Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 yearsâ
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earthâs hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
Recent Comments
- Luigi on Up Is Down
- Tel on Up Is Down
- Bob G on Up Is Down
- dm on The Clean Energy Boom
- arn on Up Is Down
- Bob G on Up Is Down
- arn on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on The Clock Is Ticking
- conrad ziefle on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on Climate Change In Spain
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Oh, another name to add to the list: Rasool.
Apparently Connolley thinks that the cooling scare was (at least partly) Leonard Nimoy’s fault, because you know.. he never had any actual scientists appear on “In Search Of..”
Global cooling was never a consensus.
Abstract:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Paper:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
It absolutely was a consensus, with every major scientific organization on board.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/
So where does “consensus” come into the scientific method? is that before faith and belief or after?
That’s the consensus where 97% of climate models run too hot when compared to 30 years of sat data, right?
I don’t understand why you can’t just get a group of experts in a room and everyone votes for what they think the solution to a scientific problem is. That can be the consensus, and we could save a fortune on research budgets. đ
It would only be consensus if they all agreed. Enforcing the agreement is the catch, and the process we’re now experiencing.
I think that is what the “team” has done – except for the savings of billions.
They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere.
Why? Was their understanding of the “century old established physics” so radically different in 1971? I don’t think so. Was the projections then for CO2 buildup in the atmosphere much different from what’s actually happened? No. But now if anyone suggests that CO2 is nothing to worry about he is deemed a denier and Flat Earther and some think he should put to death (!), but back then the Chief Fear Monger himself, James Hansen of NASA, despite the physics being the same and Hansen having the same PhD, said we needn’t worry about CO2. Now James Hansen says if CO2 levels were to rise much higher we would likely have a runaway greenhouse effect where “the oceans boil away.” Please!
What’s changed James Hansen? Do we need not worry at all, or are the oceans going to boil away? Which is it?
In 1973 Obama’s current Science Czar John Holdren said âa massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” This is what Holdren, Schneider, Hansen etc wanted to do. They wanted to advocate “de-development,” but they had to have a consistent fear mongering message. The feeling was that things were cold, so the message that “de-development will prevent global cooling” had an appeal. But they couldn’t also at the same time have the message that “de-development will prevent global warming.” They had to settle on one or other, cooling or warming, and they settled on cooling, and that left CO2 out in cold, so to speak.
But, it was true then, and it’s true now that there’s no actual evidence .. at all .. that CO2 affects climate temperatures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag
P.S.
Dr. S. H. Schneider as a lead ipcc author said in 1989: “âWe have to offer up scary scenarios⌠each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.â
Dr. James Hansen said in 2012: “If Canada proceeds [with its oil development] …Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planetâs species would be driven to extinction.” [yeah right!!]
“Chief executives of large fossil fuel companies [should] be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature.â -James Hansen, NASA [we need oil, idiot]
In the 1950’s people knew Australia was a dry desert continent that needed to carefully collect and store its fresh water. Now, alarmist say everything is “extreme” and “give me some money.”
Tumult and Adelong Times – 1950
“Australia generally had a lack of
abundant water resources and the
rainfall area was a narrow belt run
ning from Cape York to Victoria and
a small portion of Western Aus
tralia. As one came inland from the
coast the rainfall fell off from 50
to 60 inches down to 10 or 15 inches,
resulting in rapid change in vegeta
tion within a few miles. There were
no high mountains such as exist in
New Zealand, America, etc., which
form the origin of big river systems.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/139306045
Peer-review
1. In “science” a process by which initiates are tested to ensure their views match the consensus view of “science” and are now allowed to joint the hallowed ranks of this priesthood.
2. In Law – a process by which “scientists” will be assessed by our peers for the cost of economic damage their fraudulent assertions on the climate have caused.
3. On Skeptic blogs – an article by Lord Monckton
I hope it doesn’t mean what I think to “joint” the hallowed halls … In Canuck slang, that’s kinda crude! >;(