Science Vs. Scientific American And NASA

This is how “Scientific American” reports on glacial melting now.

Alarming Sonar Results Show Glaciers May Be Melting Faster Than We Expected – Scientific American

There is no indication that sea level rise has accelerated.

680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia

This is how they reported on glacial melting in 1904.

Observations of the Alpine glaciers during a series of years have supplied proof that these great ice streams have long been in process of recession.

The information given on the map indicates that in the past fifty-three years the face of the glacier has retreated about eight miles. Not only is it shorter than it formerly was, but its mass has otherwise been reduced to a very considerable extent. The surface of the glacier now lies from 20 to 30 feet below its former level and the precipitous walls of rock that hem it in bear the record of this change of level. It is found also that the other glaciers in that neighbor; hood are in process of retreat, and the evidence collected by Dr. Engell shows that this process has been going on for a long series of years. This evidence would seem to show that for the past half century the summer heat has been greater than it was for at least a considerable period before that time

  • Scientific American  August 13, `1904

Scientific American – Google Books

And according to NASA, 1904 was the second coldest year on record.

graph.png (1130×600)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Science Vs. Scientific American And NASA

  1. Peter Lafferty says:

    Tony, did you get deplatformed at NewTube?

  2. arn says:

    Never waste a chance to brainwash,to indoctrinate,to intimidate to manipulate..

    Sonar Results (=science,high tech)
    Show(= proof)
    Glaciers(poor poor victim group that must be protected)

    MAY(the rhetoric trick.The get out of prison card if someone in the future remembers your lies.The backdoor in case you are wrong,as always,
    The word may contradicts all the previous alarmism and is nothing more than a cheap excuse,but people got so used to the word that it became integral part of modern science)

    melt faster than we expected(pretending the scientists predictions were right,but underestimated the scale)
    10-100* quicker than previously thought
    (the apocalypse is 1000* worse than we predicted)

    Without the use of the word may one tends to think that this all is 100% going to happen,
    and most people will ignore this word and memorize the catastrophy buzz words.

    Now one may ask:
    If the melt is 10-100*quicker than previously thought-
    what kind of science is this that is so far off that it missed the target by several magnitudes.
    And if the melt is 10-100* quicker,
    then Hansons sea level rise predictions should have become true within 4-36 months instead of 30 years,but they are not happening at all.
    And now we get to the conclusion:
    If incompetent scientists can miss the target by 10-100times
    (there is no need for scientists who miss the target by so much)
    then they could miss it also the other way around =
    the melt could be 10-100* slower than previously predicted,
    which is most probably true for all global warming,ice melt etc.

  3. G W Smith says:

    It’s not what the story says, it’s how it is said. The how is intended to mask and lead the what. The propagandists are artists and the readers are children. Child abuse is the crime.

    • paul courtney says:

      GW Smith: But the “what” is how we get to the “how”, and that’s when the “what” and the “how” are where we want the “when” to show the “how” the “what”.
      h/t AOC

  4. kzvx says:

    Junk science at its finest

  5. nobler says:

    Motto of Scientific American editorial board:
    When in danger
    Or in doubt
    Run in circles
    Scream and shout
    Burma Shave**

    **Okay, so they really said “Global Warming” but Burma Shave seems to fit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *