From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin 

By KlimaNachrichten

Grok AI generated image.

Hans-Joachim Dammschneider has written a book about the climate history of the southern Harz region. In the historical weather data, he discovered climatic fluctuations that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), should not exist.

Long before industrial CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere, there were already alternating warm and cold phases.

Here is the book description:

The so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been the subject of scientific debate for years. It is not so much a question of whether this warm period actually took place in Europe, but rather how it took place. Was it a local phenomenon that was limited in time and predominantly restricted to Europe, or was it a period of intense climatic change that also had a global impact?

One thing is certain: from around 950 AD, there was a rise in temperature in Germany lasting at least 300 years, which resulted in a marked warm phase favorable to agriculture and life. However, from the beginning of the 14th century at the latest, this period was replaced by a relatively rapid drop in temperature and climatic turbulence in the direction of the so-called Little Ice Age.

In the early reports, the IPCC (1990, AR1) still devoted relatively much attention to the MWP. Over the years, however, this focus diminished, and in the most recent assessment (2021, AR6) little space was given to the Medieval Warm Period. Studies often even question whether it was a global phenomenon. However, a mapping of the available scientific publications (as of 2022) initiated by S. Lüning shows that the Warm Period certainly left evidence across continents.

From the perspective of natural and cultural history, many accounts show that Germany was in a phase of intense cultural and economic growth from around 1000 AD. This period is characterized by the founding of numerous towns, the expansion of agricultural land and strong population growth. Forests were cleared, building methods influenced, and rising temperatures and the resulting positive agricultural economy contributed to prosperity.

Of course, there were no scientific methods for recording the weather, but modern climate research uses so-called “proxies” to derive the climate parameters of the time. For example, the cultivation of figs north of Cologne, successful wine production as far as Schleswig-Holstein and (overall) the PFISTER index resulting from numerous features indicate a longer phase of mild temperatures and favorable climatic conditions. Climate-numerical backward simulations basically confirm this ‘warm period’.

Historically, such periods were often periods in which life flourished – an idea that plays a rather ambivalent role in the climate debate for the 21st century.

The example of Walkenried Monastery and the southern Harz monastery landscape shows the solid consequences of the MWP: the reclamation of swampy areas, the development of the Upper Harz water management system, the promotion of mining and the intensive use of wood for construction and energy purposes are just a few examples.

However, this phase of monastic prosperity between 1130 and 1300 AD was apparently brought to an end by a rapid drop in temperature. The onset of the ‘Little Ice Age’ brought very uncomfortable weather conditions that lasted until the end of the 18th century. As early as the beginning of the 14th century, the country was hit by destructive rainfall and floods (“Schluchtenreisen” / Magdalenenflut), failed harvests followed intense droughts (Dante anomaly) and devastating plagues with millions of deaths in epidemics partly destroyed social structures. These instabilities and hardships, which were not least determined/induced by the climate, certainly had devastating effects on the livelihoods of the monasteries in the southern Harz region. They led to considerable internal crises (including the loss of converts and lay brothers) and ultimately the end of the Walkenried monastic ‘group’ (with the abandonment of large areas of the Harz ore mining industry) in the 15th century.

If this was the case, what overarching climatic processes contributed to this? It can be assumed that, in addition to temperatures, other factors such as the duration of sunshine also played an important role in the living conditions: The sun indeed seems to have been ‘the’ factor of the MWP, whereas CO2 is that of modern times … .

Recent analyses and the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) index, which can be traced back to 900 AD, indicate that cyclical SST (Sea Surface Temperature) energy influences from the Atlantic could have significantly influenced cloud cover and thus sunshine duration and temperatures in Europe. These interactions were also important for the southern Harz and Walkenried. Can evaluations of current climatic processes indirectly allow conclusions to be drawn about past physical and social changes with associated phases of ascent and descent between 1000 and 1400 AD?

The present study examines these questions and attempts to draw conclusions for the interactions of the medieval climate from large-scale processes of potential ‘teleconnections’ and oceanic cycles. The book is intended, among other things, as a sequence of steps that helps to better understand the complex interrelationships of medieval climate change. It shows which ‘natural’ parameters could have contributed to the rise and fall of Walkenried Monastery.”

Hans-J. Dammschneider (2025)
Klimageschichte der Südharzer Klosterlandschaft – Kloster Walkenried
ISBN 9783759779878, 106 pages, Hamburg/Norderstedt 2025
Order at AMAZON or all bookshops

From THE DAILY CALLER

Nick Pope
Contributor

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom is asking a state regulator to try to keep oil refineries in business in the state after Democrats spent years targeting the industry with aggressive regulation.

