02 Oct 1889 – THREE-YEARS’ DROUGHT PREDICTED. EVIDENCES OF CLI…
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
- mwhite on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- 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”
And whether his prediction was right or wrong, his article even references another drought 60 years prior.
Climate ‘science’. Have we ever seen another science so incompatible with the historical record? Sciences usually evolve with that record as their basis, not with a rejection of it. Guess maybe because we’ve never seen so much money involved.
Yes we have had droughts, storms, fires, tornadoes. Duh. But until now, no ocean level rise, no ocean acidification, no rapid species migration, no shift in bloom times, no pattern of high temperatures records (vs. low temp records) that beat odds of flipping head 300 times in a row. Why do you suppose that is? (your answer is predicted NOT to include CO2 emissions)
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are spewing drivel.
He got it sort of half right:
“The pastoral season of 1892 has upon the whole been decidedly unfavourable to pastoral pursuits. During the early part of the year the greater part of New South Wales, was suffering from a severe drought, and although beneficial rains fell at the end of May it was not until September that the drought broke up. Since then the season has been a very good one, and with the exception, perhaps, of parts of Western Queensland there is little cause for anxiety as regards the season. In the Western district of Victoria the season has been a good one throughout the year.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3044296
And then the real drought kicked in:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/seven-year-drought-killed-40-of-the-livestock-in-australia-wheat-crop-destroyed/
CO2 levels are higher than the last 15 million years. Sea levels will only grow. If Florida starts to go under in a way obvious to all, this site may be challenged to find old news articles reporting similar events. The good news is that “you won’t be there, I won’t be there” as it might take a hundred years or so.
So, it wouldn’t be that Florida was due to go under, again. This time, we did it.
You call yourself Real Science. Reminds me of the quote by Dr. Johnson, “IF your dinner guest speaks on and on about Morality and Virtue, better count the silverware when he leaves”
Nothing could be more moral and virtuous than ‘saving’ a planet. Just better check your bank account afterward.
Climate change (maybe we should call it weather) has been happening for a long time.
Job 12:15 “If he holds back the waters, there is drought; if he lets them loose, they devastate the land.”