Climate science tells us the alarm bells are ringing – The Washington Post
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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”
- She Hates Her State
- Climate Friendly War
- Office Of Climate Change And Health Equity And Environmental Justice
- “100% Non-Carbon By 2030”
- 1991 : United Nations Calls For Genocide
Recent Comments
- William on Science-Free Journalism
- oeman50 on Science-Free Journalism
- William on Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Michael L Dee on Science-Free Journalism
- Michael L Dee on Science-Free Journalism
- William on Science-Free Journalism
- Gordon Vigurs on Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Gordon Vigurs on Why Is Venus So Hot?
- arn on Science-Free Journalism
- Gordon Vigurs on Science-Free Journalism
The weak old bull seeks the protective center of the herd. The incompetent king sits stubbornly on his throne in the palace, amid all the trappings of his power.
Sven decades wasted by exposing themselves as illiterate.of the scientific method. There’s a lesson to be had somewhere.
OFF TOPIC … I simply don’t believe that TS Andrea held sustained wind speeds of just over tropical storm force during the storm’s overlan trek up the Eastern seaboard.
Yup, and I don’t believe the El Reno tornado had 300mph winds. It’s all about supporting unprecedented fake extreme weather to tie together AGW as the cause.
The center of the storm’s circulation went over Fayetteville, N.C. on Friday. Fayetteville recorded max sustained winds of 26 m.p.h. Gusts maxed at 37 m.p.h. This was early afternoon on Friday. And NHC is *still* claiming 45 m.p.h. sustained winds? Someone ought to call them out.
I spent the afternoon in DC yesterday and there was almost no wind.
The storm’s northeast quadrant passed right over the Tampa area on Thursday. Although there were a few tornadoes, sustained winds were never close to 45 mph. The biggest problems were caused by flooding from localized cloud bursts, and traffic messes due to closing of the Sunshine skyway bridge, due to wind gusts.
Compared to hurricanes Frances, Ivan and Jeanne that passed through this area in 2004 as tropical storms, Andrea was a non-event.
The unfortunate fact is that ‘sustained winds’ for TS/hurricane status are measured 10 meters above the surface. Almost no-one has wind instruments set up at that height so I guess the NHC can just make it up.
Amazingly, nowhere in that op ed do they link to any evidence that supports the global warming theory. I don’t mean evidence that the earth has been warming the last few hundred years, but evidence that a specific model has successfully predicted the climate we have been experiencing.
This raises a question: Is there a theory of global warming? Is there one explanation on the table that 97% of scientists are behind? Claims like “computer model projections from at least 27 groups at universities” suggest there are multiple, competing explanations, with no one successful enough to be dominant. Scientifically, is it better that there are 27, 73, or whatever projections? Shouldn’t they be getting that down to a few projections or even one?
They have nothing much left now, except to tell anyone who will listen that they are the authoritative experts and pretend 97% of the scientific world agrees with them.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee, Kevin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17HRV8k1YMw
I read some of the comments on this article – what a bunch of TRUE BELIEVERS!
Unthinking, uninformed, pathetic, devout TRUE BELIEVERS!
97%
The magical number for magical thinking.
Until Cook et.al. gives us a couple of lists, his 97% cannot be supported or believed:
1. List of all scientists attached to the full “…11?944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’…” data base.
2. List of all scientists attached to the 32.6% of the papers that endorsed AGW (from which they got their “97%”).
I’d like to see how many of the “97%” were listed as authors of the other 67.4% of the papers.
I wonder if they know how silly they sound. Responding to criticism of hyperbole, with hyperbole. Not exactly fighting fire with fire boys. 😆