Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- conrad ziefle on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Gordon Vigurs on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- conrad ziefle on High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Gordon Vigurs on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
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!