U.S. Gov’t. Says: ‘July 2015 was warmest month ever recorded for the globe’

Eric Zuesse

To global-warming-deniers such as the Koch brothers and Exxon/Mobil, the news that was reported on 20 August 2015 must be just a ‘coincidence,’ but the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported then that July 2015 was “the all-time highest monthly temperature” in this planet’s entire scientifically recorded record, which started in 1880.

Furthermore: “Global oceans record warm for July; January-July 2015 also record warm.”

The more detailed version of the report says: 

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record, at 0.81°C (1.46°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.08°C (0.14°F). As July is climatologically the warmest month of the year globally, this monthly global temperature of 16.61°C (61.86°F) was also the highest among all 1627 months in the record that began in January 1880. The July temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.65°C (1.17°F) per century. …

For the oceans, the July global sea surface temperature was 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), the highest departure not only for July, but for any month on record. The10 highest monthly departures from average for the oceans have all occurred in the past 16 months (since April 2014).

Back on June 4th, NOAA had reported, in a refereed article published in the leading scientific journal, Science (which is published by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science), that:

an updated global surface temperature analysis … reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

As is typical for academic scientific articles, this one understated what was actually found. What was actually found is simply inconsistent with the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.

Here is how the NOAA research-team itself summarized their findings in a press release from NOAA on June 4th, which was titled, “Data show no recent slowdown in global warming”:

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or “hiatus” in the rate of global warming in recent years. …

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, released in stages between September 2013 and November 2014, concluded that the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998­­-2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951-2012.

Since the release of the IPCC report, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends. …  The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.

Science is constantly improving its methods, and, consequently, the accuracy of its observations. These changes in the findings are not the result of errors; they are the result of progress — progress (improvements) in the methodology.

As I had noted on August 20th, headlining “The Latest Science on Global Warming,” the latest findings on global warming are “bleak.” The heat-up of this planet has been consistently under-estimated by scientists; it has consistently turned out to be at the extreme high end of the Bell curve of likelihoods of where we are heading. We are heading into catastrophe faster than has been projected by scientists.

People who deny that global warming even exists are a combination of liars and their suckers, because the scientific evidence on the question is clear and overwhelming. And people who speculate that global warming will be good not bad are insane. Increased desertification, increased hurricanes and flooding downpours washing away topsoil, warmer and more acidic oceans, underwater coastal cities, surging migrations from equatorial regions toward the more-polar regions, record die-offs of existing species of plants and animals, and collapsing agriculture, are not good; they are horrific.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • CO2 makes up .036% of the atmosphere. Tiny, miniscule, practically unnoticeable. Got to be a Religion if you believe it makes the other 99.964% warmer!

    June 24, 2014 The Scandal Of Fiddled Global Warming Data

    When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data.


    Record high temperature in 1913, and the record low in 2010


    • cettel

      Why are you straining to reject an overwhelming consensus of physical scientists?

      • kimyo

        consensus = religion. consensus = people with funny hats and neatly trimmed beards awarding themselves medals.

        • Two Americas

          It is the global warming denial movement that is operating from idealism, from belief in intangible things, not the scientists.

          The debate, such as it is, and there is no sane or rational basis for there being any debate, is between materialism and idealism. The global warming denial movement is not refuting the science, not refuting the results of testing in the objective material world. They are promoting an ideal. The ruling class always promoted ideals in response to material facts. The classic example is that of the man, famous and revered in this country, who penned the idealistic words “all men are created equal” while continuing to be a slave owner. In the realm of idealism we are supposed to see his expressed ideals as what is important, and not his actual behavior on the real world.

          Singer, the darling of the denial movement, reveals that this is true. Speaking to one audience he says “global warming is not happening, period. It is all a hoax.” A couple of years later he is telling an audience “global warming is happening, but the idea that man is causing it is absurd, ridiculous.” Still later, he tells an audience “global warming is happening and is being caused by man’s activities, but addressing it would cost too much and would undermine our system and our way of life.” He is not motivated by science, he is not motivated by money, his entire life has been devoted to the cause of “libertarian” principles (ideals) of “limited government” and no interference with Capitalism by government.

