First Street generally does good work and provides a useful service that can add to the info available to people. But the profit motive affects who has access to both the info and the methods, which isn't the ideal when it comes to basic climate risk.

There was a reasonable start under Biden with several agencies working to improve climate services. The ideal was to work with private sector providers and also to develop consistent and open government-wide data on risks. But, alas...

Good to hear. That's an important gap in understanding.

What's being proposed is a long way from nuclear winter. Short of nuclear war, I don't think we would have the technical capacity to create actual nuclear winter by using aircraft to inject particles. I suppose it's possible, but it would probably be halted (possibly militarily) long before that.

Although there may be effects related to changes in the spectrum of light reaching the surface. It's not clear to me how those (coupled with higher ambient CO2) might affect vegetation and ecosystem dynamics, especially over very long deployment durations.

This is an excellent article. But I have to say that this photo of Stardust laboratory equipment immediately brought to mind Darth Vader:

I should also note that this doesn't include deaths related to farming, rural transportation, or recreational riding.

This may help: "From Horse Power to Horsepower" Morris, 2007. It discusses deaths from accidents as well as the health implications of 3-4 million lbs/day of horse urine and manure (estimate for NYC and Brooklyn in 1880). escholarship.org/content/qt6s...

And besides, Bugs always mentions that he should have take the directions given to him in ABQ.

I think they probably will. I think they put the science in to try and make the Koonin et al. version of the science the official version. I would hope that the robust response to that nonsense would kill the "red team-blue team" silliness, but these guys have no shame, so who knows.

My speculation is that they'll drop the science part of their proposal. Their primary argument was legal, with their "scientific justification" as an alternative. Given the NASEM report and the Dessler et al. comments that shredded their version of science, I think they'll put their faith in SCOTUS.

So…they’ve either destroyed all the records (illegal), don’t know where to look (incompetent), or are just denying the request (also illegal). I’d like to hear if others are having more success or are being similarly stonewalled. [3/3]

The site had a lot of useful info about NCA development and USGCRP activities that I haven’t been able to find elsewhere, including a page that showed the NCA development timeline and calls for info. A FOIA request came back (after 5 months) with “unable to locate any responsive records.” [2/3]

Which would have been appropriately followed by "Why is that?"

Building independent science infrastructure contributes to a key strategy for fighting democratic backsliding in the US. You can learn more in a webinar with myself, Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, and my @ucs.org colleagues Matt Heid and Melissa Varga next week: secure.ucs.org/a/2025-11-20...

Great article. Not being a Mets fan, I'd never heard of this story before, but it's terrific (a la Tom). Thanks for all the work you put in to get to the bottom of the story.

No doubt it'll be a fascinating study, but I think I'll wait for the book.