The Safe Climate Of 1931

Climate alarmists imagine the weather was better in the past when atmospheric CO2 levels were lower – but history doesn’t support their superstitions or childish belief systems.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The Safe Climate Of 1931

  1. GWS says:

    “Why do you need 100, if I had been wrong one would have been enough.” — Sounds reasonable to me. So, could not the same be asked about CO2 driving climate? But, for the dims, not one, not 100, not even 1000s is enough to topple their lie.

  2. Laurie says:

    ‘superstitions or childish belief systems’ – it’s much worse I’m afraid…

  3. Bob G says:

    I live right next to St Cloud Minnesota and our temperature records go back 140 years and our warmest year was 1931. our coldest year was 1950. our fourth coldest year was as recent as 1996. in February of 1996 Minnesota set it’s all time coldest record of 60 below zero. but that isn’t anywhere near the coldest it was. the official record temp has to be taken roughly five or six feet off the ground. when the temperature began to rise that morning, and the record was not going to go any lower the officials took the thermometer out of the box and walked it down a hill into the edge of a swamp and held that thermometer just above the snow and it went down to 70 below. but that’s unofficial. I think it does tell us a one or two degree change in temperature is meaningless. Al Gore and John Kerry are spouting off all the time about something that’s meaningless.

  4. Caleb Shaw says:

    Excellent! Especially enjoyed the concluding, “…. instead, they’re pushing the carbon dioxide scam which shows no correlation with (pause) anything.”

  5. czechlist says:

    Checked State Temperature records
    only 4 States recorded their maximum temps in this century (2 of which tied the records set in the previous century)
    (curiously Washington State set its record during 2021 at Hanford)
    Meanwhile 3 States set their low temp records this century.
    Highest remains 134F – only 78 degrees until “the oceans are boiling!” below sea level in the kalifornika desert.

  6. Frank says:

    this article is so insane I had to pass it along.

    Biden prints money so solar is cheaper, except you still need the coal fired plant.

    • conrad ziefle says:

      You can do all kinds of economic analyses, some of which might show that instantaneous cost of operating a solar plant or wind plant is cheaper than a fossil fuel plant, but when you consider reliability, the solar plant cost skyrocket because it needs a gas turbine or coal plant to firm up its reliability, whereas the fossil fuel plant alone provides the same reliability without the cost of the solar plant. If you want to compare solar to fossil fuels, you need to apply all the same rules that you used to apply to fossil fuel plants: life cycle cost including societal costs ( child labor collecting rare earths, open pit mines, water table damages, disposal costs, additional water table damages, unreliability and lost production, I’m sure there are more).

      • dm says:

        An alternative way of costing sustainable electricity also confirms it is v costly. Add to sustainable electricity’s direct costs the costs of goods & services LOST because of sustainable electricity’ shortcomings vs conventionally generated electricity.

        The internet, cell phone towers, electric stoves, light bulbs … can NOT be used at night if they are powered solely and in real time by solar panels. If powered by wind turbines, service will be frequently interrupted day & night.

        • conrad ziefle says:

          Well, those all would go into the kitchen sink that the progressive economists call societal costs. Literally, you can claim that fossil fuels give Native American shamans head aches and put a dollar value on that, and they probably do make that claim.

          • dm says:

            CF, turn-about is fair play;-}

            But, unlike the social cost of carbon fantasy (because what is included in the arithmetic is so lopsided), one can legitimately estimate what goods & services are lost when electricity is off AND one can legitimately value the goods & services.

    • arn says:

      If renewable energy would be so inexpensive
      it would have driven coal (and all other conventional energies)out of the market long time ago.
      But instead they need trillions of subventions,green new deals,demonising,propaganda and shutdown of conventional power plants – yet one renewable startup after another goes broke.
      Because renewables are still in their infancy.
      A show off only the rich can afford but won’t tolerate by any means on their own properties and communities (just as with immigrants)

      • conrad ziefle says:

        This has been the case since the 1970s. Every year the solar guys have claimed breakthroughs in cost that would put it in competition with fossil fuels, and every year, you and I, as individuals, have had to calculate in the government rebates to make a solar investment marginally profitable at some rate of return that is better than the average stock market, say 7-8%. This does not include the fact that in our calculations is a hidden benefit, biased rates, forced on the utilities by……. government intervention. So solar and wind have been propped up for about 50 years by these ongoing mechanisms. Currently, people in California are getting a whammy from the state, no more artificial rates that help alternative energy investments. Comically, this seems to have been the outfall of wokeness. Beneficial rates, it turns out, only benefit the rich, who are the only ones who can afford to make solar investments. So we get the right outcome: no artificial support for alternative energy, for the wrong reason: wokeness. If alternative energy were good, it would benefit all people, even renters who own nothing, because those they rent from would have lower rates which would help relieve the rent pressure on the renters. But wokeness is stupidity; it is the reduction of intelligence through the elevation of nonsense. It’s the replacing of science by tribal voodoo.

  7. dm says:

    Tony, hope you are enjoying life 24/7 for a while, rather than dealing with a sad matter that is preventing contributions to Real Climate Science.

    • Vegieman says:

      Should we know something?

    • conrad ziefle says:

      Yeah, if something is going on, let us know how to donate circumventing obstruction.

      • conrad ziefle says:

        Just to add on to this. Maybe there is a way that you can develop a “group of sustaining contributors” where each such person can provide an annual contribution of, some dollar amount which you set as needed from each one. You have our emails, I think maybe this can be done using one of those mail devices, ChimpMail, or something like that. Set the basis for the donation, such that the contribution can be used for anything you deem necessary to sustain your activity, so that you can spend the money as needed.

  8. John B says:

    Thanks Tony. One day the penny will drop with the general population that they are being had. Unfortunately, we have to have to get rid of the left from our educational systems, which is an almost impossible task.

Leave a Reply

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