Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Gamecock on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- dearieme on COP29 Preview
- Greg in NZ on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- arn on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- Tel on UK Labour To Save The Planet
You see, the Red Queen and the White Queen are running as fast as they can to stay in the same place and poor Alice had to assist them even though the Red Queen said, ‘Off with his head!’ all the time. 🙂
This doesn’t make any sense… if the Pacific Current Changed well then.. to quote Hillary “What does it matter?”.. ya see a current shift would not affect Heat Content… a warm area may become cooler… but a cool area also has to become warmer…
Bottom Line Here: This is just excuse-making for their failed predictions!! The assertion here is that Global Warming is STILL HAPPENING… but this darn cold pacific water just masked it… for now!!
Scientific American is a very important publication. It has replaced corn cobs, the Sears Roebuck catalog and Charmin.
https://utahtransplant.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/sears-catalogue.jpg
Nice and agree completely.
Also agree. It’s sad when I remember how good the magazine once was.
Plus bird cage liner
Its title now constitutes a commentary and slur on both words.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0
Grace Slick now old and grey and not looking at all like the young model she once was is now painting rabbits
We all grow old! 🙁
Scientific American aka SP is neither scientific nor American. It is Stalin’s Propaganda.
Scientific American is published by the Macmillan Group.
The theoretical physicists have climbed into Schrödinger’s cat box.
Dr. Carl von Weizsacker was the theoretical nuclear physicist that advised Hitler’s incompetent builders of atomic bombs.
After WWII, nuclear physics textbooks in the Allied Nations changed:
Aston’s valid concept of “nuclear packing fraction” – that Japan and Allied Nations used to successfully build atomic bombs – was replaced with Weizsacker’s flawed concept of “nuclear binding energy” – that prevented Hitler from building the bomb.
Carl von Weizsacker’s concept of “nuclear binding energy”
_ a.) Exaggerates proton repulsion
_ b.) Ignores neutron repulsion . . . the energy source that causes causes heavy atoms to fission!
Thank goodness they were incompetent or none of us would be here. Or the few still left would be speaking German. If Hitler had not run off his Jewish scientists, the results might have been much different.
I see you’re continually posting this same bit of information..
What’s the point? … if I may ask??
Thanks for asking. The point is that the Weizsacker concept of nuclear binding energy is Wrong and Obscures the Sun’s source of energy – NEUTRON REPULSION!
What’s the point?
In the worldwide effort to hide the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Neutron Repulsion – the veracity of these major fields of study were destroyed after 1945: astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, geology, nuclear, particle, planetary, solar, space and theoretical physics.
Andy DC,
Knowledge is power and power can be used selfishly or to benefit society. Manipulation of knowledge after WWII led society into tyranny.
Yes, knowledge is power. That is the reason why politicians lie, lie, lie. They are addicted to power, and if they tell the truth, the listener gains a little power. Have you ever seen a drug addict giving away his stash? Ever seen a crack addict passing out free crack?
The more false historical scenarios you believe, the less you can predict what the future will be. The more economic lies you believe, the less you can protect yourself from thieves in suits. The more lies you believe, the less you are able to control your own life.
You beat me to the obvious punch line.
Or have they? I wasn’t there to see it.
You are not a theoretical physicist, and therfore not qualified to make litter box observations.
First rule of Climatology: If I say it, it is data. If YOU say it, it is an anecdote.
Is that the cardboard box cats are so fond of playing in, or the litter box?
The litter box. It’s either buried in there or not. You don’t know until you look.
It is FOS, so I would call it a litter box, and that would be kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aLPvDUbKFE
As I thought.
In the lower stratosphere can see the flow of air from the north to Central Europe.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f48.gif
Air pressures are higher in the south, so the flow of air is from south to Central Europe.
There has been a the first attack of winter in New Zealand.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.gif
Is there any validity to this Washington Post article? This doesn’t sound like the Heartland Institute to me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-deniers-are-in-retreat/2015/04/06/942eb980-dc9f-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html
It isn’t the Heartland Institute…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/07/wapos-dana-milbanks-epic-climate-change-fail/
The friend who sent me that link will give no credibility to Breitbart, or any other “conservative” or “denier” publication. Her e-mail was part of her response to my forwarding of the Reuters article about shipping being impeded by ice.
Gator, at least you confirmed my suspicions about the article. Thanks!
The source is not important, just give your friend the facts and have her attempt to refute them.
gator69 Facts don’t matter to a liberal. It is how you feel that counts.
Facts matter to me. So do freedoms, and truth. I am more “liberal” than most who claim to be “Liberal”. I am a “Libertarian”, and the problem is “Progressives”.
Thomas Jefferson was a “Liberal”, and a “Libertarian”.
But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
-Thomas Jefferson
You are right. Progressives like facts that make them feel good. I’d try some more climate facts but if it doesn’t work I’d follow up with archeology and things that make everyone feel good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW5wGvjH-3A
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/18th-century-sex-toy-found-in-ancient-latrine-150415.htm
So 300 years old is considered ‘ancient’ now ? That’s why so many people have been duped into thinking that the recent history of climate change is all there ever was !
The church in my village was built in the 1400’s and a hill on the horizon has a henge over 5000 years old on it…..and I would only call them old, they’re not really ancient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairnpapple_Hill
Donna, yours is the same issue we all run into. Its very, very difficult … if not impossible to get someone to change their mind on any political issue… especially “Climate Change”.. so … overall you are probably screwed.. Hey, anyone on here EVER get a light bulb to turn on in someone’s head regarding Global Warming.. where suddenly they were like “Yea, hey, there is data manipulation going on… it does seem like we’re being lied to… gosh, can’t believe what Jones/Mann said in those Climate-Gate emails!!”