          The denial movement is promoting a political agenda – the libertarian “limited government” laissez faire “free enterprise” belief. They are not presenting science. Many of the leaders of the movement say openly that they are not questioning the science, but rather pushing a political agenda and seeking to destroy the character and reputation of various scientists through slander and innuendo. That is what they are being paid to do, and they brag openly about how goo0d they are at the job.

          • Army of Addicts

            “Would undermine our system and our way of life”

            By our system, he means, the capital accumulation process, which has been very good to him no doubt.

            And by our way of life, he is referring to those who are above subsistence living…. Or……
            Since this is a global event, is he talking about the way of life of all inhabitants of the planet, a third of whom cant find enough to eat?

            Tell me again why anyone would listen to Singer?

          • Two Americas

            Because he has extraordinary access to the media, and because he lies and because he tells people what they want to hear. It is the same reason that people listened to Father Coughlin.

          • Army of Addicts

            When the people have no voice, they latch on to those that do.

          • kimyo

            Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy

            Guilt by association can ometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

            i’ve never heard of singer, in spite of his being the ‘darling’ of the ‘denial’ movement.

            north america is cooling. we should be preparing for a new ice age, along the lines of what happened in the 1700’s, when the thames would freeze solid during winter.

            we should be preparing for shortened growing seasons. a carbon taxes/carbon capture/carbon credits serve no purpose other than to enrich the 1%.

          • Two Americas

            Amazing. I have no idea how you can argue about the legitimacy of the global warming denial movement and not be familiar with Dr. Singer. Do your research, find out who is giving you these talking points and illogical ideas, and for what purpose they are feeding you this stuff.

            I am not promoting and would not promote the carbon tax scheme, nor do I look favorably upon ir support what the liberals and Democrats are doing, nor do I trust the vast majority of environmental non-profits.

          • kimyo

            here’s a gigantic flaw in the ‘runaway global warming consensus’: all of the models ass-u-me ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuel usage. this, by far, is the most unlikely of all outcomes.

            if you care to discuss this in depth, please skip the the straw-man/ad hominem ‘singer said a stupid thing once, so everything kimyo believes is ludicrous’/’hitler is an atheist – kimyo is an atheist – kimyo is a genocidal maniac’ bogosity. if you continue to deploy that ‘argument’, you fail. readers here understand science.

            Oil Limits and Climate Change – How They Fit Together

            If any of these scenarios takes place and snowballs to a collapse of today’s economy, I expect that a rapid decline in fossil fuel
            consumption of all kinds will take place. This decline is likely to be more rapid than modeled in the RCP2.6 Scenario. The RCP2.6 Scenario assumes that anthropogenic carbon emissions will still be at 84% of 2010 levels in 2030. In comparison, my expectation (Figure 3, below) is that fossil fuel use (and thus anthropogenic carbon emissions) will be at a little less than 40% of 2010 levels in 2030.

            i don’t need to see the code or challenge the models directly if i can show that they use completely unrealistic source data.

            another take: Peak Oil may keep catastrophic climate change in check

            David Rutledge, an engineering professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies world coal production, said the IPCC’s “business as usual” scenario is unrealistic because it essentially assumes that growth of fossil fuels like coal will continue apace, which is unlikely.

            In reality, governments tend to overestimate their coal reserves, and much of these reserves will never be accessed, Rutledge said.

            “There is little relationship between the RCPs and the actual historical experience of oil, gas and coal production,” Rutledge said. Rutledge said of the four IPCC scenarios, he found the second RCP scenario, RCP 4.5, where carbon dioxide emissions flatten out around 2080, to be more plausible under a business-as-usual scenario for coal exploitation.

            “4.5 would be the closest one if you look at the mining history,” Rutledge said. “My own opinion is that no one should use RCP 8.5 for any purpose at all.”

            when prince charles or the pope say ‘we have only 18 months left to stop catastrophic climate change’, they are referring to RCP 8.5.

          • Two Americas

            here’s a gigantic flaw in the ‘runaway global warming consensus’: all of the models ass-u-me ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuel usage.

            That is false. The consensus does not depend upon computer modeling, nor does it depend upon ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuel usage.

            I did not and would not say that “Singer said a stupid thing once, so everything kimyo says is ludicrous.” I said that Singer revealed the true motivation behind the denial movement.

