The NASA TROPICS Mission: Monitoring Tropical Cyclones with a Fleet of Small Microwave Radiometers

June 12th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

As early as today at noon EDT an Astra rocket will launch the first two of six small CubeSats into tropical orbits at 550 km altitude from Cape Canaveral (video coverage here). Those satellites, named the TROPICS mission, will carry microwave radiometers operating at relatively high frequencies, from 90 to 205 GHz. They will measure precipitation-size ice particles in the upper reaches of tropical storms (at 90 and 205 GHz), and provide temperature (118 GHz channels) and humidity profiles (183 GHz channels) in the environment surrounding, and inside the warm cores of those storms.

The use of microwave radiometers in space to observe the Earth was first proposed by German meteorologist Konrad Buettner in 1963. By the late 1960s aircraft missions were being flown by NASA and the U.S. Weather Bureau to demonstrate the technology.

In the early 1970s NASA/Goddard was the leader in the construction and flight of the first spaceborne microwave radiometers to demonstrate the measurement of precipitation and sea ice with the single-frequency ESMR instruments operating at 19.35 and 37 GHz.

Later, JPL developed the SMMR instrument that provided measurements from 6.6 to 37 GHz starting in late 1978 on the Nimbus-7 satellite. That instrument allowed me as a post-doc at UW-Madison to demonstrate the ability to measure precipitation over land by isolating the ice scattering signature at 37 GHz, which gave me my first peer-reviewed paper (a cover article in Nature) and led to several more papers describing severe thunderstorm detection and rainfall measurement. It is this ice scattering signature that will be exploited as part of the TROPICS mission.

The field of researchers in satellite passive microwave remote sensing up to the Nimbus-7 SMMR period was pretty small. It was the 1987 launch of the first SSM/I instrument on a DoD DMSP satellite that got many more researchers involved in using satellite microwave measurements. The unusual inclusion of higher-frequency 85.5 GHz channels on SSM/I exploited the ice signature that Dick Savage (UW-Madison) also documented along with Jim Weinman.

Meanwhile, the JPL-built MSU instruments were providing atmospheric temperature profile data since late 1978 in the 60 GHz oxygen absorption complex, mostly for data input to weather forecast models. Later, NOAA and NASA/GSFC developed the higher-resolution AMSU instruments, first launched in 1998, which still provide global atmospheric temperature information.

It was around 1990 that John Christy and I demonstrated that the MSU/AMSU series of temperature-profiling instruments could provide a relatively stable long-term record of global atmospheric temperatures for monitoring of climate change. While I had helped with the early planning of NASA’s TRMM satellite to monitor tropical rainfall, I chose to change my career focus from precipitation monitoring to temperature monitoring, and declined to become part of the official TRMM Team. I would still become the U.S. Science Team leader for the AMSR-E instrument (built by Japan), which like SSM/I measured a wide variety of parameters, but my time would be increasingly devoted to the global temperature monitoring effort.

The radical TROPICS approach to tropical cyclone monitoring
One of the main advantages of passive microwave measurements is the ability to see through many clouds (especially cirrus). Unfortunately, satellite passive microwave radiometry has always struggled with poor spatial resolution. The beamwidth of a diffraction-limited microwave antenna increases with the wavelength of radiation being measured, so large antennas are required to obtain high resolution on the Earth’s surface. Or, shorter wavelength (higher frequency) channels need to be utilized. The trouble with high frequencies, though, is that clouds become more opaque as the frequency increases. If you increase the frequency too high you move into the infrared, and we already have geostationary satellites providing those data on a continuous basis.

The TROPICS approach employs both a lower altitude (550 km compared to 700 to 850 km from other satellites) and higher frequencies (90 to 205 GHz) to improve spatial resolution. Microwave circuit electronics have improved in sensitivity and noise and have been reduced in size to the point that the very small and lightweight CubeSat architecture can be used. The TROPICS satellites use 3 CubeSat modules, making the satellite bus only (approximately) 4 x 4 x 12 inches in size. The mission’s Principal Investigator, William Blackwell at MIT’s Lincoln Lab has been spearheading this new, smaller microwave radiometer concept. The temperature sounding utilizes the 118 GHz oxygen absorption complex, rather than 60 GHz (as with the AMSUs) which improves spatial resolution by a factor of two.

Such small satellites can be launched in batches with smaller rockets, which reduces cost. It also aligns with NASA’s overriding interest in satellite technology advancement. With six of these satellites in a low-inclination (30 deg) orbit, quasi-hourly coverage (on average) of tropical cyclones is anticipated.

What will forecasters do with the data?
Many years ago I visited both the National Hurricane Center (Florida) and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (Hawaii) to promote the use of passive microwave measurements of tropical storms. Since then, several researchers (e.g. Chris Velden and Mark DeMaria) have worked tirelessly with these centers to establish procedures for passive microwave monitoring of tropical cyclones.

I suspect the measurements will mostly be used to better isolate where a tropical depression or storm might be forming since the microwave measurements penetrate most cirrus cloud cover and can better reveal the low-level swirl of clouds marking the circulation center. Regarding the monitoring of a tropical cyclone’s warm core (what causes the intense low pressure at the surface) it isn’t until the storm comes close to hurricane intensity (65 knot maximum sustain surface winds) that the warm core can be reliably measured by TROPICS satellites. Also, the 27 km (best case) spatial resolution for the 118 GHz temperature sounding channels is still a little too coarse to avoid precipitation contamination (a cold signature) of the warm core signature that typifies tropical cyclones. Nevertheless, I’m sure researchers will find clever ways to isolate the warm core signature, just as we did in Spencer et al. (2001) using AMSU satellite data at 50 km resolution.

There will no doubt be some new capabilities that emerge as data are gathered from these satellites. For example, a large hurricane with frequent coverage by TROPICS satellites might reveal rapid deepening of the storm through a stronger warm core signature. In the absence of Hurricane Hunter flights into the storms, storm intensity is still largely based upon weather satellite visible and infrared cloud features, which is a rather indirect (but surprisingly accurate) technique that has a long history. TROPICS offers the chance to have a more physics-based measurement of hurricane intensity than through cloud appearance alone. Also, since data will continuously be collected over the entire tropical latitude belt, a wide variety of other applications will arise.

Let’s hope the Astra launch (maybe today) will be successful. So far, there have only been two successful Astra launches out of eight attempts (one rather dramatic failure is shown below). Fingers crossed.

326 Responses to “The NASA TROPICS Mission: Monitoring Tropical Cyclones with a Fleet of Small Microwave Radiometers”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. CO2isLife says:

    “Terminate Send,” why would they do that?

  2. says:

    Its easy to think that the concept of mail order brides is a thing of the beyond, however the fact is that the mail order bride enterprise is alive and properly. The most effective distinction among the mail order brides of the twentieth century and modern ladies who move to america to get married is that the latter do it on their own phrases and are loose to pick out who to marry.

  3. Tom says:

    NASA COSMIC mission was advertised as a climate monitoring effort but I could never find a summary of temperature change over the 15 year mission. No news is good news?

    Will TROPICS monitoring result data sets relevant to climate change?

  4. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    The term “effective emission height” frequently comes up in articles and blog comments, not surprisingly, even here on your blog. Do satellite measurements enable the ability to quantify that altitude? If so, is it realistic to expect enough accuracy to detect a change in EEH due to the AGWarmists claiming that altitude has been increasing due to rising CO2?

    • Entropic man says:

      Effective emission height is the average of emissions from a variety of altitudes.

      In practice the effective emission height is the height at which the atmosphere has a minimum temperature. This marks the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Increasing CO2 would be expected to raise the EEH.

      By how much? If EEH follows temperature you would expect a rise in surface temperature to cause a rise in the altitude of the tropopause. Lapse rate is somewhere between 6 and 10C/km. The 1.2C rise in surface temperatures since 1880 would produce a rise in the tropopause of 70-120 metres. That is a change of 05-0.8 metres/year.

      With temperature profiles measured regularly by radiosondes and aircraft that should be detectable. Probably not by satellite, since the microwave signals they detect don’t have much altitude discrimination.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, you seem to have a never-ending supply of links to junk science.

        An increased tropopause altitude could indicate a warming troposphere, but an increased tropopause altitude does NOT prove the warming is anthropogenic.

        You keep grasping at straws, when you’re not making stuff up.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        I was hoping to get something serious from Dr. S, but a few laughs from E-man is better than nothing.

      • Entropic man says:

        Denialist humour?

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        “In practice the effective emission height is the height at which the atmosphere has a minimum temperature.”

        Humourous is knowing you seriously believe that.

      • Entropic man says:


        For the nth time, science does evidence not proof.

        The CO2 AGW hypothesis predicts that increasing CO2 leads to a rising tropopause. This is observed, which is supporting evidence for the hypothesis.

        If you disagree you are free to falsify the prediction and supply an alternative explanation, though nobody I know has been able to do so yet.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        The alternate is that measurements of increasing tropopause height only coincide with rising CO2. That isn’t evidence of anything. Without evidence that more CO2 caused the warming, you are left with speculation about the cause of an alleged rising tropopause which is likely related to rising temperatures whatever the cause.

      • Entropic man says:

        The temperature rise is consistent with that expected from the rise in CO2 and the rise in the tropopause is consistent with the rise in temperature. The three parameters fit together as predicted by the CO2 AGW hypothesis.

        What alternative hypothesis do you propose to link them together? Something that makes pyphysical and energetic sense and agrees with the observed data.

      • Entropic man says:

        Chic Bowdrie

        ” rising temperatures whatever the cause. ”

        That is an argument which we losing potency.

        As TROPIC, COSMIC and other programmes monitor the Earth’s energy budget in greater detail it gets harder to find gaps in our knowledge where other reasons for rising temperatures might fit.

        Like the God of the Gaps. As scientific knowledge increases, the conceptual space in which God might exist shrinks until God disappears.

      • Clint R says:

        I disagree Ent. You have NO science. All you have are your cult beliefs.

        You’ll believe/say anything to support your cult. You’ll even claim passenger jets fly backwards.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        It’s curious why someone with so little scientific understanding has so much faith in the unproven AGW hype, yet so little awareness of the evidence of a higher power.

        E-man, what makes a cell divide?

      • Entropic man says:


      • RLH says:

        For animal life it is oxygen.

  5. AaronS says:

    Will the understanding of the warm core obtained from new satellite greatly enhance predicting storm behavior (things like path and intensity)? It’s easy to justify lots of cost for the research if the benefits prevent damage to society, but I’m curious about the cost benefits relationship. Thanks for all the expert insight.

  6. Entropic man says:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t think they made orbit.

    The controllers said at the end of the video that the upper stage shut down early.

    • RLH says:

      “While we are disappointed in the loss of the two TROPICS CubeSats, the mission is part of NASAs Earth venture program, which provides opportunities for lower-cost, higher risk missions. Despite a loss of the first two of six satellites, the TROPICS constellation will still meet its science objectives with the four remaining CubeSats distributed in two orbits. With four satellites, TROPICS will still provide improved time-resolved observations of tropical cyclones compared to traditional observing methods”


    Astra need to step up their game. It’s looking like the successes were the anomalies.

    I suspect that NASA is looking at Rocket Lab & Virgin Orbit as potential replacements. Rocket Lab is especially important since it will launch CAPSTONE later this month.

    • yeah, this is not good for Astra.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      NASA’s CubeSat designed to test a unique lunar orbit is safely in space and on the first leg of its journey to the Moon. The spacecraft is heading toward an orbit intended in the future for Gateway, a lunar space station built by the agency and its commercial and international partners that will support NASA’s Artemis program, including astronaut missions.

      The Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment, or CAPSTONE, mission launched at 5:55 a.m. EDT (09:55 UTC) on Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket from the Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 on the Mahia Peninsula of New Zealand Tuesday.

