“Countless Scientists”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to “Countless Scientists”

  1. Peter Carroll says:

    Back to the 1970’s.The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has a chart showing the number and intensity of cyclones hitting Australia, dating back to 1970, when the planet had a ‘very safe’ level of CO2, of 320 ppm.
    This chart shows a very clear decrease in cyclone activity around Australia. When it was first published, the chart was colored, in two shades of blue, dark blue and light blue. A month later it was changed to the mandatory, scary, climate change colors of, red and yellow.
    I’ll bet my bippy, the next version will show an, “adjusted”, much flatter chart, showing very little, or no, decrease. I just wish I could do a “screen print”, like I used to be able to do with the old Windows program.

  2. arn says:

    The “350 ppm safe carbon level” is just a new propaganda buzzterm and ultimate truth
    (or in this case:desired goal that must be reached no matter what(while they are 100% aware that it can never be reached)
    for further indoctrination.)
    BS that was most probably created by the Bilderberg group
    or some other globalist group for indoctrination.

    Therefore noone of the ‘experts’ will ever wonder,
    why round numbers are always the main tipping point and not numbers
    that ends with a 5,4 or 7.
    (the answer is simple:Just as alliterations(build back better,fridays for future)it is easier for human brains to memorize round numbers and therefore
    the propaganda and scare effect is much bigger)

    Noone will ask why and how life on earth survived during millions and millions
    of years of co2 levels far above 350 ppm?

    And noone will ask how ‘scientist’ who on the one hand are even too dumb and too slow
    to correctly measure the constant sea level rise of 3 mm per year thats going on for millenias,(so they can sell the “we will all drown” scare)
    have on the other hand the incredible skills and accuracy to predict
    the climatic impact of a millionth increase of co2 .

  3. JPinBalt says:

    I worked on this issue in late 80s. Hansen’s doom porn forecast was nothing less than an excuse used to increase NASA (and DOE) funding. From 1981 to 2013, Hansen was the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Career
    This was a period when oil prices collapsed, Reagan was President, and the 70s Energy Crisis spending on conservation was cut back along with discretionary gov budgets. Hundreds of bureaucrats and scientists in Washington DC were scrambling to recreate themselves to create employment and AGW was a thing to throw money at to study as opposed to propaganda to promote energy efficient appliances. NASA was on top of it to use potential disaster as key excuse to get millions of $ allocated to it by Congress.

    This was a money thing to keep agency budgets. In UK it was a political thing as Thatcher battled the unionized and nationalized coal industry with conservative gov throwing money at the Hadley Centre for Climate Research and Prediction,
    https://www.masterresource.org/climate-exaggeration/thatcher-alarmist-to-skeptic/ There was also a seeding to the IPCC. These government entities grew like weeds to take a direction on their own to promote theories and doom porn to preserve their existence and the well being of those deriving their incomes from such.

  4. Conrad Ziefle says:

    I think the phrase “Countless Scientists” is being misunderstood. It really means scientists who can’t count, and therefore are not scientists at all. Did anyone see that goofball on CNN talking about how they have been watching the ice melt in the Artic for decades? Now, she says (finally) black things are poking through giving “feedback” to the warming effect. From the graphs that I’ve seen here, it seems that for decades the Artic ice has gone up and down cyclically, mostly within two standard deviations of the mean, so I don’t know what she has been watching for decades.
    On the other hand, can you imagine anything more boring than being a “climate scientist?” By definition you have to wait three life times to accumulate solid evidence that your theory is correct. Knowing this, they just voodoo up stuff to make themselves the high priests of progressives. It’s amazing how universities have given over large portions of their campuses to voodoo priests.

Leave a Reply to Peter Carroll Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.