Martin Durkin’s latest video exposes the stealthy rise of a secret new ruling class in society.
The most powerful class in society has been anonymously invisible, unnamed, and unnoticed, and this is key to its success. If the ruling class is named, the masses would be able to discuss the common motivations and interests of its members. While it has no name, it can disguise itself as separate neutral parties working to help “society”.
“An entire social class that has steadily grown in size and power over the past century — whose very existence, whose jobs and income depend on depriving the rest of us of our money and freedom.”
That this cloak of invisibility, it turns out, is exactly the way the Soviet bureaucrats worked. We know this, because, as Martin Durkin explains, it was described in 1957 by a man called Milovan Djilash in his book called The New Class. His book was smuggled out of Yugoslavia and printed in the US. It earnt him 15 years in jail — obviously he was speaking a dangerous truth.
Djilash had become appalled by the socialist system he […]
The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is closely related to the NAO (the North Atlantic Oscillation discussed below) but they are not the same. The NAO is usually measured using the SLP (sea level air pressure) difference between the Azores or the Iberian Peninsula and Iceland and is a North Atlantic regional phenomenon, whereas the Arctic Oscillation is the SLP difference between the northern mid-latitudes and the Arctic, and is evident in all longitudes (Thompson & Wallace, 2001). The AO accounts for more of the variance in Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature than the NAO and is tightly connected to the stratospheric polar vortex (Higgins, et al., 2000) and (Thompson & Wallace, 1998). We will discuss these oscillations together in this post.
The Arctic Oscillation
The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is also called the Northern Annular Mode or NAM. It is analogous to the Southern Annular Mode or SAM discussed in Climate Oscillations 5. However, there is a large difference, whereas SAM is an oscillation over an ocean that surrounds land, NAM is an oscillation over land that surrounds a polar ocean. Thus, they act differently.
When NAM or the AO Index is positive (lower than normal pressure in the Arctic, and/or higher pressure in the mid-latitudes), the high latitude westerly polar jet-stream winds move closer to the pole and storms (which transport heat) move northward. When it is negative (higher pressure in the Arctic), the jet stream weakens, becomes more loopy or wavier, and moves south allowing Arctic air to spill into the middle latitudes causing colder mid-latitude winters. The AO Index is only computed using data from December through February because it only has a significant impact in the winter months (Baldwin & Dunkerton, 1999).
The tropopause is quite low in the Arctic, only about 8 km above the surface, so it is not surprising that the AO is strongly connected to, and influenced by, the stratosphere (Baldwin, et al., 2019), especially in the winter months when the tropospheric and lower stratospheric circulations are coupled in the polar regions (Thompson & Wallace, 2001). A large positive AO Index represents a strong well-organized polar vortex in the stratosphere above the North Pole (Baldwin & Dunkerton, 2001) and (Thompson & Wallace, 1998), just as a positive SAM indicates a strong polar vortex above the South Pole.
The changes in the Sun over the course of the 11-year Schwabe solar cycle affect the stratosphere more than the surface because the shorter wavelength UV (solar ultraviolet radiation) content of sunlight changes more than the longer wavelength visible light that makes it to the surface. The amount of UV absorbed in the stratosphere can increase by 10% or more at the peak of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle. The UV absorbed in the stratosphere both warms it and contributes to stratospheric ozone which also absorbs UV and contributes to further warming. The UV warming affects stratospheric circulation and the strength of the polar vortex which transmits some of the stratospheric changes to the troposphere affecting global weather patterns (Haigh, 2011). We will discuss this later in the series, but in essence most of the ozone is produced in the tropics, which receives the most solar radiation. There is an upward transport of tropospheric air to the stratosphere in the tropics that sets up a transport of stratospheric air toward the poles (the Brewer-Dobson Circulation), where air is taken down from the stratosphere to the troposphere via the polar vortex (Baldwin, et al., 2019). The El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) process is involved in modulating the tropical transport of tropospheric air into the stratosphere. The AO has been called the “dominant mode of variability in the [northern] extratropics” (Higgins, et al., 2000).
Trends in the AO
As shown in figure 1, the AO is steadily increasing during the 20th century, but not as strongly as the SAM is ( see figure 3, here). This tells us, that on average, the northern polar vortex is strengthening, which leads to warming in the middle northern latitudes.
