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
- Bob G on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Bruce of Newcastle on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- arn on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- mwhite on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Disillusioned on Game Over For The Climate
- John B on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- 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
You mean it’s been going on all this time and nobody told us????
That warming was rapidly forgotten during the cold period of the 1960’s and 1970’s, when the Ice Age hysteria took place. So climate alarmism had been around for awhile.
Mustn’t forget 1922 when the Arctic was reported as being too warm for the poor little seals. Can’t remember if that was a report to the RS or Admiralty.
DaveE.
From Hans to Hansen
It’s great to see commenters putting their name to their comments. Unlike our clueless politicians, most have common sense , or are prepared to research the subject. I am still waiting for some over educated scientist or politician to provide me with facts and/or figures to support their rediculous claims . There is enough recorded history to subatantiate the theory that climate change is a natural occurance . Sarcasm does not help the debate.
I couldn’t agree more, no so-called expert or climate commissioner can give any details of the cost, or % benefit to lower temperatures. Tim Flannery actually was trapped into admitting some truths last week, stating that if the whole world reduced their emissions it would take between 200 to 1000 years to reduce the temperature by about 0.05% wow!! now that’s worth destroying Australia’s economy isn’t it????????????????????????????
It goes to show that if enough financial incentive is given scientists etc., will say whatever it takes for their own financial gains.
They were really concerned about this in 1882 as well: From the Historical References Page:
Polar Bears in Distress in 1882. Why won’t the American Society for the Cruelty of Animals save the polar bears floating on the icebergs? Man, they have been worried about these polar bears for a long time.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40914FE3B55157A93CBA9178ED85F468884F9
Open link as a pdf.
Most things have natural cycles, even alarmism.
If we could obtain data for the sea level rise from these historic years and compare them with todays data from satellites and sea level gauges, it might give us some calibration information, i.e. what to expect from a certain rise in temperature. (Assuming that the scientists of historic times did not have a hidden agenda)
Does anyone know if such data can be obtained?
It is almost common knowledge around my area that the warming hoax is nothing but a communist plot to break our economy, then in the midst of all the chaos they take over and start the re education camps . We really need to tell these jerks to get a life and go home and drink a smoothie or something . I have read so much on the subject I feel like a reviewer for a scientific mag. there are many many more scientist that espouse no man made warming than those that do, they are out numbered by the thousands. I think that 32,000 signed a statement about it and it was submitted to Congress. 10,000 of those had PHD’S and knew what they spoke of. I believe that the UN IPPC has around 70 against 32,000 I think I will stand with the 32,000 .
Idiots talking to idiots is what I see here. GW is happening. CO2 is at 391ppm, and going to 394ppm next year. The warming is real, as anyone who swam in Lake Michigan in the 70’s and now can tell you. No ice breaker needed in Chicago anymore to open the sea lanes in the spring. Sea levels are rising, but slowly and not very much….YET. The satellite views of the Arctic show a decline in Arctic ice in both thickness and extent from 30 years ago. But, no need to worry. This will not impact anyone living now, except maybe the children. The melting of the Arctic will be a benefit, for a few decades. But, the result is known. The last time the earth had CO2 as high as the are now, Greenland was ice free. Since, we will not make any efforts to curb CO2 emissions, we will likely see CO2 levels reaching 700ppm to 1000ppm by 2100. Nothing will be done to stop it, so lets all sit back and enjoy the show.
Nice Craig, you moron! You think the climate in the 70s was the norm? The arctic ice was just coming down from a several century high at that point, and you want to come here blathering about idiots? WTF makes you think the world is better off with 1970s climate as opposed to today? BTW, if the arctic ever completely melts again, you know what would happen? Nothing. Other than it is very likely that the arctic would reform shortly thereafter.
Now, I know I may have stated some things that are contrary to your views. I’d be happy to discuss them in detail with you. However, congenial discourse and dialogue won’t happen if you come here blathering about deniers and idiots. Why don’t you try and think about periods of time before 1970? Dolt.