I sympathize with your cause… I’ve been trying to convince a really Scientific guy I know that Global Warming is a Lie.. or at a minimum is vastly overstated… he says “Who am I going to believe… NASA or some guy’s Blog”.. uphill battle..
May I suggest sticking to one or 2 topics.. such as the Arctic Ice and Climate Gate… show her THIS chart and gauge her reaction… HOW did all these Glaciers retreat so vastly BEFORE the Industrial Revolution??: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/shock-news-alaska-glaciers-rapidly-retreating/
Next… several damning Climate Gate emails have been posted here… they can be googled as well.. try printing one out.. put it in front of this person.. and ask them what these “Scientists” were saying..
Good night and Good Luck..
I have converted many, but most of them know my educational background, and that makes it easier.
And it is’t only on political ‘science’ that I have been successful converting others. I am a Libertarian, and that neutralizes most of the defenses that ‘liberals’ put up, so they are more receptive to my viewpoint.
They certainly made it sound as if the Heartland Institute had reversed its position on climate change.
Lies, lies and more lies.
Both articles are available on lone (though one is mostly only for subscribers). Headlines are not articles. I find the juxtaposition of these two (one of which is a question) without further context misleading and unhelpful. Part of the issue is that headlines are terse eye-catchers, not arguments, and heat and temperature are not the same.
“on lone” s/b/ “online”
Gator, whenever I present facts, articles, links, charts, or graphs, her rebuttal always consists of such references as the WaPo article or quotations from official AGW publications.
Then send her this…
Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
They are full of syllogistic fallacies. (As well as false attributions.)
Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.
This is not debatable.
Gator, I agree. Did you think my response was a challenge?
No. Just making sure everyone understands the concept.
Here’s an example of what I’m dealing with:
(Me) It’s important to remember that things have warmed up, and glaciers have melted, since the Little Ice Age. This is a natural, expectable cycle.
(Friend) No, that idea has been ruled out. Here’s an explanation.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
Whenever I cite facts, or apply logic and common sense, that “appeal to *so-called* authority is the response. I see no independent reasoning here.
Make her prove it. Ask her for even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability of recent or any global climate changes. Then when she comes back with a paper, go to the abstract and find where they decsribe using a model, and point this out.
Models are tools, and not proof of anything. If she balks at that, ask her to do one more thing. List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them. If she cannot, and she can’t, then explain that the models are simply a convenient fiction that prove nothing, and have no predictive capabilities.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
They have nothing but models, and their models are miserable failures.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png
When you tell them that past models have failed, their argument is that “today’s models are now much more sophisticated and greatly improved, we now have MITscientists working on the problem with 200 IQ’s and super duper computers that can do quadrillions of equations in a second. Who are YOU to question all that wonderful science?”
How do you respond to that?
Ask them how the models have changed, and why we should believe them.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png
Really? only a combined IQ of 200?
Must be less than 5 of them, then.
Love those two quotes. Here’s another graphic that I like (and thanks again Gator for the tip on how to put graphics in):
img src = “http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png”
The above graphic is more convincing then most others that don’t make the stark failure of the climate models over the last two decades clear as day. That graphic is used here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Good, Gator, but what did I do wrong? I’ll try it again, this with no spaces around the = sign. And maybe typographical quotations marks were a problem, and you to go the standard ” quote marks. Here again:
img src=”http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png”
Do not preface the URL, place it in the comment as a stand alone like this…
http://www.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/
Leave room for the URL to be identified a separate entry.
Thanks again Gator. I must have done that before when you explained how to do it in this thread: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/experts-say-that-ocean-acidification-killed-flying-insects/#comment-513952
So another try (with no quotes around the url):
http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Glad to help Eric! I had the same issues when I first tried posting graphics, I am no cyber wizard. 😉
I gave up trying to cite any facts or logic. The answer I always get is “No” I will not even entertain an alternative view.” Trouble is one of these people is my brother with a BS and two MS degrees.
Never mind the degrees. What are his culinary preferences?
Has he ever eaten crow?
Hey annieoakley! I have the same results with a few people I know. Just out of curiosity, thy asking this: “Just to make sure we are both talking about the same thing, would you agree that if the average global temperatures are NOT going up, then the globe is NOT warming?”
It would be nice to know that they at least have the ability to conceptualize what “no global warming” means.
Try handing him these and ask him what the USA will be like 40 years from now if we follow the planned path.
In 1988, coal produced 57.0%. Nuclear energy generates ~19 percent. At present hydro/wind/solar power is 5% and nuclear is 9%. The other 86% of our energy sources are carbon based.
The most recent press release confirms this.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary November 11, 2014
FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation
President Obama Announces Ambitious 2025 Target to Cut U.S. Climate Pollution by 26-28 Percent from 2005 Levels
….Together, the U.S. and China account for over one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Today’s joint announcement, the culmination of months of bilateral dialogue, highlights the critical role the two countries must play in addressing climate change. The actions they announced are part of the longer range effort to achieve the deep decarbonization of the global economy over time. These actions will also inject momentum into the global climate negotiations on the road to reaching a successful new climate agreement next year in Paris.
The new U.S. goal will double the pace of carbon pollution reduction from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to 2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025. This ambitious target is grounded in intensive analysis of cost-effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law and will keep the United States on the right trajectory to achieve deep economy-wide reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050…..
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c
“Cool” movie trailer…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=28&v=ayN9TQP1PeM
I hope everyone has seen this 🙂
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/wind-farm-owners-upset-that-their-subsidies-may-end/
That’s horrible! Didn’t our resident wind baron say that onshore wind farms support a lot of jobs because they break often? What will all these people do?