Figure 1. Full-year average NOAA Arctic Oscillation from 1900. (Thompson & Wallace, Annular Modes in the Extratropical Circulation. Part I: Month-to-Month Variability, 2000), data from KNMI.
Figure 1 shows a slight increase in the full-year average AO and suggests cooling (more negative) from the late 1940s to the 1970s. It also shows warming from the 1970s to the early 1990s. The trend toward a more positive AO has reduced the severity of winter weather in the middle- and high-latitude Northern Hemisphere continental regions (Thompson & Wallace, 2001). The polar vortex is much stronger in the winter storm season in the Arctic, so we show the winter average over the same period in figure 2.
Figure 2. The winter average NOAA Arctic Oscillation. The Arctic Oscillation has a maximal effect in winter. Data from KNMI.
As can be seen in figure 2, the severe winter weather observed in the northern mid-latitudes from the late 1950s to 1970 and from 1976-1985 appears in the AO record. Unusual winter weather in these periods is documented here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mild winter weather was observed in the early 1970s and late 1980s to the early 1990s as shown here. The 1960s were also very cold in Asia, but there has been a warming trend since then (Kim & Choi, 2021).
The North Atlantic Oscillation
The NAO or the North Atlantic Oscillation is a very important oscillation in both climate prediction and weather prediction. However, when researchers compute the NAO indices with CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate model results they look like white noise with almost no serial correlation (Eade, et al., 2022).
Long-term weather observations from across the globe reveal patterns and links between seemingly random events and disconnected places. These long-distance relationships reveal changes in the meridional transport of energy from the tropics to the poles. For example, when you stitch together daily observations of air pressure across the Northern Hemisphere, you see large areas of high and low sea level air pressure (SLP) that flow and shift from place to place. These shifts in surface air pressure represent shifts in atmospheric mass from place to place. There’s a pattern to the shifting that is sort of like water sloshing back and forth in a bowl. The atmosphere sloshes northward; air pressure strengthens over the Arctic and weakens over the midlatitudes (either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, or both). Then the atmosphere sloshes southward; air pressure strengthens over the midlatitudes and weakens over the Arctic.
North of the equator, the most significant “long-distance relationship” in the Atlantic is between an area of persistently low pressure in the vicinity of Iceland and an area of persistently high pressure over the Azores Islands or the Gibraltar area. When the pressure is lower than average over Iceland and higher than average over the Azores Islands and Gibraltar, the North Atlantic Oscillation is said to be in its positive mode. When the opposite occurs, the North Atlantic Oscillation is said to be negative.
The Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations are related to one another, and to the AMO (see here and here). Meteorologists often call these relationships and long-distance oscillations “teleconnections.” Teleconnection is as good a name as any, they are actually components of, and indicators of, changes in meridional transport.
Both the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation are defined with sea level air pressure or SLP, and the patterns are well illustrated by Rebecca Lindsey here (Lindsey, 2011). These patterns and the resulting NAO surface temperatures are shown in figure 3.
Past prolonged NAO (see figure 4) trends that last several decades cannot be explained by current climate models. The models clearly do not reflect multidecadal meridional transport regimes. Climate model simulations of NAO indices resemble white noise without serial correlation according to Rosie Eade and her colleagues at the MET office in the UK (Eade et al. 2021). There is a very small chance (1 in 20) that climate models emulate the observed NAO since 1860. Yet, figure 3 suggests that NAO trends are a key indicator of meridional transport (MT) strength. During the negative phase a lot of heat is transported poleward warming the polar region and during the positive phase of the NAO, little heat is transported to the polar region and it stays cold.
If the models cannot simulate meridional transport or the NAO, they cannot explain climate change. As discussed above, the polar vortex is strongest in the winter months and when the AO is positive. A strong winter polar vortex keeps the cold air in the Arctic and keeps warm air from being transported to the pole, thus delaying its expulsion to space and warming the middle latitudes, including the United States and Europe. In figure 4 we plot the AO in winter as a proxy for polar vortex strength and we see that the NAO is generally positive when the AO is positive (Wallace, 2006), we also see that cooler periods in the Northern Hemisphere and globally (1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s) show a declining NAO trend and a negative winter AO.
