity most humans will die within about 3 days. The body can't cool itself. Ask someone who lives in New Orleans or the Caribbean coast of Colombia how long they would last in the summer without air conditioning? Lots of people in those areas that don't have air conditioning already die every year from the heat. So many areas in the tropics will become uninhabitable for humans if the planet gets much hotter. And the planet is getting warmer and apparently at a much more rapid rate than has ever been seen in the geographical record. Human industry in the last 175 years has raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere from 180 to 430 ppm and still rising. It is a scientific fact that this makes the atmosphere hotter. This is not just speculation. We have a problem, no matter how much we would like to deny it. Dave Heath
What do humans need CO2 for?
We believe we're headed into a mini iceage and if my very modest gardening is an indication then we should believe it is coming.
Electroverse (on Substack) reports the cooling "anomalies", and they are global.
Cheater and fake weather stations creating "weather models' can't hide the reality on the ground.
I am a physics graduate who specialised in climate measuring and have continued to read and stay somewhat informed as climate science moved from fringe discussion to the mainstream. As with all things statistical the devil is in the detail. I'm sure you can appreciate that John! Some of the other commentators on this post make good points, particularly regarding how carbon doesn't actually lead temperature increases it lags Fact. Errors such as these have done much to discredit the notion that humans are to blame for the warming we now see. A famous example being Al Gore polemic 'An Inconvenient Truth'. For sure climate science, like all science is just one more area where misinformation can lever governments to coerce ever more sums of money towards dubious 'fixes'. This does not mean the substantive arguments behind anthropogenic climate change are wrong. Here's my addition to this debate. Nobody can argue that we sit in the middle of a rather wide range of temperatures and indeed towards the lower end. Nature does not have an ideal temperature. Nature is adaptive through evolution. Herein lies the problem. Global temperatures normally evolve on geological timescales and evolution thus has plenty of time to adapt. The issue is that the recent RATE of change of global temperatures far exceeds anything seen in the last 500 million years by at least an order of magnitude. Nature cannot keep up and in such circumstances ecosytems break down. I will post the summary that chatgpt gave when I put this point in and referenced the graph you cited. It seems a good jumping off point for further discussion.
Chat gpt says:
You're absolutely right to focus on the rate of change—that’s a key factor in understanding modern climate trends.
1. Context: Earth's Temperature History
Over the past 500 million years, Earth’s climate has seen major fluctuations between “greenhouse” (warm) and “icehouse” (cold) periods. These shifts were driven primarily by:
Plate tectonics (continental drift)
Volcanic activity
Changes in Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
Solar intensity
Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations
However, these changes happened over tens to millions of years, allowing ecosystems time to adapt.
2. Current Warming Rates vs. Historical
The rate of global warming over the last century—especially the last 50 years—is unprecedented in the geological record. Key comparisons:
Current Rate: Since the late 1800s, Earth has warmed by about 1.2°C, with the most rapid changes in the last few decades—about 0.2°C per decade currently.
Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ~56 million years ago): One of the fastest natural warming events in Earth's history. Estimated warming was 5–8°C, but over ~20,000 years. That’s a rate of ~0.025°C per century—at least 10x slower than today.
End-Permian extinction (~252 million years ago): Massive volcanic activity warmed the Earth significantly, but again, over thousands of years.
End of the last Ice Age (~12,000 years ago): Warming of about 4–5°C over 10,000 years, or ~0.05°C per century—still much slower than modern warming.
3. Why Rate Matters
Ecosystem Stress: Rapid changes don't give species time to adapt or migrate.
Sea Level Rise: Fast melting of ice sheets leads to rapid sea level rise, threatening coastal communities.
Agricultural and Economic Systems: These are built on relatively stable climates; rapid shifts cause large-scale disruptions.
4. Regarding the Argument that We're "Just Coming Out of a Cold Period"
Yes, the Holocene (~last 11,700 years) has been relatively stable and cooler compared to deep-time greenhouse periods. But that does not explain the extremely fast rate of warming we see today. Furthermore, climate models and data overwhelmingly attribute most of the modern warming to human activities, especially CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels.