Newsom wrote to California Energy Commission (CEC) Vice Chair Siva Gunda on Monday to urge that Gunda and the CEC “redouble” their efforts to keep fuel refiners in the state on the heels of Valero’s announcement that it will be taking at least one of its California refineries offline by April 2026. In the letter, Newsom attempts to characterize the state’s dwindling refining presence as part of a wider national trend, but analysts have warned for years that California’s hostile regulatory environment is what is truly driving the fossil fuel industry’s retreat from the state.

“I write to direct you to redouble the State’s efforts to work closely with refiners on short- and long-term planning, including through high-level, immediate engagement, to help ensure that Californians continue to have access to a safe, affordable and reliable supply of transportation fuels, and that refiners continue to see the value in serving the California market, even as demand for fossil fuels continues its gradual decline over the coming decades,” the letter states. “Further, I am directing you, as my Administration’s lead representative on this issue, to reinforce the State’s openness to a collaborative relationship and our firm belief that Californians can be protected from price spikes and refiners can profitably operate in California — a market where demand for gasoline will still exist for years to come.” (RELATED: What Has California’s War On Fossil Fuels Actually Accomplished?)

Valero announced on April 16 that it intends “to idle, restructure, or cease refining operations at Valero’s Benicia Refinery by the end of April 2026.”

Patrick De Haan, a gasoline analyst, noted in an April 16 post to X that Valero’s announcement will leave only seven refineries in California by April 2026. For comparison, the state had 20 refineries as of 2000, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

California’s “cap-and-trade” program, as well as its tax environment and push to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars in the state by 2035, are frequently cited as examples of hostile regulation driving refineries out of the state. Meanwhile, Newsom and other California Democrats like Attorney General Rob Bonta have ripped the fossil fuel industry for years, often characterizing it as a malignant force in society or a collusive industry committed to misleading consumers.

A spokesman for Newsom said that “the Governor’s letter speaks for itself.”

California has the highest average per-gallon price of gas at the pump of any state in the country, according to AAA gas price data. Meanwhile, California regulators have proposed to more deeply involve the state in the management of refineries, including the prospect of state-owned refineries.

Andy Walz, president of Chevron Americas products, described California as a “tough place to do business” in August 2024 after his company decided to move its headquarters out of the state earlier that year. Walz specifically identified California’s “cap-and-trade” rules and the gas-powered car ban as specific headwinds that helped lead Chevron to its decision to move its center of gravity elsewhere.

“For well over two decades now, politicians like Governor Newsom have hammered California’s conventional energy producers, both large and small, with excessive taxes, regulations, and threats of profit taking,” Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, previously told the DCNF. “Many companies have already moved out of the state, along with hundreds of thousands of residents as a result of these and other harmful policies … like a cap on profit margins, that hurt consumers by making conventional energy investments uneconomic. These types of policies have outsourced jobs to other states and increased California’s reliance on oil and electricity imports — all with little or no environmental benefit.”

In the letter, Newsom pointed to the recent closure of the LyondellBasell refinery in Houston and the Trump administration’s trade policies to support his argument that refinery closures are part of a broader national trend. When LyondellBasell announced that the refinery would close in January, the company said that it is getting out of the refining business altogether and focusing instead on low-carbon energy.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

In a move that’s as poetic as it is ironic, the Trump administration has yanked the lease out from under NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), sending the climate science hub packing from its quirky perch above Tom’s Restaurant in Manhattan. Yes, the very same diner immortalized as “Monk’s” in Seinfeld—a place where Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer debated the minutiae of nothing—is now the backdrop for a real-world drama that’s got the climate establishment clutching their pearls.

Back in 2009, our own Anthony Watts, stumbled upon the delicious coincidence that GISS, led by the ever-smirking Dr. Gavin Schmidt, was housed at 2880 Broadway, right above the iconic diner. With a wink and a nod to Seinfeld’s absurdity, Watts mused that the climate models churned out by GISS might just be as fictional as a Vandelay Industries import-export scheme. “The show about nothing,” he quipped, seemed a fitting metaphor for a lab that, in the eyes of many skeptics, produced more heat than light on global warming.