          • kimyo

            when they test atheists vs christians on the bible, it’s the atheists who have actually read the text.

            when they test sceptics vs believers on agw, it’s the sceptics who grok the data.

            source: IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables

          • Two Americas

            I am not arguing about science. I am talking about a deceptive right wing political agenda.

          • kimyo

            i prefer to discuss the science. i suggest you retract this statement, as it is completely false:

            The consensus does not depend upon computer modeling, nor does it depend upon ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuel usage.

            it’s computer models all the way down. the models even run on modeled data.

          • Two Americas

            So there are no objective observations that support AGW? Is that your position?

          • kimyo

            and now you haul out the straw man argument.

            it’s you who is steering this conversation into religious/political territory, i’ve just been posting easily verifiable facts.

            the science is not settled and anyone who wishes to examine the issue will rapidly come to that conclusion.

            Indian Ocean may be key to global warming ‘hiatus’

            Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation

            But when Sang-Ki Lee, an oceanographer at the University of Miami in Florida, and his colleagues went looking for this heat beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean, they couldn’t find it. Temperature data compiled by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) World Ocean Atlas (WOA) suggest that the upper 700 metres of the Pacific have actually cooled in recent years, Lee says.

            So Lee’s team used a computer model to explore the fate of the ocean’s ‘missing heat’. The results suggest that easterly trade winds have strengthened during the hiatus, causing warm water to pile up in the western Pacific. The water seeps between the islands of Indonesia and into the Indian Ocean, bringing heat with it.

            Global warming ‘hiatus’ puts climate change scientists on the spot

            “It’s contentious,” said IPCC panelist Shang-Ping Xie, a professor of climate science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. “The stakes have been raised by various people, especially the skeptics.”

            Though scientists don’t have any firm answers, they do have multiple theories. Xie has argued that the hiatus is the result of heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean — a little-understood, naturally occurring process that repeats itself every few decades. Xie and his colleagues presented the idea in a study published last month in the prestigious journal Nature.

            The theory, which is gaining adherents, remains unproved by actual observation. Surface temperature records date to the late 1800s, but measurements of deep water temperature began only in the 1960s, so there just isn’t enough data to chart the long-term patterns, Xie said.

          • Two Americas

            What “straw man argument?”

            Science is never “settled.” I would not say otherwise in regards to AGW.

            I am saying that the global warming denial movement is political, and is not about science. I am not sure why you have a problem with that statement. If you are not promoting the global warming denial movement, then I am not sure what you are doing.

            I am arguing with several people in various places on this topic today. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying. If you can summarize your position, that would help.

          • kimyo

            my position is that 18+ years of no warming (as evidenced by satellite measurements) during a time of increasing carbon emissions calls into question the accuracy of the computer models.

            i have some limited experience supporting a team working on modeling physical characteristics of transmission power lines. accurate raw measurements are key to delivering an accurate model.

            there are no temperature measurements of oceans at depth prior to 25 or so years ago. there are only very limited and often inaccurate ‘bucket’ measurements of ocean surface temps, and these only go back a couple of hundred years.

            thus, there can be no accurate model of oceanic contribution to climate cycles. you have to be able to check your model’s results against measurements, and there simply are none (practically speaking), ocean-wise.

            this is evidenced by the ‘missing heat’ quotes i pasted up above. they have a bunch of theories, but no measurements to support/confirm them.

            without effective, tested oceanic models (remember, we’ve only just completed mapping the bottom of the ocean a year or two ago) there cannot be effective global models of climate.

            deploying public policy based on questionable computer models, be they climate or economic or medical must stop.

            i don’t belong to any ‘denial movement’. exxon and the koch’s don’t pay me by the word. i am promoting science. science depends on people questioning each other’s work. it depends on skeptics. it is improved by skeptics.

          • Two Americas

            You have not persuaded me that there is a grand conspiracy by the scientific community to dupe the public on this issue. Nor have you refuted my claim that the denial movement is promoting a right wing political agenda.

            The “pause in warming” nonsense has been thoroughly debunked.

            This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”

            What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly – the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

            “That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers – they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower – even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

            from “Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists” by Joshua Holland


            Before that, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, among the very few deniers with any credentials whatsoever, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer is often cited by deniers and he has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science in the US.

            Spencer is also anti-evolution.When asked about his role in all of this, he says “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” That is important, because it illustrates once again that the global warming denial movement is not about science but rather it is about promoting a particular extremist right wing political agenda.