  8. RLH says:

    Westwide SNOTEL Current Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) % of Norma

    “LA NIA ADVISORY – Current Westwide Snowpack More Than 3000% of Normal in Some Areas”

  9. gbaikie says:

    OUT ON A LIMB: Report by German Parliament Expert Committee Finds No Evidence that Lockdowns did Anything.*

    Not just in Germany: An analysis of studies of the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality has just been released by a team of researchers at Johns Hopkins University, and their conclusion is depressing. Our study finds that lockdowns had little to no effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality, they wrote. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects.’

  10. Tim S says:

    I read an interesting story recently about SpaceX. Musk said that a fourth failed launch after the first three failures would have ended the company. They were out of money. The rest is history.

  11. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 512.6 km/sec
    density: 9.53 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 12 Jun 22
    Sunspot number: 63
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 14.06×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +5.6% High
    48-hr change: -0.9%

    • WizGeek says:

      ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S P A M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

      • RLH says:

        Are you saying that actual data is spam?

      • Bindidon says:

        ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Another kind of S P A M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

        What about stopping YOUR OWN spam, WizGeek?

      • Eben says:

        Speaking of spam,
        Have you read any more imaginary posts so you can attack people for things they never said with your made up lies you psycho ???

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 477.3 km/sec
        density: 10.68 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 13 Jun 22
        Sunspot number: 63
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 14.06×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +5.7% High
        48-hr change: -1.1%

        Not much change.
        Global recession continue
        War in Ukraine continue
        Stock Market continues to crash.

        Oh, but FAA with many conditions, has approves Starship
        So things are looking up.

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 512.3 km/sec
      density: 10.36 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 14 Jun 22
      Sunspot number: 121
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 14.03×10^10 W Neutral
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: +5.7% High
      48-hr change: -0.0%

      So, got all these sunspots which were on other side, which detected
      and were predicted to show up.

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar wind
      speed: 544.1 km/sec
      density: 8.71 protons/cm3
      Daily Sun: 16 Jun 22
      Sunspot number: 149
      Thermosphere Climate Index
      today: 14.02×10^10 W Neutral
      Oulu Neutron Counts
      Percentages of the Space Age average:
      today: +3.2% Elevated
      48-hr change: -1.5%

      Safe to go to Mars, but does it continue fall and how long does it
      Is sun spotless on it’s far side???
      Is it weird if one sided?
      How long do spots last.
      If some of these spots fade before they turn away from us,
      and can any one predict which will have higher chance to fade.

      I take wild guess that ones whiter patches fade faster, or most don’t have white patches so look newer and last longer. And might go to far side and back our near side. Newest looking one, 3034, looks nearest equator.

      • gbaikie says:

        Solar wind
        speed: 602.2 km/sec
        density: 9.75 protons/cm3
        Daily Sun: 16 Jun 22
        Sunspot number: 159
        Thermosphere Climate Index
        today: 14.19×10^10 W Neutral
        Oulu Neutron Counts
        Percentages of the Space Age average:
        today: +2.3% Elevated
        48-hr change: -2.4%
        still safe to be traveling to Mars- Or GCR levels of solar max-
        though Mars could facing the far side of sun and don’t know what happening on that side.

  12. RLH says:

    As El Nino is typically a symmetrically distributed temperature profile around the equator but La Nina is predominantly a Southern Hemisphere biased one, should we not shift the Nino 3, 3.4 and 4 boxes to a SH aspect (i.e. below the equator only) as that more precisely delineates El Nino from La Nina?

  13. stephen p anderson says:

    This was a big dud. Maybe NASA should get SpaceX involved?

  14. stephen p anderson says:

    Trump getting revenge on Biden.

    • RLH says:

      It looks like the rest of Trump’s family are getting revenge on him.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Here’s the rest of his real estate properties. He seems like he’s doing OK. If Trump is such a dufus then why are you so afraid of him?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Let’s see, your side has Obama, the community organizer. Biden, who’s gained his wealth through corruption since he’s been in politics his whole life. Then you have the Clintons. Let’s see, how did they gain their wealth? Then you had the Gores, who also gained their wealth through political corruption, and Jimmy Carter. What a crew.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        By the way, did you know, that 243 mules visited drop boxes in two Arizona counties, 5700 times during the last Presidential election? Does that concern you?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Oh, I forgot, you live in a socialist country. Political corruption is OK with you.

      • RLH says:

        The UK is a socialist country? No. It is a capitalist country.

      • Norman says:

        stephen p anderson

        Maybe you should consider that your 2000 mules movie is the lie based upon very flimsy evidence and not good research at all. This extended article points out many flaws made with this movie. It sounds like the typical right-wing lying. The left also lies the fanatics on both sides but unfortunately the right lies more than the left, the “good-guys” out to save the Nation are even worse liars than the “bad-guys” how does that work?

        I think the right has to work on its honesty and truth before they can be a force for “good”. Right now they are just lying all the time and gullible people like you believe all they say without any question. As long as they smear the left you just don’t care if it is a total lie or not. That is really sad.

      • Entropic man says:


        “Oh, I forgot, you live in a socialist country. Political corruption is OK with you.”

        Considering the state of your own political system, calling the UK corrupt is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

        Your calibration of left and right is seriously skewed by international standards.

        The current ruling party in the UK is the Conservatives, consideredabout halfway between the centre and the extreme right.

        The US Democratic Party is to the right of the Conservatives and the Republican Party is even further to the right.

        To an outside observer the US political system consists of two parties on the right and nobody in the centre or left.

        From our English perspective referring to the Democrats as a party of the left sounds absurd.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        You seem reasonable, sometimes. Did you read the Reuters article and watch the movie? I have a few questions for you if you did.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        Plotting to steal elections is not to the right of any UK political system. The evidence presented in 2000 mules was a coordinated nationwide plot. Trying to pack the Supreme Court, change the Electoral College, increase the number of states, etc. etc. is not evidence of a party that is right of the UK conservative party. You guys surrendered your freedoms a long time ago.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Ask Paul McCartney or Adele if the UK is a Capitalist country? 80% of their income is taxed.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        This Kangaroo inquisition that is occurring in the House of Representatives where all the committee members were selected by Nancy Pelosi, is that right of UK’s conservative party?

      • RLH says:

        Fact Check-Does ‘2000 Mules’ provide evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        You just posted the same Reuters talking points that Norman posted. UK is a capitalist nation? What technology does the UK lead the world? Who are the UK’s greatest technology companies? What markets is the UK dominant?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Where was the Reuter’s fact-checking when the Democrats were claiming Trump-Russia collusion?

      • Norman says:

        stephen p anderson

        It is not streaming yet so I will wait to watch it. I am sure I will not be convinced by the Documentary.

        If individuals were stuffing a mail-in-ballot box what would that mean? The ballots have to go through checks before they are counted. If you dumped 10,000 ballots in a box for Trump what would that do?

        I am sure the evidence is the same as any Right-Wing Talking head like Tucker Carlson. It is flimsy and lots of lies that could not pass rigorous scrutiny like in a Court of Law where you do need at least some evidence for your case. There were many court challenges of the election but when it came to presenting valid evidence none came through. All rumors and allegations of someone saw someone doing something. Not real solid evidence.

        The election was close and could go either way. Let it go and vote again. Biden is a bad President so with our system vote him out. There have been many close elections in the last few cycles but you just have to let it go, if the President or Congress are bad do your job and Vote them out. Don’t undermine the system.

        Trump is a dishonest liar and makes up things often. You need to get over that he was a “good” guy. His personality has created more of a rift in our society than was already growing. I think we need a President who can glue some tears back together, Biden is not the one maybe some other, Trump definitely did nothing to help, he created a bunch of fanatics that thought it was okay to storm the Congress and try to kill Pelosi and Pence. Not a good thing at all. Even though I dislike Biden and the Green Dream of zero planning it does not mean Trump was a good President at all. People on your fanatic Right side want a Civil War, that is what Trump accomplished.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        You claim Reuters fact-checked it but you didn’t watch the movie? How do you know the fact check has any merit? Also, it is streaming, now. Do you know anything about geo-tracking? Did you know we can send a drone through a second floor window to wipe out a terrorist from several hundred miles based on geo-tracking?

      • RLH says:

        spa: Since you asked

        Mueller finds no conspiracy, but extensive Trump-Russia contacts

      • stephen p anderson says:


        How can you claim integrity and then make a statement like let the election go, it could have gone either way. How can you have a Republic? You can only have a Banana Republic. We have to get to the bottom of this and find out who the planner(s) were? We know who they were, don’t we?

      • stephen p anderson says:


        That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        > Norman: Trump is a liar!

        Norman had no problem with the whole Trump Russia Collusion scheme put forth by the Democrats, but Trump is a liar, proclaims Norman.

      • RLH says:

        spa: “the report contained fresh details on the range of official and unofficial dealings Trump campaign advisers and supporters had with Russians before and after the 2016 election.

        For example, the report says that Manafort, shortly after he joined the campaign in the spring of 2016, directed his deputy to share internal polling data with Kilimnik with the understanding it would be passed on to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch known to have close ties to the Kremlin”

      • RLH says:

        “The report detailed a meeting in December 2016 between Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov, the head of a Russian state-owned bank under U.S. sanctions. Gorkov gave Kushner a painting and a bag of soil from the town in Belarus where Kushners family is from, the report says”

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Did Mueller’s investigation find any evidence of illegal votes cast or changed by Russia or any interference that caused Hillary to lose?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Did you pay any attention to the Sussman trial? Evidence was presented that proved the whole Trump Russia collusion was a scheme by Hillary’s campaign.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Durham actually presented real evidence during the Sussman trial. As did DSouza in 2000 mules. The Mueller investigation was mostly hearsay and innuendo. The Steele Dossier was a complete fabrication by Hillary. (With help from Russian agents and an MI5 agent.) Then you had the whistleblower who ended up being a CIA operative trying to ingratiate himself with Democrats. I’m sure he was looking for a plum post.

      • Norman says:

        stephen p anderderson

        I guess you live in the parallel universe this person points out in this article. You believe, without question, the lies from the right and when brought up you change the goalposts and bring up lies of the left. That in no way justifies Trump’s endless lies.

        The reason we have corrupt, dishonest leaders is because that is what the Public votes for. You have Cheney with bringing up the truth and now she is hated by her Party. For bringing up the truth she should be praised, this is the behavior we need from leaders, honest, truthful, decent people. With such leaders you have a chance to make a decent Nation.

        You tolerate endless lies from the right as long as they attack the enemy, the left. You should think lying is worse than the left.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        This is the whole leftist tactic. Accuse your opponent of what you actually do. The Democrats stole the 2020 election after falsely accusing Trump of stealing the 2016 election. Stalin and Hitler both used these tactics during their rise to power.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        I’m surprised you’re not claiming Trump is colluding with Putin now to raise oil prices? You can get Mueller to do another investigation. Maybe you should suggest that to Pelosi?

      • Entropic man says:

        Watching both elections from the outside two things became obvious.

        1) Most of the complaints about electoral rigging came from the Republicans.

        2) Most of the electoral rigging was done by the Republicans.

      • Entropic man says:

        In the UK we have an Electoral Commission.

        The Electoral Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK.

        Note the key word independant. It is not under the control of, or influenced by, any political party.

        I am surprised the US does not do the same, rather than allowing the political party in local control to decide how to conduct the election.

        This leaves the system open to abuse, with the party in control manipulating the system to make it easier for their supporters to vote and harder for their opponents.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        Provide one shred of evidence that Electoral rigging was done by Republicans. You make more unsupported statements than almost anyone on this board.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        You think Cheney is some paragon of virtue because she is a sellout Republican? I suspect you don’t have the same opinion of sellout Democrats. I used to think the saying, Know Congress and Know the People, was prescient. I don’t think so anymore. I think in most Democrat states the people have acquiesced to the Democrat machine. We will split the Republic in two before we let it happen nationally.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        True the Vote is providing actual evidence of illegal voting. There is whistleblower testimony from a mule, geotracking data, and video evidence. They don’t use red herring statements of election rigging.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        Tik, tok, tik, tok…….watched the movie yet?….tik, tok.

