There's climate reanalysis, which combines historical observations with weather models to get clean data of past weather conditions, which is then used by researchers for various purposes. Most notably is ERA5 by ECMWF.
The problem with printer recommendations is that many vocal supporters are running older models that work like charm, so when a good company becomes enshittified, there will be some timelag until consensus shifts. I mean I could still praise Samsung printers despite Samsung having left the printer business years ago.
As all conspiracy theories, this provides a simple explanation to circumstances that otherwise require complex answers, but it holds no water. The KGB was ineffective and inept. It didn't reach the masses, it didn't influence public opinion. Of course a former KGB agent selling his story must tell you otherwise, but most of these guys spent their whole career feigning successes to their superiors.
While they may feign success to their supervisors you need to look at the tangible results. They got germany to shut down their nuclear power plants and got the civil rights act passed. That's not ineffective.
And did "getting the Civil Rights Act passed" do anything to weaken America, or to strengthen the Soviet Union or expand its influence? No, it didn't. It made America more true to its ideals, thereby undercutting a Soviet propaganda point. It probably increased American influence with third-world countries, especially in Africa. All in all, a Soviet self-own, if they're going to take the credit.
If you think Chernobyl was orchestrated by the KGB, then yes. Sadly, I knew right away were this was heading. Ironically, Russia is more involved in pushing this false narrative than they were ever involved in the anti-nuclear power movement. And it only works by twisting facts. The Soviet Union tried to bolster the anti-nuclear arms movement, emphasize on arms, to stop the Americans from stationing nuclear weapons in Europe, which worried the Soviet leaders greatly - how Europe generates electricity was none of their worry. Lastly, nuclear disarmament is neither a KGB invention nor a KGB success.
Chernobyl was a result of cost cutting and incompetence. KGB just tried to cover it up.
Why would Russia push the 'false narrative' that they supported the anti nuclear power movement? They benefit enormously from replacing nuclear with their gas.
> They got germany to shut down their nuclear power plants
Huh, so do they have an earthquake machine that caused Fukushima? Quick, someone tell that Jews-Space-Laser-Congresslady!
(Fukushima happened a few days before a German state election. Merkel, ever the opportunist and fearing a loss to the Green Party, finally said "We should accelerate the nuclear shutdown". The Greens won anyway).
Europe has the ECMWF which is the leading meteorological research institute with the best forecasts in the world. Apart from that, all the large national weather services in Europe are top notch. In comparison, the US weather services are in a sorry state with outdated forecasting models.
I have no direct knowledge. But I can tell you for the coming cyclone here in Brisbane the city council is using a web page view which federates data over BoM (Australia) USGS, NOAA, ESRI.. and other places.
So the 'extraterritorial' nature of decisions to cut back on weather and climate services has reach beyond the borders.
I continue to think this is a GSA accounting stuffup and the occupied offices will be restored, or relocated because the necessity of a NOAA seems hard to contest. No, the private sector does not replicate. it complements and augments.
> If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible.
It's so heavily being pushed on social media right now, I suspect it's coming from the same forces who tried to make people believe that Trump would deliver more weapons to Ukraine and that Trump would be the better option for Palestine.
At best it is a regional annoyance but at the same time the war in Ukraine has worked out very well for the US so far.
China is the main, and really only, strategic threat. Hence pivot to Pacific, which is also a much more dynamic area economically. Hence perhaps also attempt to build better relations with Russia as otherwise they are pretty much completely aligned with China.
Dealing with China's trade surplus requires a coordinated response, a large component of which will require the EU's help to setup similar tariffs against China considering they are the second largest consumer market.
If Trump tries to go it alone against China with just tariffs, all it achieves is just a repeat of 2016 which is largely ineffectual. And the cards the US has is running out, right now China's consumer market is too weak to provide growth hence we can use access to consumer markets as leverage, but once they achieve "Dual Circulation" in enlarging their consumption, the US (and most of the world) likely will be acceding economic dominance against an onslaught of cheaper Chinese exports (both in low-end and high-tech) while their internal market makes them invulnurable to any retaliation.
Russia has been openly attacking the US, not by military means, but still. Do you really think the former presidents Obama and Biden would tell you that Russia isn't waging a war against the US?
Hearing on the Internet that the US needs, according to your assessment, an impotent Russia as ally to fight China does not make it so either. But I get it, it's a very popular claim in certain circles on the Internet right now. You can almost tell where it's coming from. You know from whom I've never heard such a fantastic idea? Actual defense experts.
> So we raised [the defense spending of NATO members by] $130 billion almost immediately. We had a meeting with all of the [NATO] countries. I said, “You got to pay.” We got $130 billion more — more.
When Obama roasted Trump at the Gridiron Club dinner, one of his jokes was: "Now that I've published my birth certificate, Donald can focus on the more important questions, like was the moon landing real." Thiel's op-ed reminded me of that joke.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMWF_re-analysis