            What fuels the myth that global warming has “paused” is that the rate of air temperature rise does fluctuate in the short term. In recent years the rate of air temperature rise has been slower. This is not unusual in the longer-term temperature record. Sometimes air temperature rises quickly and sometimes more slowly. It is crucial that we look at the long-term trend. The long-term trend is that temperature is rising. Each calendar year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before. But with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists expect each decade to be warmer than the previous one.

            The other aspect is that when most people think about climate change they only think about rising air temperatures. In fact the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases warms the air, the ocean, the Earth’s land surfaces, and melts ice and glaciers. The ocean is the big ticket item as 93% of the warming since 1955 has been absorbed by the world’s oceans. In fact, the oceans have warmed strongly since 1998 – the year that the so-called “pause” began.

            Those seeking to mislead the public seek to cherry pick one part of the Earth’s system and short periods of time to imply that global warming has paused. Unfortunately media articles often state that there is a pause in warming, rather than referring to the fluctuation in the rate of air temperature rise. The reality is that the Earth continues to warm strongly with grave implications for humanity.


          • kimyo

            if the pause is nonsense then why did nature publish this?
            Indian Ocean may be key to global warming ‘hiatus’

            Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation

            you should write them to demand a retraction. i’m sure they will be quick to accommodate you, post their reply here.

          • Two Americas

            Science is an ongoing process of correction.

            The fact that scientists doubt previous findings and make revisions is praiseworthy, not cause for damning them.

            Unlike the case of the denial movement, there is no evidence that the scientific community is trying to make facts fit a predetermined theory. It is the denial movement that is continually trying to make facts conform to their theory that global warming is not happening.

          • kimyo

            The fact that scientists doubt previous findings and make revisions is praiseworthy, not cause for damning them.

            are you a recent graduate of the professor zuesse school of debate? at not point have i ‘damned’ the scientists. it’s the politicians who use ‘consensus’ to create project of highly dubious value to society who i have a beef with.

            global warming is not happening

            the hiatus means, yes, global warming stopped happening in the early 90’s. you’ve previously expressed doubt about this, so i have thoughtfully searched the ‘nature climate change’ journal for hiatus for you:

            a fine example of why i have a beef with politicians using consensus:
            Carbon credits undercut climate change actions says report

            The authors say that offsets created under a UN scheme “significantly undermined” efforts to tackle climate change.

            The credits may have increased emissions by 600 million tonnes.

            In some projects, chemicals known to warm the climate were created and then destroyed to claim cash.

          • kimyo

            You have not persuaded me that there is a grand conspiracy by the scientific community to dupe the public

            yet another strawman argument. at no point have i ever said that my goal was to persuade you of a ‘grand conspiracy by the scientific community’.

            my position: the models are not suitable for use in setting public policy.

            if you care to argue it, show me a successful climate model. show me how it was tested against real world measurements. what you offer is minor distractions from the meat of the matter.

          • Two Americas

            I am not arguing that public policy should be based solely on models, or any particular models.

          • kimyo

            your argument so far has been a religious one (non-believers want to watch the world burn). kindly use this opportunity to clarify your position. please provide the non-model-based science which supports your argument.

          • Two Americas

            I have made no religious arguments.

            The models suggest what might happen in the future. The evidence for global warming consists of measurements and observations of things that are actually happening or have happened.

          • kimyo

            what’s the best piece of physical evidence showing that co2 is the cause of the global warming period which ended in the mid-90’s?

          • Two Americas

            The pause argument is a hoax.

          • kimyo

            Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
            Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, Grant Branstator, Adam S. Phillips,

            Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific. It is manifested as strong anomalous easterly trade winds, distinctive sea-level pressure patterns, and large rainfall anomalies in the Pacific, which resemble the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

            i guess kochco’s cash just proved too enticing for trenberth and nature climate change.

    • Last hours, a 10 minute video explains how climate change, global warming are the prelude to an other ice-age.


      • Army of Addicts

        “….so why should we risk these catastrophic events?”

        The ultimate question.

        • By not fully concentrating on renewable energies we will be — however governments are prevented from subsidizing renewable energies via ISDS found in FTA’s this means that the masses will have to wait until the corporations decide to develop them, no doubt that will be on a for profit basis — or simply get rid of all corporately favoring FTA’s and their treasonous ISDS and IIAS provisions.

