Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Earth On Fire
- Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on Earth On Fire
- arn on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- William on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- William on Earth On Fire
- arn on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- Mike on NPR Climate Experts
- Mike on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- mwhite on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
Too bad they built coal-fired power plants and they killed themselves all off. Stupid thing to do.
Wasn’t this the same era modern climate scientists say it was proven that 2xCO2 will warm the planet by 4 deg C?
Negative. Arrhenius’s theory of 1890 was DIS-PROVEN around 1905 by the general consensus of the Royal Society.
“’s theory of 1890 was DIS-PROVEN around 1905 by the general consensus of the Royal Society.”
I need to see a link for that. When did a consensus without supporting evidence disprove anything?
Arrhenius became a member of the RS in 1910.
“When did a consensus without supporting evidence disprove anything?”
Just like global warming eh?
Maybe it is wrong to use “consensus” here, the experiments of R W Wood had been discussed and considered for publication by the Royal Society in 1909 in their transactions.
Wood’s experiments were described in detail in 1914 in the Philosophical Magazine, so the evidence of refutation of the “greenhouse” effect was (and remains, as far as I am concerned) experimental.
Arrhenius’s connection with the “greenhouse” idea was obscure, he was best (and correctly) recognized for his contribution to the theory of chemical reaction rates and the temperature dependence ,
as was Tyndall for his contribution sto colloid science, and Flourier to the astounding methodology of solution to heat conduction problems.
All of these, their ideas about the “greenhouse” effect, became recognized much later, upon the (recurring) chi-chi revival of the “atmospheric greenhouse effect”
Maybe Obama can send them some stimulus money to help them build more canals!