      • RLH says:

        spa: Trump is on record as approving of Putin being ‘strongman’.

      • Norman says:

        Stephen p Anderson

        I am not a party loyalist as you seem to be. I think Truth must override any Party Loyalty. I may watch the movie when it streams on Netflix. I am fairly certain it is not honest or could pass rigorous scrutiny as has already been done. The January mob storming of the Capital was most wrong! Sad people like you believe liars like Trump and go after those telling the truth. In reality you are an irrational fanatic that loves the lies and the liars.

      • RLH says:

        “True the Vote is providing actual evidence of illegal voting”

        Independent fact checkers say otherwise. True the Vote is a partisan voice at best.

      • Entropic man says:

        Examples of ways to distort the vote in favour of one party.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Tik, tok, Tik, tok……

      • stephen p anderson says:

        You need me to send $20 so you can stream the movie?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        The Democrat Party, which you Brits are so fond of, is the Party of slavery. It was the Party of slavery in 1860 and is the Party of slavery today.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Oh, I forgot, independent fact-checkers say otherwise.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:


        It’s clear from what you have written that you know less about US elections than you do about science. Your ignorance speaks volumes.

      • Entropic man says:

        Thank you, ClintR.

        The 2016 and 2020 elections have been a masterclass in how a Republican Secretary of State can make it easier to vote if you are Republican and harder to vote if you are Democrat.

        It’s even legal. You have an electoral systems which makes a mockery of your claims to be a democracy.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        You have no clue.

        Benjamin Franklin was asked, “well, Doctor, what do we have, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied sagely, “a republic, if you can keep it.”

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Eman and RLH are Brits. I guess misery loves company. I know it is a difficult concept for leftists like you Eman, but black people carry ID’s and can produce them. Why don’t you ask them?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        What’s so astonishing about you moronic Brits is that you want us to be just like you. Question: Who’s going to save your ass when you get yourselves into another war if we’re just like you?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        When Britain was at its apex, its peak of world power, the greatest empire on the planet, its government spending was 10% of Britain’s economy. Wonder what it is now? What happened?

      • Norman says:

        stephen p anderson

        True the Vote? You mean this organization?

        They were investigated and they seem out to enrich themselves off of gullible people. Not sure they are ones to trust on anything but I guess that won’t stop you from blindly accepting all they say and rejecting anything that goes against your bias. You have been radicalized. I suppose you think the MOB rule of January 6 was okay. Radicals have lost ability to think clearly. You listen to far too many lies from right-wing sources. They make up whatever they want and you seem to believe it, but only when it smears your dreaded enemies.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        True the Vote is not the evidence. What about the evidence? Tik, tok, Tik, tok…..

      • Norman says:

        stephen p anderson

        Tic and toc as much as you want. I am not as interested in the video as you are. I have read about it and trust that the people who did watch and scrutinize it are valid. I can watch it sometime when it comes on a streaming service.

  15. Norman says:

    Dr. Roy Spencer

    Thanks for sharing your historical efforts in utilizing microwave energy in gaining useful information and now they continue using this energy to find valuable data that can help in monitoring hurricanes.

  16. gbaikie says:

    I think the cost of living in space could cheaper than living on Earth.
    I also think the cost of living on the oceans of Earth could cheaper than living on land.
    And I suppose most people might think it’s impossible.
    Many suppose that due to over population, humans might need to live on the ocean. I think people might want to live on the ocean, in order to surf.
    I don’t surf. But I think an important aspect of living on the ocean is to have access to very good surfing areas.
    I think it’s nice to live on the beach, when I was kid, I live on the beach and liked it. It was kind of like a private beach- as kid it seemed like my beach- there was some visitors, but there were visitors. With ocean settlements it seems the beaches would somewhat crowded. Or I think one have public beaches, but you also have private beaches, but small beaches. So have 1 or 2 large public beaches and at least one surfing area. Having private beach, fishing area, and/or boat dock, would cost more. One would also public scuba diving areas. One thing you would not on ocean settlement are cars. People walk or take bikes and ocean settlement would be small- like a small town. Or it would be beach town, without cars. With beach towns people are quite concerned about parking, and on ocean settlement there would no parking of cars, you simply design it, so don’t need cars on the ocean settlement- if have car, park on land [somewhere that you take ferry to get to it}.
    But ocean settlement might have something like “subways” or hyperloops to other ocean settlements- and land areas.
    And an ocean settlement should have an airport. You would have some medical services in ocean settlement, but you want the option to airlift to medical centers on land [or I guess, larger ocean settlements]. If have ocean settlement in middle of Pacific ocean, it have to be a larger ocean settlement [unless there are islands with larger populations near it}. A large ocean settlement would have spaceport, doing orbital and suborbital launches. Have “industrial” port and international type airport.
    To have Mars settlements one needs to launch rockets from the Ocean.
    If launch a lot rockets from the ocean, you need a large ocean settlement- large ocean port, and large airport {if airports become outdated, than just sub orbital spaceport, but I don’t think airports will actually become outdated].
    Now, I don’t think Mars settlement would count as low cost living- but if you have some people living on Mars and making food, then Venus orbit could import Mars food, and Venus orbit could have low cost living.
    If we mine water on the Moon and/or on Mars, it will start a larger market for water in space. And it’s this larger market of water in space, which allow low cost living in Venus orbit.

    • Ken says:

      “I think the cost of living in space could cheaper than living on Earth.”

      Spending all your time avoiding to make that one stupid mistake that will end your life is very expensive. See Andy Weir’s ‘The Martian’ for details.

      “I also think the cost of living on the oceans of Earth could cheaper than living on land.”

      Its called ‘boat’.

      “And an ocean settlement should have an airport.”

      Its called ‘aircraft carrier’.

      Your ideas are not well founded.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Your ideas are not well founded.”
        Well I guessing about future. But if search, there present plans, regarding ocean settlements:
        But I don’t know details or if has any chance of it working
        Their main issue seems to be to deal with floods.
        And seems to me, a way to avoid floods is to live on ocean.

        I tend to think one get ocean settlement because rockets will be launching from the Ocean.
        But unless there is massive amount of water on Moon, it seems the first human settlements will be on Mars, a problem [or an unknown] of having settlements on Mars is the price you pay for water and power.
        Or problem is high cost of living, give two choices, somehow lower cost of living and/or make a lot money.
        But it seems to me the most important aspect of mining lunar water and/or Mars water is establishing a market value for water beyond Earth surface {and there are oceans of water in space or in infinite amount of water which human could use]. Or best place to make rocket fuel from Water is in lunar orbit, rather than lunar surface- particularly if using solar energy.
        Or Moon has limited solar energy resource at lunar polar region [where one get solar energy 80% of the time] whereas lunar orbit doesn’t have this shortage of “real estate”. This even applies if exporting mass from the lunar surface- but if exporting a lot mass from Moon, you would use mass drivers rather use chemical rocket fuel. Or more efficient to use lunar electrical power for mass drivers and the lunar surface needs of rocket fuel, come from lunar orbit. Or you could mass drive lunar water to lunar orbit, and make rocket fuel in lunar orbit, and import lunar orbit rocket fuel to lunar surface.
        And also make sense to mass drive Mars water to Venus orbit or Venus orbit become a market water from anywhere in space.
        Or Earth to Mars has 2.1 year launch window, if include using Venus, the launch window is halved, or on average becomes a 1 year launch window to get from Earth to Mars or From Mars to Earth if you include via Venus orbit.
        But it could take century or more of time after this gets started, before Venus could be low cost living.
        Of course don’t even know how well artificial gravity works- nor do know if Moon has mineable water or that Mars has mineable water.
        Nor we do know, that one grow food on Mars. But if Mars can grow food cheap enough, it could have endless export market of Mars food to Venus orbit- though then again Mars atmosphere only has about 1 trillion tons of N2, so Mars might not have enough nitrogen to export food to solar system.

      • Ken says:

        You cannot plant crops on the bottom of the sea, the surface of the Moon, or the surface of Mars.

        Too, propagation of the species requires skin to skin contact and that is a thin prospect when there is no atmosphere.

        Hence your plans have no basis.

        Try finding a habitable planet where you don’t spend all your time checking your vacuum suit for leaks.

      • gbaikie says:

        “You cannot plant crops on the bottom of the sea”
        There is a lot pressure at the bottom of the sea.
        Plants could perhaps grow in very high pressure. There is also 1.47 psi difference per 1 meter height which also a problem.
        With Mars there is about .5 psi difference, which make less of structural problem. Or 10 meter under water on Mars has about 5 psi of pressure. Crops might be able to grow in 2 psi of pressure, but could have more certainty in 5 psi of pressure. But there is uncertainty of how any life responses to Mars low gravity and lunar gravity is less than the Mars.
        I am not sure whether the low gravity of Mars or Moon is habitable for any life on Earth. It appears NASA has more confidence than I do, because they have claiming that Mars is the most habitable planet other than Earth. Though I not sold on idea about the high degree of habitability of Earth. Or less gravity might be more habitable, or it seems more gravity is less habitable.
        NASA has ordered to explore the Moon and then Mars, which seems fine to me, but my problem is the long time NASA is taking to do this. They have been banging on the drum to send crew to Mars for well over 30 years and in all this time, have never tested Artificial Gravity equal to Mars gravity [or Moon’s gravity. Until the year 1998, I was opposed to exploring the Moon. But in that year is was “discovered” that lunar polar region [like Mercury polar region] could have mineable water.
        Or the actual story about exploring the Moon, is we didn’t actually explore the Moon. But we did land on the Moon and did bring back lunar samples, one could say such exploration had huge effects.
        But JFK wasn’t interested to exploring the Moon, he wanted to win a PR war with the Soviets. So he wanted a race to land men on the Moon and return them safely to Earth, before the Soviets could.
        And by essentially showing up and planting a flag and making footprints on the Moon {and some science was done- again mainly for PR purposes] Apollo program transformed science on Earth. People like mention the stuff about computers and other things, but changed a lot things, and I would say, there space rocks impact Earth is a pretty important thing. Before this there was arguments about lunar craters, and roughly speaking that argument was settled.

        Now, we find ourselves in a Universe where more 90% of mass of universe is unknown and realize a lot other stuff that we no clue about.

      • gbaikie says:

        Or what say about settlements on Mars are based upon current best guesses- though realize there uncertainty.
        And only purpose I see of NASA exploration of Moon and Mars is to lower the uncertainties.
        Or if there was less uncertainty about the mine-ability of lunar water 1 decade ago, we would be mining lunar water or we not be considering mining lunar water.
        NASA mining lunar water, is as dumb as NASA mining gold on Earth.
        A government program to mine lunar water, would far worse than SLS or the Shuttle Program or ISS. AND what bad about them, is not dollars wasted, but time wasted.
        If worried about dollars wasted, I suggest ending the federal department of Education which wastes twice as much time and dollars every year, than NASA. And NASA does more to educate children than Dept of Education.

      • Ken says:

        they have claiming that Mars is the most habitable planet other than Earth.

        The list is short: there are but 8 other planets in our solar system for which we have enough knowledge to make such a determination.

        Yes, Mars is the most habitable planet other than earth.

        Perspective: consider that most of earth isn’t habitable either.

        Mars is nothing but a gravity hole. If we’re going to populate known space the best place to go would probably involve mining the asteroid belt. Even if you could find solid gold asteroids it still wouldn’t be worth it.

        Next best bet would be Neptune. You could scoop up frozen hydrogen and bring it to California to power their ill-thought out ‘green’ hydrogen powered cars.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Try finding a habitable planet where you dont spend all your time checking your vacuum suit for leaks.”