Figure 4. The Hadley Centre reconstruction of the Gibraltar/Iceland NAO to 1821. Source: (Jones, et al., 1997). The climate shifts from post #8 are shown for reference.
Figure 5 shows the same thing as figure 4, but only the winter NAO values are averaged. As David Parker and colleagues (Parker, et al., 2007) have noted the increase in the winter NAO from 1965 to 1995 is dramatic. It can be seen in the whole-year average shown in figure 4, but it is much more obvious in figure 5. It also shows a strong correlation to the winter AO and thus the strength of the winter polar vortex.
Figure 5. The winter NAO average compared to the winter Arctic Oscillation, a proxy for the winter polar vortex strength. The climate shifts from post #8 are shown for reference.
The NAM and the AO are two names for the same oscillation. The true measure of the strength of the polar vortex is the “PCH” or the composite geopotential height anomaly (“polar cap height”) averaged from 65°N to the pole and normalized by its standard deviation (Kim & Choi, 2021). Except for the PCH, the AO is the strongest proxy for the winter polar vortex strength, but the winter NAO can also be used as illustrated in figure 5. Data quality prior to 1950 is poor, but since then there is a good correspondence between the AO and the NAO in winter.
James Hurrell (Hurrell, 1995) points out the rapid rise in the winter NAO since 1965, and especially from the 1980s to the early 1990s. He adds that past decade-long changes in the NAO, and associated changes in atmospheric circulation, have contributed substantially to regional warming which complicates the interpretation of the effect of greenhouse gases on climate. He adds that the relationship of the NAO to greenhouse gas forcing should be examined. He asks that we investigate how well the climate models simulate the NAO, since it has a large effect on the climate over much of the world. Later Rosie Eade (Eade, Stephenson, & Scaife, 2022) did such a study and could not find the critical NAO in the models at all.
Conclusions
The Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations are the dominant modes of variability in Northern Hemisphere climate. The observed positive trend in the AO/NAO in recent decades (see figures 2 & 5) is not reproduced in the CMIP5 or CMIP6 climate models, in fact the multi-model multi-member ensemble mean of the trend is zero (IPCC, 2021, p. 490). AR6 adds, on the same page, that the observed NAO trend lies outside the 5th-95th percentile range of the CMIP6 climate model distribution and the AO trend lies above the 90th percentile. It seems very unlikely that the models are useful with results like this.
Let’s not mince words: What’s been unearthed in this Fox News exposé “Unearthed chat sheds light on cozy ties between judges, climate activists, raising ethical concerns” is nothing less than a blueprint for how climate activists have sought to quietly “capture” the American judiciary, in a style remarkably reminiscent of the infamous Climategate affair of 2009, which we first broke here on this very website. If Climategate was the exposure of insular groupthink, manipulation, and data gatekeeping in the scientific community, what we’re seeing here is the systematic application of those tactics—this time, targeting the judges who ultimately decide climate-related lawsuits.
At the center of this latest scandal is the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), an initiative launched in 2018 by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI)—itself a left-wing nonprofit flush with activist funding, some of it allegedly traceable to China. CJP’s mission? To provide what it calls “authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.” What this means in practice is quietly coaching judges on the “consensus” climate narrative, prepping them to be more sympathetic to creative activist litigation—then, lo and behold, those very same funders bankroll the lawsuits that land before these freshly-indoctrinated judges.
As Senator Ted Cruz aptly put it: “This is like paying the players to play and paying the umpire to call the shots the way you want”.
The article lays out the mechanics: in September 2022, CJP launched a “listserv”—an email group with direct, ongoing communication between CJP leaders and judges nationwide. By July 2024, there were 29 members, including at least five sitting judges. The forum, innocuously called “Judicial Leaders in Climate Science,” included private sharing of climate lawsuits, congratulatory messages for activist wins, and guidance for other judges on how to run similar programs in their states.
One Delaware judge even posted a private YouTube link to a presentation giddily predicting climate lawsuits could one day bankrupt the fuel industry, with the explicit warning: “Please do not forward or use without checking with me. I suspect that goes without saying, but the powers that be will be happier that I said it.” The closed-door, chummy dynamic is obvious—and telling.
