A heretic in Al Gore’s backyard.
Dr. Arvid Pasto, former Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) High Temperature Materials Laboratory
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/aiche/presentations/AGW_AIChE.pdf
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Game Over For The Climate
- Another Ice Age?
- Historic Heatwave
- Historic Heatwave
- Science-Free Journalism
- Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Color Or Monochrome?
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
- “Why Scientific Fraud Is Suddenly Everywhere”
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Bob G on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Conrad Ziefle on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- arn on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Gordon Vigurs on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- arn on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Bill on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Conrad Ziefle on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Conrad Ziefle on Game Over For The Climate
- Conrad Ziefle on Game Over For The Climate
If people would just educate themselves a little,
4000 ppm, ice age
3000 ppm, ice age
2000 ppm, ice age
Where’s the tipping point?
They’re pissing in their pants about 390 ppm, when the tipping point seems to be anything over 1000 ppm throws us into another ice age……….
Bedwetters all of them!
Hansen in 1998 (to everyone): “See??.. See??”
Hansen in 2011 (to himself): “Oh..”
Hansen wasn’t grossly exaggerating. He was incorrect. His model was and is incorrect. That’s quite different from an exaggeration.
Repeat – Hansen’s climate model is incorrect. There is no reason to believe him at all. He is proven to have a bad model for the climate.
Kevin, what does Tracey think?
Scenario A is the more extreme position. Jan 11/2011 RealClimate: Schmidt says that Scenario B is close, though he admits “warm” to the record. Scenario C, in which no emissions come after 2000 – a reference scenario – tracks well. It is outside of my understanding, but GS says B is “useful”, but C is not. And B is to be discussed, not C.
When a random or nonsensical scenario most closely matches your prediction, then either you have stumbled into an important causation (or info on one), or your hypothesis may be nonsense also. It certainly should make you wonder. And worry.