        Spacesuits are like disposal garbage bags, there are easier to get to orbit.
        We are fairly certain that Venus is habitable. But Venus has similar problem as Earth has- hard to leave it.
        Venus could harder to grow plants as compared to the bottom of sea.
        But Venus does have more CO2 and nitrogen than Earth’s atmosphere.
        And considering how easy it’s to turn CO2 into O2, far more Oxygen than Earth or elsewhere. But I see Venus importance as the hub of the solar system- or Venus orbit is better than Earth orbit.
        I also like Venus as military fortress- the planet itself, not the orbit. Or as is known if in nuclear war which is over in 1 hour, the best place to be is flying in Earth atmosphere. Or that is where you would want to put the US president [but not important if US president is Joe Biden- just tell him to go back to his basement.
        What is good about the Moon, is it’s easy to leave. But harder to land on lunar surface than landing on Earth or Venus. Or maybe Mars.
        It used to be thought it was easier to land on Mars, than the Moon. But NASA has been unable to land more than 1 ton on Mars surface, and NASA has landed tons on lunar surface.
        Starship in theory will change that.
        Or ‘The Martian was just fiction.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Perspective: consider that most of earth isnt habitable either.”

        That is wrong. It’s better to think of most of Earth as “park land”
        The ocean is park land that one can sail thru and fish on and sent cargo ships thru.
        Antarctica is obviously park land.
        And there those who want the Moon to be a park land.
        The forest fires are mostly on park land. And corporations can pay the government to mine on park lands- due to government corruption it’s selective. Or the whim of the President can prevent mining on park lands. And he blames Putin. Joe standing [up] for Putin because it’s like pop corn or whatever fictional story plays in his dying head.

        “Mars is nothing but a gravity hole. If were going to populate known space the best place to go would probably involve mining the asteroid belt. Even if you could find solid gold asteroids it still wouldnt be worth it.”
        Well you talking to space cadet which once thought best move was to first mine space rocks, but never excluded the Moon or Mars.
        And still think Martians could bright space rocks into Mars orbit- the politics of bringing space rocks into Earth orbit, was a bit worrisome. But problem of space rock is starting a market for water in space, which either Moon and/or Mars could solve.
        Landing space rocks on Earth doesn’t make much sense. If wanted to cool Earth [why do you want to cool Earth in an Ice Age] space rocks can be use to make solar shade. But no one actually wants to cool Earth, because 15 C air is cold air. Humans spend a lot energy and money warming their home’s air. Even in the hottest continent they warm their air.
        Mars is gravity hole, the problem with Sol, is it lacks a strong enough gravity hole. This is probably why space aliens are not here.
        The other factor is time. Earth is no close to any stars at this time. There are other reasons which more important.
        Anyhow, Mars gravity hole is somewhat useful. But Venus gravity hole is much better. Mars surface is easy to leave, to get to orbit or to reach escape velocity. Suborbital travel from Mars surface to surface is easier then flying in Earth atmosphere. Though Mars suborbital travel time from one side of planet to other is slower than compared to Earth. Some imagine using tunnels as way to move fast on Mars- could be faster than sub-orbital.

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    La Nia is not threatened – the Peruvian Current remains very cold.

  18. RLH says:

    Blinny: Sorted out the difference between a time series and a distribution yet?

  19. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    “In March-May 2022, the ONI was -1.1C, the second coolest March-May value we have on record. The first is the 1950s -1.2C, back at the very beginning of the official record. The La Nina spring of 1950 was followed by a fall and winter that was technically ENSO-neutral but on the cool side.”

    • RLH says:

      You are not allowed to use data to disprove AGW.

      • Ken says:

        AGW has been falsified. Again.

      • Entropic man says:

        I don’t see it. Please explain your reasoning.

      • RLH says:

        “In March-May 2022, the ONI was -1.1C, the second coolest March-May value we have on record. The first is the 1950s -1.2C, back at the very beginning of the official record”

        So a ‘rise’ in extremes in March-May of -1.1c to -1.2c over 72 years.

      • gbaikie says:

        Bidens Climate Czarina Wants Big Tech Censorship of Climate-Related Debate

        “The last time we checked on Bidens climate-activism advisor Gina McCarthy she was chortling over 100 new rules the administration plans to impose on appliances.”

        “The dark money is still there, she said. The fossil fuel companies are still basically trying their best to make sure that people dont understand the challenge of climate.

        The fossil fuel companies must doing a good job, because I don’t understand the challenge of climate.

        Some people might say the challenge of climate is boiling water with ice cubes, but I know that is not true.
        But was is the challenge?
        Does it have to do with making solar panels work?

        Or convincing Saudi Arabia to pump more oil?
        Buying an electric car?
        Eating insects?

      • Entropic man says:

        ” I dont understand the challenge of climate. ”

        It’s very simple.

        The long term cost of releasing greenhouse gases at the current rate into the atmosphere is greater than the short term benefit.

      • RLH says:

        “In March-May 2022, the ONI was -1.1C, the second coolest March-May value we have on record. The first is the 1950s -1.2C, back at the very beginning of the official record”

        So a ‘rise’ in extremes in March-May of -1.1c to -1.2c over 72 years.

      • gbaikie says:

        At least you admit the sort term benefit.
        How much is the short term benefit?

        And what is the short term benefit and long term cost
        of this war in Ukraine?

      • gbaikie says:

        Since Entropic man understands there is short term benefit of using fossil fuel.
        Let’s look it.
        What was the short term benefit of China going from not burning much coal, to China burning 4 billion tonnes of coal per year.

        The obvious thing is millions of Chinese who poor, become almost like middle class Americans, and huge amount of Chinese students were educated in America and around the world.
        Starting in 1970s, China went from country where millions were starving to the point where some were saying China was the new world superpower. China became strong military power with a very large navy and is currently threatening to invade Taiwan. Has attacked India, and has conquered Tibet. And etc. There has been no good reason to do this, other than power crazed China leadership.
        And due to lack of US leadership we have a war in Ukraine, but no one expect China to provide any global leadership either. Because China is not actually a superpower, it seems more interested in attacking Taiwan.

        There were countless articles about the benefits using cheap Chinese labor by sending US jobs overseas. There was similar things though not as grand, regarding sending jobs to Mexico. The big selling point was that these countries would become less oppression hellholes.
        And so, I am interested in Entropic man economic analysis of cost and benefits of this.
        Was there a greater long term benefit to the short term gain, for China and/or the world.
        There remains billions of people who not doing as well as China, if they import China solar panels will they be better off?
        China continues to burn Coal, why doesn’t China use more solar panels instead of building more coal power plants?

        And as I have claimed, China is currently at Peak Coal, it unable to burn 5 billion tons of coal and within decades will run out of coal- will not have enough coal to burn 4 billion tons per year.
        Though Chinese coal could last longer as China appears to worse than other countries in terms having population crash which involves having far more older people than younger people.
        If China’s population halves in 50 years, will help China and or the world? Or perhaps China will mass produce children in fashion similar to chicken farm.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…”The long term cost of releasing greenhouse gases at the current rate into the atmosphere is greater than the short term benefit”.


        The short term danger of curbing the flow of oil through increasing prices and stopping oil exploration could be far more dangerous. That’s the truth you alarmists fail to grasp. We have no viable alternatives since wind and solar have proved to be unworkable.

      • bobdroege says:

        Except that wind and solar is saving Texas’s ass right now.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob…I’m going to have to verify that with my buddy Elon Musk, who now seems to claim Texas as home.

        Wind power might have helped them as a hedge factor but 74% of their power demand is met by natural gas, coal, and nuclear. The problem in Texas is the number of independent power suppliers they have…about 300. That’s supposed to make things competative, hence cheaper costs, but we know how that really works…nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

        We see how it works with the current price of gas. The independent suppliers drive prices to record highs for no apparent reason. In Texas, It would not surprise me in the least if those 300 independents did not work together to create a shortage where none exists.

      • gbaikie says:

        — Entropic man says:
        June 16, 2022 at 5:17 AM

        I dont understand the challenge of climate.

        Its very simple.

        The long term cost of releasing greenhouse gases at the current rate into the atmosphere is greater than the short term benefit.–

        My question is there something which is the challenge of climate.
        Because a political party which wants to de-fund the police has proven it can’t see consequences, is claiming it can predict the future, whereas IPPC says they can’t predict the future.

        And CO2 levels don’t control the weather, and bad weather in future can to be expected, as bad weather happens. And people should have more wealth in the future to lose- unless they are made poorer in the present.
        We are currently in reccession and it’s seems to be mostly caused solely to action taken in the name of the religion of climate change.

      • gbaikie says:

        “The problem in Texas is the number of independent power suppliers they haveabout 300. Thats supposed to make things competative, hence cheaper costs, but we know how that really worksnudge, nudge, wink, wink. ”
        These 300 can’t control the price of energy, only the future energy supply of world can effect price. And a president of US “could” effect it, a little bit.
        But he spent long time driving it into the ditch, and it would take some time to get out of the ditch- assuming he wasn’t brain dead.

      • Entropic man says:

        You could refund the police. Lots of gun-toting Republican vigilantes willing to do the job for you.

        Since they’ll mostly be shooting the poor, the minorities and the Democrats, I don’t see why you would disagree.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        What goes around, comes around. Biden and his climate change propaganda is gradually digging a major hole for himself. He is turning out to be even more stupid than Nixon and Ford. Sorry, I forgot Obama.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Biden is on track to replace Carter as worst since Buchanan who enabled our Civil War.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Like all the great enablers of slavery, James Buchanan was a Northern Democrat.

    • Entropic man says:

      I struggle to understand your point.

      Are you saying that because the MAM ONI for 2022 was less negative than the MAM ONI for 1950, global warming has ended?

  20. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    “In March-May 2022, the ONI was -1.1C, the second coolest March-May value we have on record. The first is the 1950s -1.2C, back at the very beginning of the official record. The La Nia spring of 1950 was followed by a fall and winter that was technically ENSO-neutral but on the cool side.

    March-May 2022 is also only the second time during La Nia that the ONI has strengthened from the FebruaryApril average (-1.0C in 2022). The other time that happened was also in the 50s, with FebruaryApril 1955 measuring -0.7C and March-May -0.8C. Spring 1955s La Nia persisted through the summer and strengthened into winter 195556.

    Looking at monthly averages, May 2022 was the second-strongest La Nia month on record, and by far the coolest of the eight two-year La Nia events that have occurred since 1950.”

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      June 2022 ENSO Update: Triple Dip? 59% Chance of La Nia by Early Next Winter
      WeatherBrains | June 10, 2022

    • Entropic man says:

      RLH has been pushing the idea that global warming is increasing the probability of La Nina conditions.

      This would make the -1.1C ONI you mention more likely and confirmation of global warming.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      To show how La Nina affects weather, we registered the coldest June (2021) day on record in the Vancouver, Canada region on one day in early June. In late June, LN parked a heat dome over the Vancouver area that raised temperature more than 10C above average in areas of greater Vancouver. So, we went from a coldest day on record in June to setting a record for warmth, within a two week period.

      We had never, in recent memory, experienced such heat in June in Vancouver and politicians immediately claimed it was due to climate change. They failed to explain how an increase in the global average over 170 years could raise temperatures by more than 10C.

      LN can explain it by messing with the jet stream.

  21. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”Fact Check-Does 2000 Mules provide evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?”


    The evidence is certainly compelling in ‘2000 Mules’. They went to a lot of work to find legitimate ways of tracking cell phones and they noticed certain cell phones visiting drop boxes several times. Then they spotted the same cell phones visiting multiple drop boxes.

    When you couple that with actual government video coverage of the drop boxes, and see people stuffing several envelopes into the boxes at 3 AM, suspicion is heightened.

    I began suspecting a rigged election on the night of the election when Trump was ahead in one key state by 500,000 votes when suddenly and inexplicably the counting was called off for the night in several key states. In the morning, Biden’s count had made up a 500,000 vote differential in one state alone, and pulled ahead.

    IN the UK, one would not expect such a thing to happen. However, over here it’s a way of life. Nixon summed it up years ago when he claimed, ‘A lie is not always a lie’.