Fast forward to today, and the Trump administration has delivered a plot twist worthy of Larry David himself. According to a CNN report, the lease for GISS’s Columbia University digs has been canceled effective May 31, 2025, forcing the lab’s scientists to scatter to the winds of remote work. The email from NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center’s director, Mackenzie Lystrup, was as somber as a Soup Nazi ban: GISS employees will transition to Zoom calls and home offices while NASA scrambles for a new “permanent space.”

The timing couldn’t be more delicious. The Trump administration, locked in a feud with Columbia University over issues ranging from antisemitism policies to DEI programs, seems to have found a convenient target in GISS. With billions in federal research funding already on the chopping block and a federal judge recently curbing the administration’s ability to withhold funds over DEI disputes, this lease cancellation feels like a calculated jab. As one NASA source told CNN, the move is “demoralizing” for GISS staff, who are now “waiting for the axe to fall on the mission of Earth science” itself. Oh, the humanity! Or, as George Costanza might say, “We’re living in a society!”

Let’s not kid ourselves—GISS isn’t just any lab. It’s a cornerstone of the global climate narrative, tracking temperature records and running computer models that project apocalyptic futures. Its supercomputers, safely tucked away in Maryland, might keep humming, but the symbolic eviction from Manhattan’s Upper West Side is a body blow to the climate establishment’s ego. As Anthony noted in ’09, GISS’s proximity to Seinfeld’s fictional world always carried a whiff of farce. Now, with the lab’s physical presence reduced to a memory, one can’t help but hear Elaine’s voice: “Fake! Fake! Fake!”

Dr. Schmidt, ever the optimist, insists to CNN that “the work continues” because “science is done by people, not by buildings.” A NASA insider, speaking anonymously (because who wants to be that guy?), admitted to CNN that remote work will make GISS’s mission “more difficult” and has left the workforce rattled. And with an administration budget proposal looming that could slash NASA’s science programs by nearly 50%, the future looks about as rosy as Kramer’s get-rich-quick schemes.

For those of us who’ve long questioned the overheated rhetoric of GISS’s climate projections, this eviction is a moment to savor. Watts’ 2009 satire, complete with Seinfeld-inspired rebuttals to GISS’s claims (“The data has been adjusted, why can’t you comprehend it?”—Jerry: “If it’s in the garbage, it’s garbage!”), feels downright prophetic. The lab that once dismissed skeptics with a Soup Nazi-esque “No soup for you!” now finds itself on the receiving end of a bureaucratic “Serenity now!”

I’ve complied a list of commonly seen issues and phrases used on RC and appropriate rebuttals from Seinfeld characters:

• The data has been adjusted, why can’t you comprehend it? – “If it’s in the garbage, it’s garbage” – Jerry
• Send it to my email and I’ll have a look – “When you control the mail, you control information!” – Newman
• This year is the hottest ever! – “It’s gold Jerry. Gold!” – Bania
• Ban Ki Moon and the IPCC says so. – “Butros, Butros, Gahli!” – Jerry
• I’m not going to use McIntyre’s name, he doesn’t deserve the credit. – “That’s not funny, how about ‘your cranium called…it has space for rent!” – Elaine
• Come back when you understand climate science – “NO SOUP FOR YOU! COME BACK ONE YEAR!” – The Soup Nazi
• This is why your argument [snip] – “I won’t tolerate infestation!” – Frank Costanza
• Sea level, ocean acidification, it’s all obvious! – The ocean called, they’re running out of shrimp! – Reilly
• Check the peer reviewed literature. – “Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.” – Jerry
• Your interpretation is totally wrong! – “Oh yeah? Well I had sex with your wife!” – George
• The data hasn’t been updated, do you think all we do around here is sit around and wait for GHCN to update?  – “Significant shrinkage.” – George
• The tree ring based temperature reconstruction has been reviewed and proven correct time and again. – “Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!” – Elaine
• It is “robust”.  – Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, – Elaine

  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/nasa-giss-a-division-of-vandelay-industries/

So, here’s to GISS, booted from its Broadway perch, left to ponder its next move like Kramer contemplating a risk-free life. Will they find a new home? Will the climate models keep churning out “gold, Jerry, gold”? Or will this mark the beginning of a long-overdue reckoning for a field that’s too often leaned on shaky data and overheated narratives? Quoting Jerry: “Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.”

In the meantime, let’s raise a Junior Mint to the Trump administration for delivering a plot twist that’s got us all saying, “Yada, yada, yada.” Stay tuned, folks—because when it comes to climate science, the real show about nothing is just getting started.

No actual climate scientists were harmed in the writing of this piece, though their egos may be slightly bruised.