Katherine Hayhoe believes that the world started in the mid-1970s, and the WMO believes that it ended in 2010
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
- It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Climate Grifting Shutting Down
- Fundamental Pillars Of Democracy
- An Inconvenient Truth
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on The Other Side Of The Pond
- arn on The Other Side Of The Pond
- gordon vigurs on Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Bob G on Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Bob G on Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Bob G on “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Denis Rushworth on 622 billion tons of new ice
- David M Kitting on 622 billion tons of new ice
- dearieme on Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Paul Homewood on Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
They might want to confer with the Mayans, and get back to us.
Their warmest decade ever was cooling!
How many of those countries kept good records before the launch of satelites? Why don’t these alarmists admit the role satelites played and how we’ve only kept real accurate records since 1980, when we were at a peak low? That’s why most of the records fell thereafter, because the records prior were incomplete or non-existent. We then entered the warming phase of the late 80s and 90s and, voila, records were broken. Then we entered the “pause” because the warming end of the cycle ended. It’s not so hard to figure out. But what is it about “climate scientists” that they’re always looking for man-made causes for weather? They never see the natural cyclical nature of the climate. So their analysis is wrong, because they observe things in a very narrow way. They resort to a doom and gloom apocalypse because they want to scare the people into handing them their money. But it only works for a short time. People become more sophisticated about such things and begin tuning out from further grave predictions. That’s what is happening now, so their predictions become more extreme hoping for the same effect. The whole is becoming completely ridiculous now.
Global warming/climate change is now a solely liberal ideology.
Why did they stop at 2010? Will they repeat their claim for this decade? Unlikely, as the world is heading for cooling and we can all look back and mock them just like Viner. 🙂