    The media explained it away as absentee votes but in such a case, one would expect at least a portion of those votes to go Trump’s way. None of them did, only Biden’s count increased. 2000 Mules explains why. Overnight, thousands of illegally obtained votes were stuffed in drop boxes.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Once again, as in all areas, you accept lies and reject any form of evidence or truth. Again why are you so in love with lies. You blindly believed all the lies of Russian Propaganda now the truth is out, Putin was in it for a land grab. He lied to you and you believed it. You believe Lanka who is a horrible person. You say there is no evidence of heat waves increasing even though there is. Now you accept some false lies from Facebook and post them here as if they were true facts. It is sad you are so devoted to lies and deception. Not sure what happened in your life that gives you aversion to truth but you love all lies you see and never question them at all.

      Here is some facts to correct your lies. Not that truth will change you, you love lying too much to want the truth.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…you are so naive you believe an authority figure like Reuters after the blatant propaganda spread by the media as of late.

        My take on the Ukraine came from experts like Professor John Mearsheimer, a US citizen who is an expert on US foreign policy. He predicted the 2022 war based on the civil war in the Ukraine that began in 2014 when armed militants stormed government offices in Kyiv and ran off a democratically-elected p[resident.

        What Mearsheimer revealed, a fact I have corroborated through many sources, was the involvement of the US in the coup. Under Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, and the late Senator John McCain were in the Ukraine cheerleading the revolt. Nuland had gone so far as to select the next president before the incumbant president was deposed.

        If Putin is interested in only a land grab, why has he focused only on the Donbas region where the pro-Russian Ukrainians live? They represent the other half of the civil war and they voted as a block to elect the president who was ousted. They did not take kindly to him being ousted in a coup and who can blame them?

        Putin claimed he was after neo-Nazis and that’s what he did. He surrounded the Azov battalion in Mariupol and forced them to surrender. Now he is locking down the Donbas region. He claims it’s for the pro-Russian Ukrainians living in the region and we’ll have to wait ans see.

        As far as Lanka is concerned, you’re being plain stupid. Lanka is an expert on viruses having discovered the first virus in the ocean. He convinced a German Supreme court in 2016 that no evidence existed to support the claim of a measles virus. The court had appointed an expert witness and he agreed with Lanka. What else do you want from the guy?

        It’s naive people like you who are the real problem in this world. You believe bs about catastrophic warming/climate change simply because some idiots claimed it to be true with no proof. Then you suffer through two years of covid propaganda without complaint because other idiots told you it is true.

        I supplied you with links to Luc Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV, claiming he has never seen HIV on an electron microscope, and you still refused to consider the evidence. When he claimed HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is oxidative stress related to life style, you went ballistic.

        You don’t want to understand science, Norman, it would be too upsetting to your strong belief system. Newton was able to balance legitimate religious beliefs with science but you cannot even begin to consider alternative views. It’s obvious based on your explosive, emotional responses.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        No I am not plain stupid. Lanka is quite evil, sinister. Because he knows better is why he is vile. You are just plain dumb and gullible and believe liars.

        I have asked you more than once and you ignore it every time. Why is that? I asked you to explain, if measles virus does not exist how come the vaccine (based upon a weakened version of a non-existent virus) eliminated the disease? If you refuse to answer than shut up!

        I have offered you numerous images of HIV. You are blind and dumb. You do not present alternate views at all. You just lie about things. That is not alternate views.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”I asked you to explain, if measles virus does not exist how come the vaccine (based upon a weakened version of a non-existent virus) eliminated the disease?”


        The answer is obvious, Norman, Lanka does not claim that measles does not exist, he claims there is no proof it is caused by a virus. Lanka thinks viral theory went seriously wrong in the 1950s and there’s ample evidence that h is right.

        As for vaccines, that’s your opinion that they prevent disease. I’d like to see you prove it. The proof would be along the line of the anthropogenic theory: CO2 has increased, warming has increased, therefore warming is caused by CO2.

        If you look at polio, it came and went several times since 1910. What caused it to disappear? When Salk introduced his vaccine in the ’50s, the cases of polio were well down the declining curve. Why should we accept it was a vaccine cured polio when it cleared up on its own at least twice between 1910 and 195o?

        It’s the same with AIDS, which is an acronym for up to 30 opportunistic infections, most of which are not caused by a virus. There is not a shred of evidence AIDS is caused by a virus.

        Montagnier has claimed HIV does not cause AIDS, that it invades a system when it’s immunity is compromised. However, Lanka claims there is no proof HIV exists since it has never been physically isolated. Montagnier admitted that he did not see HIV on an electron microscope and that he inferred it indirectly. Duesberg pointed that out in the beginning and as thanks, he had his career ruined.

        I know there are faked HIV photos on the Net and it’s easy to spot them. They are in 3-D, they are coloured, they have spikes sticking out of them, and they have no size markers. Most scientists could not tell the difference but Lanka can. Furthermore, viral particles which are not a virus resemble the photos on the Net.

        In order for an electron microscope to work, the sample size can be no more than 100 billionth of a metre. That’s because electrons accelerated to high speeds can only penetrate matter to a very thin layer. The electrons in the material cause the EM electrons in the beam to deviate and they slow down with each encounter. If the sample size is any larger, the beam electrons will not reach the target screen on the other side of the sample.

        Lanka is an intelligent person who is being maligned by you, a narrow-minded, biased bigot. He is able to think outside the box, unlike those scientists who go to university and swallow a paradigm because they are told to.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…Is there a paper accompanying this micrograph to prove it is a virus? In other words, do they describe how it was isolated?

        Based on the size marker, those are not HIV virus particles which average 125 nm in size. Also, they are different shapes and diameters. If they are extracted from the same density band in a centrifuged sample they need to be the same size since density = weight/volume. That’s essentially mass/volume, meaning there should be the same amount of material in each virus.

        Lanka has exposed these types of photos as being photos of the cells material related to a virus. You need to read the fine print and you did not supply a link.

        I am not trying to argue the point since I have no expertise on virology. This is a really old article by Lanka but the photos in here demonstrate what I’m trying to say.

        Much to the contrary of what Norman claims, Lanka is a pretty brilliant type of scientist. He digs deeply into the history of viral theory to get at what it means and how it was corrupted. He has searched the scientific literature and found no scientific corroboration between claimed viruses and the actual virus claimed.

        “All these photos have in common that they, resp. the authors, cant claim that they present a virus, as long as they do not also provide the original publications which describe how and what from the virus has been isolated”.

      • RLH says:

        Lanka is a fraud.

      • RLH says:


        as well. Including

        “Colorized transmission electron micrograph showing H1N1 influenza virus particles. Surface proteins on the virus particles are shown in black. (Credit: NIAID)”

      • Norman says:


        You are correct that Lanka is a Fraud!

        He preys upon the gullible, like our friend, Gordon Robertson.

        Gordon can read this and see how actually stupid Lanka is when it comes to science.

        I think he runs some alternative medicine site where he peddles alternate medicine for gullible enriching himself. Similar to Alex Jones (found to be dishonest but profiting off gullible stooges).

        Mike Adams also is engaged in this activity. It is nothing new, just a more elaborate scam. Snake Oil salesmen. They make people, like Gordon feel smart with their false ideas, then they start to peddle products on them (not necessarily harmful, just highly elevated prices). The harm is not selling products to gullible people. The harm comes when too many start to believe them and stop vaccinating their kids against Measles and this disease starts creeping back. Other than that, it gullible people want to believe them, that is okay. It is the harm they do when they keep people away from life saving medicine.

    • Entropic man says:

      Ironically the late Biden surge in states like Arizona was caused by the Republicans.

      Their election planning gave Republicans lots of drive-through and walk-in polling stations.Propoganda discouraged Republicans from using postal ballots. Most Republicans therefore voted in person.

      By contrast the Democrats had to queue at a small number of polling stations too far from the housing projects. It was designed to make it harder for them to vote and reduce the Democrats turnout. The response was that a large number of Democrats used postal ballots.

      Statistically this meant an interesting pattern. Compared with the final result the polling station ballots show a higher proportion of Republican votes. The postal ballots show a higher proportion of Democrat votes.

      On the night the polling station ballots were counted first and showed the illusion of a Republican majority. The postal ballots were counted last and the larger proportion of Democrats voting by post was enough to give a Democrat majority overall.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        You don’t know what you don’t know which is an awful lot.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        Why didn’t that hold true for California? Mail-in votes mirrored the in-person votes?

      • Entropic man says:

        California is a Democrat run state. The distortions applied by the Republican election officials in Arizona did not occur,so the distortion between postal ballots and polling station ballots did not occur.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Hogwash. You make more unsupported comments than anyone.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:


        He is right about one thing; CA is Democrat run. Eman proves the old adage true, a broken clock is right twice a day.

  22. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…” I am surprised the US does not do the same, rather than allowing the political party in local control to decide how to conduct the election.

    This leaves the system open to abuse, with the party in control manipulating the system to make it easier for their supporters to vote and harder for their opponents”.


    I appreciate your sentiments but that’s not exactly how it worked in the 2020 election. The problem with locals is how the votes are collected and how they are counted. There were many complaints from Republican scrutineers who were prevented getting close to the people processing the votes. The justification was covid, that the scrutineers had to stand a significant distance away. In some cases, they were ushered out of the voting precinct.

    There is evidence in 2000 Mules that Blacks and Latino communities are under threat to comply with gangsters being paid to collect voting cars from the people. The gangsters were paid for each blank vote they supplied then paid against for stuffing them into ballot boxes.

    The country at least has the right to have such allegations heard. However, both the media and the Democrats have poo-pooed the idea of election corruption.

    That should have led to an automatic investigation but local Democrat judges refused to hear the complaints. That’s another area where thing differ between the US and the UK, judges are voted in based on their political leanings.

    In another complaint, by a bona fide expert, who complained about someone showing up with a bag of USB drives and plugging them into the local computer, an official on-site refused to hear his complaint, even though the expert was pointing to the guy as he proceeded to plug data into the computer.

    There were many legitimate complaints that went unheeded. The disturbing part for me was the Supreme Court washing its hands of the sordid affair, refusing to even hear the cases of election corruption. Now a judge has fined lawyers for trying to argue a case of election corruption.

    That is plain wrong and suggests strongly an interventionist policy is a court of law.

    • RLH says:

      That was EM, not me.

      • Entropic man says:

        Gordon makes a good point.

        How can you expect judges to be neutral when they are appointed because of their political allegiance to whichever party is in power.

        The Supreme Court seems a particular case of this.IIRC it is made up of six Republicans and three Democrats.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…sorry…especially confusing you with an Irishman. 🙂

    • Chic Bowdrie says:


      That’s a fairly accurate description of what is happening down here. One of the side-effects of our republic is local control. You can imagine what would happen to gun owners if our elections were under federal control. There would never be another fair election. One consequence would be the end of our electoral college system. That would mean CA and NYC would decide who runs the country. Next, everyone’s vote would be counted, including non-citizens and felons. Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia would become states giving Democrats four more Senators. The Supreme Court would become packed with progressives. Taxes would be raised on the rich to support a burgeoning welfare system. Numbers of those recipients would grow and continue to vote in more progressives. The economy would grind to a halt ushering in the end of the US as we know it.

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

      Join us in prayer for making America great again…before it’s too late.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        chic…thanks for info. The last thing I want to see is the US descend into chaos. The Democrats have been infiltrated by special interest groups who are interested only in their own perverted agendas.

        When schools start teaching children about sexual perversion and forcing them into insanities like gender propaganda, things have gone way too far.

        The US is far too valuable a country for world peace to see a load of politically-correct, self-centred weenies take control. If I know the people of the Ststes like I think I do, that will never happen, but it may take a civil war to straighten it out once and for all.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Many of us Christians and conservatives have been asleep at the wheel while progressives have been sowing the seeds of evil. We will have a tough time separating the wheat from the chaff now.

      • Entropic man says:

        “The Democrats have been infiltrated by special interest groups who are interested only in their own perverted agendas.”