Conclusion
There is no known period in the last 500 million years where the rate of global temperature increase has been as fast as it is today. Your intuition is correct: it’s not just where we are on the curve of Earth's history, but how steep that curve has suddenly become. That steepness is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, not just natural cycles.
Another substack writer tells that the nanotech particles of graphene been sprayed for years is in our bodies…likely to be used to monitor our health, our thoughts, our frequency. As well as that of soil, plants, animals…their agenda is still full steam ahead!
Are you scamming JR?
Hi AJnz, it's spam. I've blocked that account, so hopefully the message will disappear shortly.
Dimming the sun is yet another to dim our health! Sunlight used to known as a cure for many ailments, incl flu. It helps you retain eyesight, no specs, etc etc. It will also dim the growth of our fruit and veges….just more of the same agenda
I will now explain why EVs - which are not in any way shape or form 'Green' - exist.
And why the Ministry of Truth runs endless hype campaigns promoting planet-saving EVs and why governments subsidize them to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Consider this statement: We are steaming oil out of sand, drilling miles beneath oceans for oil, drilling hundreds of thousands of holes in the ground, dropping in bombs - then sucking up the dregs. And we can’t wait to start mining the Arctic, one of the most inhospitable regions of the planet, for oil.
Surely, given we are completely reliant on fossil fuel energy to power our civilization we should be concerned that these methods of oil extraction appear to be to put it bluntly... desperate.
Surely any objective observer would look at this and think.... hmmm.... if there is so much of the easy stuff remaining ... why we do we steam oil out of sand?
This is where the lunatics (or trolls) chyme in and scream “oil is abiotic - the oil wells refill’ Except that they are not refilling and we continue to steam oil out of sand.
The thing is ... we are desperate.
Conventional Oil Sources peaked in 2008 and the Shale binge has now spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
Some key points from this Financial Times article.
So how do EVs fit into this equation ... and renewable energy... and what about climate change????
These are what I refer to as The Three Pillars of Bullshit.
It goes like this. The Men Who Run the World need their barnyard animals to remain productive... positive... happy. If the animals were to get wind of the desperate situation with respect to energy they would get spooked... in fact they would panic.
And panicked barnyard animals are NOT productive animals. If they conclude that the cheap and easy energy are on the downslope ... they fall into despair. They begin to believe there is no future. Why breed - why study - why invest? Alcoholism and drug abuse would explode. And the global economy (and civilization) would prematurely collapse.
Barnyard animals MUST believe the future is awesome --- they must believe their progeny will have the same opportunities to pillage and fill their garages lots and lots of stuff from Walmart. More is non-negotiable… a god-given right!
More https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
On substack - https://electroverse.substack.com/p/late-cold-hits-north-america-arizona?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2118150&post_id=164140365&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=y7h5a&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email - a daily track showing real data currently...and it's getting COLDER!
If you want to get a handle on WTF is going on in this world - DaGAP is REAL - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-gap-in-understanding-world-affairs.html?m=0 - and because both seculars and churchians dismiss this as just Halloweenish events, Old Scratch has pretty much free reign - after all, he doesn't exist, right?
There's zero scientific evidence proving that the increased CO2 from industrialisation has caused the 1.2 degrees of warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. But given that the recent Little Ice Age was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years, it's highly likely what we're experiencing is a natural thaw. Increased levels of CO2 do not cause warming but oceans warmed naturally by the Sun and by undersea volcanic and tectonic activity does cause increased atmospheric CO2 due to the fact that warm water can hold less dissolved CO2 than cold water. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere also result in the greening of the planet and thus a higher sequestration of CO2. Nature has it all figured out. More CO2 is a net benefit to the sustainability of our ecosytem.
Why are Americans the dumbest people on planet
And the absolute best at violence. You might want to keep that in mind when you insult us.😉
Climate change was started by Pierre Trudeau and Maurice Strong ( both pediphiles and good friends of Mao) in 1971 in Quebec, Canada. Both were members of the club of Rome!
GeoEngineeringWatch.org is a great resource. Dane W also has a documentary that is worth your time.
A better and richer reference source is Jim Lee at climateviewer.com