This is nothing more than indoctrination masquerading as education. CJP and its defenders, of course, insist their purpose is purely educational and objective. They claim their curriculum is “fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process”. But let’s be real: what’s passed off as neutral “climate education” is heavily slanted to reinforce a specific worldview, presenting worst-case climate scenarios as settled science, and framing any dissent or nuance as heresy. The program even encouraged judges to go through CJP’s prepackaged “Climate Science 101” and “Climate Litigation 101” courses, and send feedback to help make them even more effective.
There’s a distinctly unseemly aspect here: the very people training the judges are often also involved in crafting and arguing the lawsuits that appear before those same judges. The ELI and CJP’s “experts” include university professors and lawyers who have filed numerous amicus briefs in climate litigation. The potential for bias isn’t just present—it’s the entire point.
Let’s not sugarcoat it: what we’re witnessing is an effort to purchase not just favorable coverage in the press or within academia, but to buy the rulebook and the referees themselves. In the wake of Climategate, we saw how a tight circle of activists could warp the scientific process by excluding dissenting voices and manufacturing consensus. Now, the same techniques—gatekeeping, narrative control, the selective sharing of “evidence”—are being applied in a backdoor campaign to ensure judges are only exposed to the “right” sort of climate science and litigation logic.
It’s a method that could be described as “judicial capture,” and Senator Cruz was absolutely correct to raise alarm bells. The CJP’s program, far from being an innocuous continuing education effort, is a systematic campaign to get judges to “set aside the rule of law, and rule instead according to a predetermined political narrative”.
The parallels to Climategate are striking:
Secrecy: Both scandals relied on private communication channels—email servers, listservs, or “chats” out of public view.
Consensus Enforcement: Dissenting voices are shunned, and only the party line is reinforced.
Manipulation of Process: In Climategate, it was peer review and grant allocation; here, it’s the judicial training process.
Downplaying of Bias: In both cases, organizers insist their motives are objective, but the outcomes and incentives are plainly not.
The article highlights that even some judges expressed unease at the ethical implications. Back in 2019, a federal judge who hit “reply all” to an ELI climate seminar invite was chastised by colleagues, some of whom considered it an ethics violation. Others, predictably, said there was nothing to see here. But as Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Zack Smith points out, the trend of “educating” judges on hot-button issues they will later preside over is, in itself, an invitation to bias and a violation of impartiality.
And this isn’t happening in a vacuum. The surge in climate litigation over the past several years—including multimillion-dollar lawsuits against oil companies and federal agencies—has coincided with the CJP’s ramped-up training and networking among judges. The timing is no coincidence.
The CJP claims its curriculum is developed with “robust peer review” and “meets the highest scholarly standards.” Where have we heard this before? The same line of bullshit was used to defend the emails and manipulations unearthed in Climategate—right up until it became clear that the process was anything but open and objective.
The reality is that so-called “consensus science” on climate change is precisely what is being weaponized here. The CJP’s material leans heavily on government reports that emphasize “impacts of climate change are being felt throughout all regions of the United States, and these impacts are expected to worsen with every fraction of a degree of additional warming”—ignoring the massive uncertainties, the role of natural variability, and the checkered history of failed predictions.
Why does this matter? Because, just as with Climategate, when process is corrupted and objectivity is lost, the damage ripples far beyond a single forum or group chat. Judicial decisions informed by activist “training” can result in massive financial penalties, policy overreach, and the further erosion of public trust in both science and the courts. And it’s always done under the guise of saving the planet—no matter the economic or human cost.
The secretive networking exposed by Fox News is not an isolated slip-up; it’s a feature, not a bug, of the activist playbook. When the same group of climate partisans can train the judges, coordinate the lawsuits, and then claim neutrality all the while, we have gone far beyond the realm of legitimate policy debate. This is judicial capture by stealth.
If Climategate taught us anything, it’s that sunlight remains the best disinfectant. Only by exposing these networks and demanding transparency can we hope to restore some semblance of integrity to both climate science and the courts.
Let’s call it what it is: not education, but indoctrination—an attempt to buy the judiciary, one closed-door “training” at a time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Iowa Climate Science Education 