        As have the Republicans. Different perversions, but the same problem with infiltration by special interest groups.

        Somewhere Benjamin Franklin is laughing.

      • stephen p anderson says:


        Can you list the Republican special interest groups and then list the Democrat?

      • Chic Bowdrie says:


        Even if he could come up with a list, who cares? What is wrong with interest groups? Each individual is an interest group of one. Like-minded people organize into interest groups to more efficiently make their voices heard. I am a local Tea Party member. Nothing wrong about that.

        The problem is politicians who serve their self-interest by using their positions to pocket money from their legislative decisions and insider information. That list would be insightful. Those bums have got to go and be replaced with America first candidates.

        Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I am an every-country-first proponent.

  23. Gordon Robertson says:

    ken…”propagation of the species requires skin to skin contact…”


    So, you don’t believe that babies are found in cabbage patches and delivered by storks? I suppose you don’t believe in Santa either, or that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis? Sacrilege!!!

  24. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Winter in Australia promises to be an interesting one.,-35.01,562

  25. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Temperatures at the North Pole still below the 1958-2002 average.

  26. TallDave says:

    “For example, a large hurricane with frequent coverage by TROPICS satellites might reveal rapid deepening of the storm through a stronger warm core signature.”

    if Starship brings the promised reduction in launch costs, space-based solar polar might become cost-competitive in some applications… with gigawatts of space-based power available and more advanced hurricane modelling, we might begin to seriously consider energy-based interventions capable of disrupting or redirecting catastrophic weather… large storms embody petawatts of power so it’s very much guiding a rolling boulder with pebbles, but it might not be impossible

    not quite “weather control” but apparently very small scale terrestrial laser cloud removal is already a real thing

  27. Ken says:

    “The long term cost of releasing greenhouse gases at the current rate into the atmosphere is greater than the short term benefit.”

    Data required to support this supposition. Numbers matter.

    I submit you have no such data; just too much belief in anti-human ‘green’ propaganda.

    The data does show the greening of the earth as a direct result of CO2 emissions. Plants are loving it.

  28. Earth is a planet, like any other planet we know in solar system.
    Neither Stefan, no Boltzmann said anything about planets being ideal blackbodies.

    What I did in my research was to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures for every known planet and moon in solar system, Earth included.

    When I wrote the New equation, yes I was expecting something, but the results were successful beyond any expectations.
    Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (1)

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Christos…”Neither Stefan, no Boltzmann said anything about planets being ideal blackbodies”.


      Gerlich and Tscheuschner went further. They claimed that CO2 with its concentration per CC cannot possible be a cavity resonator (blackbody). I think that applies to the entire atmosphere, the atoms are far too far apart to be regarded as a blackbody.

      • “the atoms are far too far apart to be regarded as a blackbody.”

        Yes, exactly!

      • Entropic man says:

        Gordon Robertson.

        The SB equation contains a variable e.

        This is emissivity, the fraction of the emission from a true black body produced by a real material at the same temperature.

        As usual a certain looseness of terminology refers to emission from a surface as black body radiation even though the surface is not a perfect black body.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…G&T are saying that molecules like CO2 at their current density cannot form a cavity resonator, a black body. A blackbody is a totally theoretical entity that works only at thermal equilibrium, even as a theory.

        S-B is based on radiation from a heated body, a platinum filament wire heated electrically till it glows. As the current changed it gradually glowed at different colours and they were able to related to different colours to EM in the visible light spectrum.

        The temperatures on the wire varied from about 500C to 1500C and a relationship could be established between temperature and radiation emitted, based on the colour of the radiation between those temperatures.

        The S-B constant is based on this temperature range and it cannot be taken for granted that it applies in other temperatures ranges. Nor can it be presumed that it applies to CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere. G&T claim it is not a universal constant.

        The Planck equation, which can be derived from S-B, was applied in the 1960s to oxygen microwave emissions and called the radiation transfer equation. That seems to be the forerunner of the AMSU theory. I am curious as to whether they had to amend the equation to fit the actual temperature variation measured in the atmosphere by radiosondes.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        This is why you are a dishonest liar. I have linked you to experiments where they find the 4th power relationship at lower temperatures. You ignore the truth and keep lying and deceiving. Why do you do this over an over. Are you a compulsive liar?

        This article may be a guide to help you in your dishonest ways.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:


        The more pertinent issue here is associating SB to a gas which is about as distinct from a black body as I can imagine. I would think you would be more critical of the statement Eman made,

        “As usual a certain looseness of terminology refers to emission from a surface as black body radiation even though the surface is not a perfect black body.”

      • Norman says:

        Chic Bowdrie

        You can try it yourself.

        Use this

        Then apply it to this

        First you find the emissivity of the atmosphere at the location above.

        You have 28 C for a cold temp (301 K) and 36 C for a hot temp (309 K). Put an x in the emissivity box. A 1 for area. 301 for temp and 350 W/m^2 for radiant energy. You will get around 0.75 for the emissivity so the atmosphere acts like a black-body (obeying S-B) with an emissivity of 0.75. Now to show that the atmosphere does follow S-B relationship put the 0.75 into the emissivity, 1 for area, 309 K for temp and put an x in the radiation energy. Let it calculate it and it comes out very near the measured values given in the graphs.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        What is the relevance of what you are asking me to do? IOW, what meaning do you attribute to the emissivity of the atmosphere at a particular location and time?

        Christos and Gordon made reasonable statements objecting to the applicability of SB with regard to the atmosphere. Eman chimes in with “looseness of terminology” and “emission from a surface” as though that justifies referring to the atmosphere as a real grey body.

        I don’t know why Gordon was compelled to go down Eman’s rabbit hole by referring to the applicability of the SB constant at low temperature. You wrote that you addressed that issue previously. So what. What has that to do with pretending the atmosphere has a surface. Are you going along with Ball4’s earthen 255K surface nonsense?

      • Clint R says:

        Norman has fallen for all of the cult nonsense. He believes Earth has a “real 255K surface”, but he just can’t find it. He believes two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K, and he claims he has a valid technical source to back it up, but he just can’t find it.

        He doesn’t understand that surfrad is a computer program. And he refuses to learn about it.

        Norman doesn’t like the ball-on-a-string as a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation, but he can’t find a model that works.

        It’s almost as if Norman just spouts off nonsense and is unable to back any of it up.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        chic…”I dont know why Gordon was compelled to go down Emans rabbit hole by referring to the applicability of the SB constant at low temperature. You wrote that you addressed that issue previously. So what. What has that to do with pretending the atmosphere has a surface”.


        I was responding to Christos who said that neither Stefan nor Boltzmann claimed the Earth was a blackbody. Neither did, their equation refers to a body electrically-heated in a range between about 500C and 1500C. Claiming the Earth as a blackbody at terrestrial temperatures is based on an inaccurate interpolation of that relatively high range of temperatures down to terrestrial temperatures.

        G&T were arguing that such an interpolation does not apply because the S-B constant of proportionality is not a universal constant. In their argument they examined the atmosphere as a blackbody and claimed that CO2 at its current concentration could not possibly be claimed as a cavity resonator. I extended that to the entire atmosphere.

        It is claimed that nitrogen and oxygen don’t radiate in the IR spectrum or lower. That’s not true. The AMU telemetry measure radiation from O2 in the 50 – 60 Ghz band. Nitrogen is known to radiate in the IR band as is O2. It seems this information has been suppressed, or ignored, to give CO2 a more important role in global warming.

        Having said that, R.W. Wood, an expert on gases and their radiation spectra, claimed that N2/O2 could not radiate away heat they absorbed at the surface. That was 1909, and I am wondering if more modern telemetry has detected emissions from N2/O2 in the IR band as well as the microwave band.

        All I was trying to do was extend the point made by Christos to the atmosphere. However, I noted that the basis of the AMSU unit telemetry is based on the radiation transfer function developed in the 1960s. It too is based on the Planck equation applied to radiation from the atmosphere. Since Planck is based on S-B, I could not see there being a direct correlation between radiance from the atmosphere which is referred to inaccurately as a colour temperature.

        I am not questioning the accuracy of the UAH sat data, I am wandering if significant adjustments had to be made to the Plank function to get accurate results as compared to radiosonde telemetry.

        I think it’s a fairly complex problem since Planck is good at one temperature only. Therefore, the radiation transfer function builds in references to frequency and temperature. It seems the Planck values at one temperature have to be integrated over a range of altitudes.

      • Gordon:
        “S-B is based on radiation from a heated body, a platinum filament wire heated electrically till it glows. As the current changed it gradually glowed at different colours and they were able to related to different colours to EM in the visible light spectrum.”

        Planet is not a uniformly heated body. Planet is a solar irradiated from one side a spherical object. The irradiated side is not uniformly irradiated. The planet’s opposite side is in total darkness.
        Thus, a planet is not a blackbody!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        christos…I agree. There is no way the Earth can be regarded as a blackbody, or anything similar to a blackbody.

  29. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”what a bout polio”?


    BTW…I am not an anti-vaxxer. I am not about to stand with protestors waving signs at parents trying to have their children vaccinated. And I am not about to advise a parent on vaccination. The parents should be informed, however, rather than being reliant on authority figures.

    I do think it’s absolute insanity for a parent to put the current covid experimental gene therapy products into children.

    I just don’t think the evidence is there to support the vaccine theory. When vaccines were first introduced, there was no technology to monitor the effect. Even with current technology, no one understands how a virus actually infects a cell. It’s all about consensus since no one can see into a cell in real time.

    I was thinking after I wrote the post to which you refer, that everything we know about vaccination dates back to the 1950s era. That was the era when everyone believed cigarettes were harmless and that heart disease was caused by cholesterol. The latter was established by the Framington study in the 1950s and ten years later some of the authors and changed their minds.

    I posted a link a while back that showed a graph of polio deaths from 1910 on. If I can located it I’ll post it again. There was a major peak circa 1910 and several smaller peaks in years after that, culminating in the peak of the 1950s. It shows that last peak halfway down the receding slope just as the Salk vaccine appeared.

    The question is, why did all the cases before the 1950s die out spontaneously? I don’t think any objective science has been done to find out if vaccines do work or not. When paradigms set in, they refuse to budge.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Here’s the link I mentioned. Polio increased and declined about a dozen times between 1910 and 1940 without a vaccine. It began a major spike during WW II and continued after it before declining pre the Salk vaccine.

      Note: this is for the United States only.

      The following article which had a youtube video, obviously deleted by Google, explains that polio was redefined during the Salk vaccine era because the original vaccine killed people.

      “Smoke, Mirrors, and the “Disappearance” Of Polio … Unbeknownst to most doctors, the polio-vaccine history involves a massive public health service makeover during an era when a live, deadly strain of poliovirus infected the Salk polio vaccines, and paralyzed hundreds of children and their contacts. These were the vaccines that were supposedly responsible for the decline in polio from 1955 to 1961! But there is a more sinister reason for the “decline” in polio during those years; in 1955, a very creative re-definition of poliovirus infections was invented, to “cover” the fact that many cases of “polio” paralysis had no poliovirus in their systems at all. While this protected the reputation of the Salk vaccine, it muddied the waters of history in a big way. Even during the peak epidemics, unifactorial poliovirus infection, resulting in long-term paralysis, was a low-incidence disease that was falsely represented as a rampant and violent crippler by Basil O’Connor’s “March Of Dimes” advertising campaigns. Vaccination”

      I have read in the past that polio has often been confused with meningitis. If a person showed symptoms of polio but had no indication of the virus, they were declared to have non-paralytic poliomelytis. Similarly, with covid, people are decalred covid positive even though they show no symptoms of infection.

      I seriously doubt that the methods of testing for a virus in the 1950s and later were scientifically proved. We can’t even test for covid with confidence because we have no physically-isolated covid virus with which to compare the tests. In fact, had covid been isolated, there would be no need for the tests.

      The tests don’t test for the genetic material from a virus, they test only a few strands of RNA believed to be from a virus. That has led to papayas testing positive for covid.

