Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
At least back then cooling was considered-and is-a negative to the human condition on this planet. Now, everything is upside-down.
Hey Jeff, more than 100 years ago the CO2 warmists thought completely different.
By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63) – Das Werden der Welten (1907), English translation: Worlds in the Making (1908), Svante August Arrhenius
BTW- What is the ideal global average temperature of the earth?
Warmer than it is at my place today. Yesterday was within a comfortable range and it is expected to return to Spring weather soon, but not today! 🙁
Why can’t tornadoes be accepted for what they are, a normal springtime happening in much of the US, instead of being tied to every kook’s interpretation of “climate change”. We went nearly 40 years without a huge tornado catastrophe, probably the longest such stretch in the last 150 years. We were way overdue for one.
I think the moral of this story is be careful about getting your science from newsweek. See this article for some debunking: http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio217a/sio217afall08-myth1970.pdf
The highlighted text doesn’t support the full headline. Where’s the evidence that says climatologists are linking the tornadoes to cooling? You have highlighted some text but that is merely a weather observation, the link could be made by the journalist for all we know. There is no evidence here to say the link is made by climatologists, just an unsupported headline.
“There is no evidence here to say the link is made by climatologists”
Hengist, back in 1975, the snake oil salesmen circling the public trough didn’t use the self-aggrandizing title of climatologist. It is my understanding that the self-appointed title “climatologist” became fashionable with sandwich boards proclaiming the end is nigh, tin foil hats and the IPCC a few years later.
Paul in Sweden you are just playing with words. Climatologists is in the headline. BTW You are wrong about the use of the word being self aggrandizing , State Climatologists have been appointed since 1954 http://weather.nmsu.edu/USClimat.htm
Now, where is the evidence that climate scientists back in the 1970s connected tornadoes with global cooling, as suggested by the headline? It’s not there, ergo it’s a fallacious posting so perhaps the author could trouble himself to withdraw the posting .
Pingback: Planet’s energy woes – MacDailyNews
Pingback: 24 Hours of Climate Reality: Gore-a-thon – Hour 10 | Watts Up With That?