    • Army of Addicts

      I can think of plenty of things future generations will be far more puzzled about, that is, if thinking is still legal at that time.

  • paul

    Claiming authority just doesn’t work anymore. The scientific establishment is theoretically – and it appears, in actual fact – as corrupt as the political establishment. We must try to resolve this issue, but simply citing expert authority won’t get us there, certainly not by itself.

    • Army of Addicts

      What do you suggest?

  • kimyo

    as you say that your knowledge of climate science is insufficient to establish the validity of the threat of runaway global warming, how is it that you know WHICH scientists are ‘right’ (mann/hansen) and which are ‘wrong’ (curry/zharkova)?

    • cettel

      So, “clear and overwhelming” evidence from peer-reviewed studies in a physical science fails to impact your thinking on the topic. And Jesus walked on water.

      • kimyo

        it’s not ‘physical science’ if your ‘clear and overwhelming evidence’ comes from computer models.

        you might as well be reporting: ‘us govt says: ‘unemployment is 5%’.

        if it’s truly such a threat, then the climate scientists must share their raw, unadjusted data. they must share their models. they do not. that right there is enough to dismiss their bullshit.

        you bring up jesus, which is appropriate, as you’re reporting on a priesthood. all that’s missing is the white or black smoke.

        Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

        But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only
        ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
        and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different
        method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they
        have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different
        picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on
        record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

  • Carl_Herman

    I looked into this issue when linked with a global tax, and advocated by the same serial liars of constant war, debt, and poverty deaths. From the single issue of “hide the decline” with the hacked and revealed e-mails, along with apparent conflicting data that no global warming has happened since about the year 2000, and sun-related warming of all our solar system planets at that time, it became clear to me that the global tax and “care” of “leaders” was certainly a lie, and that the thousands of scientists who claim conflicting data of global warming require a full hearing.

    Then there’s the weather manipulation of chemtrails, both for toxic poisoning and “climate change.”

    My policy recommendation: arrest the .01% “leaders” for the obvious crimes in war, debt (what they call “money”), and lies, then we can get the honest answers of climate. Until we have those arrests, we’ll be under constant attack of lies and who knows what else from the same .01% who kill, loot, and never ever ever ever tell the full truth.

    • Army of Addicts

      Okay, who will you assign to make the arrests?

      • Carl_Herman

        Army: law enforcement and US military are already authorized. When critical mass of snapping out of their “Emperor’s New Clothes” delusions flashes in a relative moment, they’ll come to their own organic response to honor their Oaths.

        What we have full “assignment” over are our thoughts, voices, and actions. Be the person you’ve always wanted to be; you’ll have what you work for.

        • Army of Addicts

          I can see law enforcement and military doing something like that, but only after years of severe oppression and deprivation, and then only after government orders the outright execution of civilians in the streets. Otherwise, it’s business as usual.

          • Frank Energy

            police are executing 1 person every 8 hours, “in the streets”

          • Army of Addicts

            Yes, but it’s not a command from above which motivates this.

      • colinjames71

        I’ll do it! Just give me some handcuffs. And the power of Professor X to freeze everybody. And an army. And…

  • colinjames71

    Please tell me my comment wasn’t deleted yesterday. It’s last on the list of what might have happened to it, but I spent a good half hour writing it and gathering the links. Dang.

  • Barbara Whiteman

    Need any account hacked?? run a check on your Cheating spouse? Checking on your kids via social media? Business/cash flipping ? whatever its put a call through to 5702908280 and its done ! professionalism at its peak

  • colinjames71

    Are you calling thus guy a liar too?


    That’s so much more. The US govt lies. The scientists who lie about global warming are no more ethical about science than the Koch brothers and Exxon are about profits. This is not a defense of the status quo, there’s enough reasons to switch off fossil fuels without global warming. But there’s a bigger agenda at play. And science has been corrupted by money just like every other human endeavour. It would help if every breakthrough energy and propulsion technology since Tesla weren’t stolen and buried, inventors suicided or bought off or scared into submission. I really hope you look deeper into this Eric. I’ll be back with a link package. Also I find your characterization of “global warming deniers” offensive