  30. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”Lanka is a fraud”.



    Richard, you are starting to sound like Norman, not a good image for someone with a Master’s degree.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      I linked you to proof your Lanka is a fraud. An unscientific fraud who makes up unsupported claims. Compulsive liar like you. No wonder you like Putin, Duesberg, Lanka. You are a compulsive liar and find like minded people in these. You call it open-minded or thinking out of the box. In reality it is just making up things because they lie just because. Read the article on this condition. It fits you.

      Fraud of Lanka if you are interested.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…if Lanka is the fraud you claim him to be:

        1)why is he credited with discovering the first virus in the ocean?

        2)how was he able to convince a high court in Germany that no scientific proof exists to prove there is a measles virus?

        3)why does he have the European equivalent of a Ph.D?

        4)why is he allowed to do research. Fraud’s are usually prevented from researching for publication.

        5)Why is the person claiming he is a fraud an uneducated clown who cannot understand what he reads in textbooks?

        6)why does the same person also claim that anyone who disagrees with his pseudo-science is a liar and/or a fraud?

        7)Why would someone with a Masters degree, like Richard, refer to someone with a Ph.D, with Lanka’s proven record, as a fraud? When asked for proof, Richard could not supply the proof. I would expect that from Norman, but not from someone with a Master’s degree.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        1) that does not magically give him credibility.
        2) He never did, that is a lie, he convinced the high court he did not have to pay the money out and the court agreed since he was giving out the money he can set the terms of proof. That is all anything more you say about this is a bold faced lie!
        3) Having a Ph.D does not mean you are free of being a fraud, especially where money is invoved.
        4) Did you read the article I linked to, he doesn’t do research and he publishes things in his own magazine.
        5) only you have problems with textbooks not me so that is an invalid point
        6) I do not present pseudo-science, you do. What I post is evidence based and I link support to it. Again you are just lying like you always do, most dishonest of you. Can you get over your compulsive lying, you may need therapy to understand why you are doing this.
        7) I linked you to proof he is a fraud. Also evil since his work would convince people not to vaccinate which is now resulting in more cases of measles that don’t have to be.

        He is a snake-oil salesmen selling counter medicine for profit. You love the liars so nothing here will change until you can see how dishonest you are.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…I’d prefer talking to a wall than talking to you. With the wall I might get the echo of my own voice and hear some sense.

        How did you get so embittered? He feel badly that you have to suffer such a negative mind. I feel just as badly that an educated man like Richard has to back your inane rebuttals.

      • RLH says:

        “Lanka’s proven record as a fraud?”

        Because he is one.

    • RLH says:

      Lanka is a fraud. Long established by scientists as being so.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…lot of word, no proof. And, well below your station as a Masters in science.

        Richard, you are betraying science to emotion.

      • RLH says:

        Lanka is a fraud. Get over it.

  31. Great Article. Your writing skill is good, More post pleased! Thanks

  32. oncasinosite says:

    This is incredibly charming substance! I have taken a lot of joy.

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    chic bowdrie…”What is wrong with interest groups? Each individual is an interest group of one. Like-minded people organize into interest groups to more efficiently make their voices heard”.


    What if those interests are based on a sheer emotional mentality that eschews scientific reality, hence produces propaganda? That’s what I’m getting at, people who have an unrealistic, unhealthy, fetichist attachment to the environment, who are becoming militant about forcing their beliefs on others.

    I am talking about the mentality running the current government policies in the US, Canada, and Europe re climate change. Especially since it is based on propaganda from the corrupt IPCC.

    John Christy of UAH pointed out in an interview that some parts of the IPCC main review is good. However, politicians don’t get to see the main report in its original state, it is rewritten to reflect the Summary for Policymakers written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors.

    Years ago, the IPCC claimed it was 90% likely that humans are causing global warming. Lindzen pointed out that the main report did not say that, many of the reviewers expressing an interest in waiting to see what would happen. It was the 50 politically-appointed lead authors who wrote the 90% figure and that was subsequently written into the main report as an amendment.

    John has served as a lead author and a reviewer on IPCC reviews. He expressed an interest in doing more reviews but claimed the IPCC no longer invites skeptics to the reviews. Our governments base their policies on that chicanery and the interest in the IPCC is being driven by uninformed zealots who have taken over policy in that respect.

    One of them here in Canada, who was an MP (Member of Parliament) claimed it did not matter if the science is correct, they are doing the right thing by bringing in carbon controls. It matters to me whether the science is correct and I don’t want people ignorant of the science running my country.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:


      I am sympathetic to your concern about AGW interest groups running (or did you mean ruining?) your country. Me too. However, the price of freedom is that people who think differently than you have a right to express their views. We need to do better at beating them on the battlefield of ideas.

      It’s an uphill battle when the other side abuses the science they season their views with. The left will accuse us of the same. Therefore, we need to be careful to distinguish that which we can back up with data and facts from that which we just speculate on and shoot from the hip with.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        chic…”the price of freedom is that people who think differently than you have a right to express their views. We need to do better at beating them on the battlefield of ideas”.


        I agree with you. We need to do a better job and that means raising the awareness of the public. Unfortunately, the media, for whatever reason, is bent on spreading propaganda and suppressing the truth. My beef is that politicians who did not run on a platform of raising gas prices, or telling the truth about the world they envision, get away with lying to the public.

        I feel strongly that politics should be listed as a mental illness since lying has become an acceptable part of politics. People who hide behind politics as a justification for lying are neurotic.

        I have no problem with people truthfully expressing their views. It’s a freedom we cherish in a democracy. As you may have noticed, it has gone well beyond that in your country. Children are being brainwashed about sexually-related causes like LGBTQ beliefs and now they are being taught gender issues that borderline on insanity.

        There is a difference between honest expression of ones views and outright lies expressed to disguise a true intent.

  34. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman’s fantasy continues…”He [Lanka] never did, that is a lie, he convinced the high court he did not have to pay the money out and the court agreed since he was giving out the money he can set the terms of proof”.


    The deal offered by Lanka was a 100,000 Euro reward to anyone who could supply scientific proof that the measles virus exists. That is how confident Lanka is in his research and only a qualified scientist could make such a claim based on his research.

    A lower court had awarded the plaintiff the reward based on an inept analysis of the papers supplied by him. Lanka appealed and the higher court appointed an expert, who in the end, agreed 100% with Lanka that the papers supplied did not prove a measles virus exists.

    However, Lanka had work done by an independent laboratory to prove that the uninfected samples used in scientific experiments would die of the treatment they receive before the infectious agent is applied. The neutral cells are treated with antibiotics to prevent bacterial infection and they are pre-starved to make them more vulnerable to the infectious agent. It is astounding that scientists would manipulate cells to make them more vulnerable to an infectious agent. I’d call that cheating to get a result.

    It is mind blowing that none of the scientists doing experiments with viruses, including Montagnier with HIV, had the basic sense to run a control experiment to see that for themselves.

    Montagnier could not prove HIV caused AIDS because he was unable to physically isolate the virus, therefore had to use indirect means. He inferred a virus based on a few strands of RNA in a sample from a person with AIDS. He applied some serum from a person with AIDS to neutral cells and the cells died, so he claimed he had the virus causing AIDS.

    Years later, he changed his mind, claiming HIV does not cause AIDS, that it is an opportunistic infection that invades a body with low immunity. In other words, HIV is yet another opportunistic infection under the AIDS umbrella of infections and that something else causes AIDS. Montagnier identified the cause as lifestyle via oxidative stress.

    Duh!!! and Doh!!! It had not occurred to Montagnier to test the uninfected cells to see if they would have died from the lab treatment, as Lanka had found. Ergo, he had no proof that the uninfected cells died from the serum he took from a person with AIDS.

    There was no excuse for Montagnier to pursue the HIV virus when he failed to see it on an electron microscope. There was a perfectly good method in place for physically isolating a virus, and one of the steps was to see it on an EM. The irony is that a member of the Montagnier team, Barre-Sinoussi, sat on a panel at the Louis Pasteur Institute when the protocol was established in the 1970s.

    It’s not Lanka who is the fraud, Norman, it’s the rest of the scientists who appeal to authority and buy into the pseudo-science of ignoring a proved means of isolating a virus while drawing on one with inference as its basis. That same fraudulent science was used with covid and it cost us two years of misery.

    The same clowns who created the misery with covid are now bent on doing the same with climate change. Biden has just confirmed that high gas prices are a desirable effect for moving on with the eco-weenie alarmist agenda.

    And you are simply too stupid to see the difference.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      I am not a negative thinking person, as you surmise. I just don’t like compulsive lying and call it out when I see it. You are a dishonest compulsive liar. You are unable to stop lying or even know that you are lying. It is a condition of compulsive liars. They have no truth and lie all the time. I am not an therapist so I could not help you resolve your compulsive lying. I can point it out, however.

      On all your points I have addressed them before yet you ignore evidence and truth and persist in your compulsive lying.

      YOU: “Lanka appealed and the higher court appointed an expert, who in the end, agreed 100% with Lanka that the papers supplied did not prove a measles virus exists.”

      No expert demonstrated this, it is something you are just making up. What actually happened (in reality) was not an expert but a lawyer convinced the Court that the papers did not satisfy the conditions Lanka proposed.

      You can read the truth yourself but I doubt the compulsive liar in you will accept it.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        The article I linked to also verifies that Lanka is a Fraud! He makes money peddling his false beliefs to gullible people like you and you love him so much so by believe anything he says and think all other researches are fools and missed some real easy things (they didn’t and are quite intelligent).

        From Article: “Stefan belongs to the pseudoscientific trend called German New Medicine , founded by Ryke Geerd Hamer in the late 1970s. Yes, the same one mentioned in the Facebook post.”

        Here is how evil Lanka and Ryke Hamer really are. His advice almost killed a child. You can hail them as heroes they are evil twisted people that can prey upon the gullible like you.

        The odd thing is you believe the liar Putin is justified in attacking Ukraine because of alleged Nazi battalion yet you embrace a Nazi medical community. Why the inconsistent view?

    • RLH says:

      “The deal offered by Lanka was a 100,000 Euro reward to anyone who could supply scientific proof that the measles virus exists” in a single paper.

      His claim that it was not all in a single paper is what won his court ‘victory’.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”.Of what, Lanka being a fraud?.


    I am beginning to wonder if you have a drinking problem. There are times when you are able to think clearly and others where your thinking becomes nonsensical, terse, and repetitive.

    I certainly hope I am wrong. I wish you no harm but something is definitely corrupt in your thinking processes at time. Certainly not hat one might expect from someone with a Master’s degree.

  36. pgslot says:

    ทํานายฝัน แบบไหน เล่นสล็อต แล้วปัง วันนี้เรามาดูกันว่า ฝันแบบไหนสื่อถึงอะไร แล้วฝันแบบไหนเกี่ยวกับดวงกับโชคเพื่อจะได้มาเล่น pg slot ของเราจะได้แตกดีเผื่อจะเป็นทางในการเสริมความมั่นใจ

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Temperatures in the upper stratosphere over the southern polar circle are well below the multi-year average.

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Another wave of La Nia is approaching.

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Solar magnetic fields look as if a polarity change could occur quickly. Cycle 25 may be short. It is certainly unusual.

  40. RLH says:

    “Media claims CO2 traps heat! A big lie or a big stupid ???”
    Jim Steele Jun 27, 2022

    • barry says:

      I really like this guy’s videos.

      Very well referenced takedowns of pseudoscience. A science journalist who goes the extra 1000 kms.

      • RLH says:

        Would you like to contest the science in Jim Steele’s video?

      • barry says:


      • RLH says:

        So do you agree with it?

      • barry says:

        An exclamation mark and three question marks together in the title puts me way off. No, I’m just going to assume it’s more crackpot crap, because I’m not wasting my life on titles with the punctuation of a youtube comment.

        If that wasn’t clear, I didn’t look at it and I’m not going to.

      • barry says:

        You should really check out this guy’s videos, though.

