Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Dayna on Seventeen Years Of Fun
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- arn on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
Looks in better shape than a lot of golf courses I have played.
The Guardian has gone full blown doomsday it’s unbelievable I’ve never thought I would see anything like that, they have convinced them selves and the people around them that they’re all doomed from Co2 like some creepy cult trying to provoke mass hysteria to get people to do what they want. Madness!
I doubt that Billions of trees died as a result of drought this sounds like another sensationalist piece( Duh!), “Billions of trees died” how does someone come up with a figure like this do they check every tree to make sure that it’s dead then count it? I doubt it, they guess an estimate then exaggerate it! luckily there’s enough co2 to help billions of trees to grow there!
“Lewis was careful to note that significant scientific uncertainties remain and that the 2010 and 2005 drought – thought then to be of once-a-century severity – might yet be explained by natural climate variation.”
So it turns out that they were wrong in thinking that the 2005 drought was once-a-century severity,
Lewis seems to be saying;
“It may be going too far to blame the drought on man made co2 or global warming, because of all the other exaggerations, and because we have now been told that agw causes cold weather by the almighty manbearpig or something we don’t know at all,
but look at all the dead trees, no we didn’t take photos of all the dead trees we thought that it would be disrespectful.” D’oh!
Lush green is the new drought.
Lushdrought, greendry.
You took the words out from my keyboard!
Anybody else getting the impression that dying trees/forests is going to be the next ‘big scare’, after ocean acidification didn’t work so well?
When the article is read carefully it is clear that they have test plots examined after the 2005 droubt. However, the billions of trees that died after the 2010 droubt is purely speculation. Note that hey state that they are trying to raise money to revisit the plots and actually collect data. what a thought, collect some data before you state what the conclusions are.
Even worse, they indicate that the billions of extra dead trees may not exist as the droubt intolerant trees may have already died in the 2005 droubt.
If I was a prof. teaching a first year university science course and got a paper like this I would give the student a 15%, i.e. minus 85% for stupidity and lack of scientific method, +15% for imagination and feeling sorry for the dumb a$*.
It is garbage.
As the loopy scientist in Jurassic Park said, “shouldn’t there be dinosaurs in a dinosaur park,” shouldn’t there be dead trees in a forest with a billion dead trees. I don’t see any, and when looking at satellite images green is what I see, not brown.
That’s the thing, green is the new drought. Record cold is the new heat.
Didn’t we already debunk this bogus Amazon sensitivity madness a couple of years ago?
Debunking means something to them? I didn’t get that memo.
Areas were flooded in 2009 & 2004. How does that factor into the drought scenario?http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=39359
Future-minded Manaus rioters had been protesting our current drought since 1958