        They are very well referenced (peer-reviewed papers) exposes, and he very clearly debunks a bunch of pseudoscience, which I personally find quite satisfying.

      • RLH says:

        Are you lumping in Jim Steele with climate crackpots? Without even seeing the video?

        So scientific.

      • RLH says:

        The Evidence for Climate Change Without Potholer54

      • barry says:

        I have read so much crackpottery that I feel no compulsion to check your video.

        You could summarize it in order to give me a reason, but instead you only chide me.

        You very likely don’t realize that this is a very poor tactic to get people interested.

      • RLH says:

        “I have read so much crackpottery that I feel no compulsion to check your video.”

        So like any true warmista you dismiss things without even trying to ascertain the actual facts.

      • RLH says:

        Would you like to comment of the fact that the Hadley Center’s own HadISST (and the NOAA reporting of it) shows that Nino 3.4 has not changed in its temperature since 1930?

      • barry says:

        Could you pleas link “the NOAA reporting of” HadISST NINO3.4 data since 1930?

        And why are you interested in that start date? Haven’t you been extolling the virtue of the longer record here?

      • RLH says:

        See the blue line (which displays the averages over 15 years i.e. a low pass filter) in the above diagram. That data is from NOAA/the Hadley center HadISST.

      • barry says:

        And why are you interested in that start date? Haven’t you been extolling the virtue of the longer record here?

      • barry says:

        Could you pleas link “the NOAA reporting of” HadISST NINO3.4 data since 1930? You said that they’d commented on it. I’d like to see what they said.

      • RLH says:

        “why are you interested in that start date?”

        Because including a know low point in the record makes for a distortion in your ‘claim’.

        Cherry pick much do you?

      • RLH says:

        ….including a known low point….

      • barry says:

        “Because including a know low point in the record makes for a distortion in your ‘claim’.”


        You have absolutely ZERO notion of what my ‘claim’ is.

        I challenge you to enunciate it. Go on. What is it?

      • barry says:

        Please link us to NOAA “reporting” on the trend since 1930.

        definition: reporting

        “give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated.”

        I’d like to see the article, please.

      • RLH says:

        “I challenge you to enunciate it. Go on. What is it?”

        That the ONI, which has a moving reference period, is useful in determining long term trends.

        You have said that many times (even though it is wrong).

      • RLH says:

        “Please link us to NOAA ‘reporting’ on the trend since 1930”

        If NOAA posting a link to the Nino 3.4 data from 1870 (see my attribution in the graph I posted) derived from HadISST data of the same period is not enough to satisfy the above then I don’t know what is. Data sourcing is reporting AFAIK.

      • barry says:

        Ok, I’ve just done a linear regression for HadISST NINO3.4 using annual averages since 1930, and the result is a slightly positive trend but not statistically significant.

        That is the same result I reported for the data from 1870, 1950 and 1997. All positive trends, all not statistically significant, though the trend from 1997 is more than “slight” (0.17 C/decade).

        So what information is new here, RLH?

        And what has NOAA said about it? Link please?

      • RLH says:

        So you are happy to observe that the 1878 EL Nino was very extraordinary considering that it came in the middle of a period of lower average temperatures?

        You also fail to acknowledge that 1950 is a low point in the temperature data thus any averages that include that will also be lower than average.

        Did you notice the paper from L’Heureux that observed that 1878 was statistically the same as 2016?

      • barry says:

        One of these days you are going to respond directly to what I say. That will be a great day. It will demonstrate to me that you have read and understood what I’ve written, and that it’s therefore not a complete waste of time talking to you. Here it is again.

        When you respond directly to what I say, I will return the favour. That’s the deal.

      • RLH says:

        “Ok, Ive just done a linear regression for HadISST NINO3.4 using annual averages since 1930, and the result is a slightly positive trend but not statistically significant.”

        As 1950 is in the period you quoted and is a low point in the record, of course any trend including it will show a rise. Did you not do ANY maths?

      • barry says:

        Richard, YOU introduced the notion of a trend since 1930. I ran a regression for that time period and reported the result. Now you seem to have a problem with the choice YOU made. Why am I being chided for something you pointed to yourself?

        Do you understand what is meant by “not statistically significant” when talking about a trend?

        And do you then get what I mean when I say that all the trends from 1970, 1930, 1950 and 1997 are positive and not statistically significant?

        The point is, it doesn’t matter when you begin – there is not enough evidence to confirm any trend at all.

        You stupidly fret that I’m trying to push global warming on you that you can’t see that I’m CONFIRMING there is no trend, and have been for a week.

        You Stupid. Fucking. Idiot.

      • barry says:

        Ok, I’m gone from this comment section. Roy posted a good article on developments in storm monitoring. No need to further sully it with dumb arguments on other topics.

      • RLH says:

        Bye then. It is interesting that you want to ignore facts. What Michelle said about the 1878 El Nino. And won’t even watch before condemning it a video by Jim Steele.

    • Norman says:


      I did watch the Jim Steele Video. I wan not able to find flaws in his thinking. CO2 will increase the amount of downwelling IR if the level goes from 400 to 800. This will potentially cause an increase in surface temperature. Roy Spencer already has pointed out that CO2 both warms and cools. It assists solar input in warming the surface to higher steady state temperatures. It does cool the upper atmosphere. Both are correct.

      The amount of increased downwelling IR is around 3 W/m^2. It is not completely false to claim CO2 traps heat. It does not trap energy but technically it does trap heat by reducing the amount of heat the surface can lose to space at a given temperature. The surface loses energy by emitting upwelling IR. This is based only upon temperature. The downwelling IR is energy gained by the surface. The heat loss is the amount of energy lost by emission minus that gained by DWIR. So in effect the CO2 is reducing the amount of heat that is able to go directly to space and can be thought of as trapping that heat since it is prevented from freely leaving the surface and going straight to space.

      I am in the middle on the Climate debate. I am not sure that Jim Steele is correct nor the alarmists.

      There could be a potential “Climate Crisis” if a few degree global temperature change could cause significant alteration of established weather patterns (climate when long term and averaged). I highly dislike the media coverage of climate science. Most unscientific and manipulative process. Every bad weather event, fire, flood, tornado, wind damage, hail, hurricane, snow storm, heat wave is attributed to Climate Change with zero mechanisms or any deep thought into any attribution. It is just an endless droning machine that induces fear into many and causes emotional fanatic thought process. I await links and mechanisms but none are given. For this you need a Cliff Mass but the Alarmists don’t like his analysis of weather phenomena because he does not just blindly attribute a bad weather event to Climate Change. If the media was more scientific and provided deeper analysis I would find that much better than what they do now. Quite awful in all respects as it eliminates deep thinking on this issue and creates a mindless emotional state. Not acceptable at all!

      • Norman says:

        Case of point on Media vs Science:

        Yellowstone flood: Media Climate Change caused this. No analysis just a bold unsupported statement.


        Investigate the cause. The rain alone would not have produced a terrific flood. There was also a lot of snow. Did climate change make such a large snowpack? If there was a trend in snowpack over the years and it was increasing because of Global Warming then you could have a connection, but none of this is provided.

        Media is a for-profit business so they need to grab attention and hype things to make sure they have viewers to sell adds to. This creates the need for hysteria and extreme polarization of the populace. It is causing a deep divide in the world. The logical, rational evidence based thinking is boring and does not sell adds. I think the foundation is crumbling. Hysteria and emotion are winning the day.

      • Norman says:

        Strong evidence of a very bad media creating the notion that Main Stream News is Fake News. Even when caught they do not change. It is a very sad state for journalism in this Nation. The greed and profit factor seem to destroy everything it touches. Need more money so make up better and scarier lies to ratchet up the emotional centers of the brains of many.

        Seriously we need and deserve better journalists. Seems like established news is no better than going to Facebook to get the latest stories.

      • RLH says:

        There are a significant number of scientists who appear to believe the same thing.

      • RLH says:

        “I did watch the Jim Steele Video. I wa{s} not able to find flaws in his thinking”


      • RLH says:

        What do you think about the 1878 EL Nino being approximately the same as the 2016 one? Given that the media claim (and some scientists also) is that 2016 was ‘unprecedented’.

      • Norman says:


        I find, many times, that when looking at longer data collections the case given by the media is hyped.

        I would be watching Climate Change and looking into it, I am all for it but keep the media out of it. They are not helping with the hype and pulling at emotional strings. What is needed is strong logical, rational thinking and a deep desire for the Truth. Then we can get a correct view of how Global Warming is actually changing weather patterns. Hysteria will not get the real picture.

      • RLH says:

        It is not only the media. You would look long and hard to find out that EL Nino’s have not increased that much in temperature, if at all, in over 130 years.

      • Mark B says:

        You’d have to give the “specific media claim (and some scientists also)” made. My guess is that you’re referring to an El Nino metric (e.g. Nino 3.4 SST) as the basis for “approximately the same” and the media et al are referring to the global temperature anomaly.

      • RLH says:

        If the peaks do not differ so much (El Nino’s) then the claims made about AGW need to be qualified quite a bit.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Steele is as bad as the media he is criticizing. His understanding of the GHE is flawed with pseudo-science.

      For one, he talks about heat being transferred as infrared heat waves. That is impossible since the process by which the IR is created in atoms requires that the heat be lost when converted to IR. IR has no heat associated with it and it is incorrect to measure IR in W/m^2.

      For another, he talks about the 99%+ of nitrogen, oxygen, and Argon as needing CO2, and presumable WV, to radiate their heat content to space. That notion is silly science at best. Those gases will lose heat naturally as heated air parcels rise and expand at higher altitudes.

      More work has to be done with gases like N2, O2, and Ar. It is known that N2 will radiate in the IR spectrum at night. It is detected radiating in the night sky in the IR band. It is known that O2 radiates in the microwave spectrum, NOAA AMSU units depend on that to detect the temperature of oxygen. That is the basis of all UAH data.

      GHE pseudo-science completely ignores these facts.

      Any such radiation has to cool the gases and combined with natural cooling due to expansion, that is a whole lot of cooling compared to any cooling by trace gases.

      We have the theory bass ackwards. We are simply not looking closely enough at the actual processes in the atmosphere because we are so hung up on old, useless theories like blackbody radiation theory and Stefan-Boltzmann, which does not apply to our atmosphere or surface.

      The truth is that Earth has an average temperature of 15C because over the ages, solar energy has been stored in the oceans and the land. Also, as Swenson keeps pointing out, geothermal energy from the Earth’s core has slowly warmed the oceans.

      Solar energy is no longer a criterion for warming, it is required only for maintenance of temperatures built up over the ages. If energy in truly did equal energy out, the Earth would never have warmed to its current 15C average temperature. Heat dissipation by radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a red-herring argument. Most heating by solar energy is obviously stored and bled of very slowly by radiation.

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Don’t let anyone be misled by the momentary rise in temperatures in the central Pacific from the north. The Humboldt Current remains very cold and will provide cold water to the equator.

    • RLH says:

      I have mentioned that I see La Nina as being a very asymmetrical about the Equator pattern before.

  42. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Solar activity should be increasing, and it is waning, as can be seen from the weak solar flares. This means that sunspots are now weak, with low magnetic activity.

  43. Stephen Richards says:

    There are transmission line losses for electricity to account for and transport loses for ICE

  44. stephen p anderson says:


  45. stephen p anderson says:

    here the text becomes bold with strikethrough,

  46. Thomas nendza says:

    My heart is so filled with joy. If you are suffering from Herpes or any other disease reach R*o*b*i*n*s*o*n*b*u*c*k*l*e*r*y*a*h*o*o*c*o*m*…..Thanks for reading!

    Cure to Herpes virus, this is AWESOME!!,!..I was cured

    Sure Treatment!!

  47. Thomas.nendza says:

    If you are suffering from Herpes or any other disease reach


    This is AWESOME!!,!..I was cured

    Sure Treatment!!

  48. Tyler says:

    Hi, Very nice blog Online movies