In 1989, the UN said we only had until the year 2000 to save the planet from global warming.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
The deadline has been pushed back, and now the planet won’t be destroyed until 2050
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Fifteen Year Old Children In Australia Control The Weather
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Francis Barnett on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- Billyjack on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
The world always ends in a year with a round number.
Must be some very serious and accurate science.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
— Michael Crichton, 2003
NOTE: The whole bit is Crichton. I messed up on the formatting.
It seems to me that CONSENSUS is used as main(and cheapest) weapon by Malthusians to keep population numbers down.
Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops.
Albert Einstein.
“Consensus is the business of politics.”
The bandwagon effect is a powerful human instinct. The consensus drives people to get on board, no matter how stupid the cause. Climate change is widely believed because climate change is widely believed. Facts are useless against people’s beliefs. They will glaze over when you try to help them, and not hear a word you say.
Indeed, consensus is ANTI-science.
Your word choice appears to be errant. People like Semmelweis were not “skeptics” of the prevailing wrong theory. In modern terms, they were “deniers.” Even the Wall Street Journal uses the term “denier” these days at least in reference to climate issues.
Loved his stories and his anti-consensus point of view. But what about Louis Pasteur and spontaneous generation, which was the consensus, until he proved it wrong.
my son-in-law is in Las Vegas this week so I’ve been watching the weather report there. just about every day, recently, it reaches 115° in Vegas around 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. and right before the sun comes up the next day it’s roughly 85°, a 30° loss in 13 hours. if that’s a greenhouse, it’s a darn poor one. this scam has been going on now for 40 years and apparently it’s going to go on for another 40 if we don’t cut the funding off of all these bought and paid for so-called experts. in Trump’s first administration he talked about getting a panel together to debate the subject with opposing sides. it never happened but I sure hope he does that if he wins in November. back to Vegas for a second, away from the Vegas heat island it’s always cooler in nearby Boulder City. sometimes a lot cooler.
Claiming that gases can ‘trap heat’ is equivalent to claiming sunbeams can be caught in a bucket. Quite obviously, the heat was re-radiating to space, regardless what greenhouse gases were in the way. Greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation, it is true, but by Kirchoff’s Law they re-radiate it, and at equilibrium, what is absorbed is re-radiated, so effectively passes straight through. The plots of atmospheric absorption, so enthusiastically promoted by alarmists, show attenuation of a narrow beam, to which Beer’s Law applies. The attenuation occurs because energy is radiated out of the beam Such loss is impossible in an atmospheric layer because it cannot radiate laterally, all the absorbed radiation must be re-radiated under equilibrium conditions. The ‘greenhuse effect’ is arrant nonsense. Even greenhouses don’t work by the ‘greenhouse effect’. It is the modern Piltdown man; a complete hoax telling the community what they want to hear.
Stop being Scientifically sound Sur. In the era of the Internet where you can read any scientific paper you eisk 24/7/365 days a year but Humans stay IGNORANT. Sometimes I feel like I am in the Dark Ages…Bones of Star Trek???
I stupidly imagined that those who can understand the science have integrity and honesty.
115° in Vegas with a 25° dew point doesn’t feel as bad to me as 95° in SC with a 75° dew point.
Heat index tables say I’m wrong, but it’s what I feel.
from what I’ve been seeing the past week in Vegas, when it’s 115 the humidity has only been about six percent
Bob G,
Las Vegas is desert. So, by definition there will not be much of a greenhouse effect. Deserts are well known for being very hot during day and cooling off a lot at night.
But, yes, there will be a large UHI effect and will have increased over the years as they add more buildings and concrete to Las Vegas. And more A/Cs and people and cars, etc.
The government under Trump needs to fund contrarian hypotheses studies on global warming, detailed auditing of models and key studies which are the main stays of the global warming theory, complete revision of the data gathering system and its administrators. Maybe take it away from NOAA. Defund any studies which have been given on the basis of “impacts of global warming (climate change) on x,y,z.”
Our star been has quite active during the current solar maximum which will continue for another year. Our magnetic field has been weakening for decades. and a pole shift or Carrington event may be loomng.
Methinks those electromagnetic effects contribute more to our weather events than any or all GHGs. If our magnetic shield continues to decline and/or the poles shift the Climate Change fanatics predictions will be realized but their “theory” will still be rubbish.
The magnetic fields of the Sun and Jupiter are considered to be the reason for extreme temperature peaks.
Yet this is completely ignored for the earth.
for sure
Czech, speaking of, we just had a Carrington event!! freight train derails in a fireball in rural Carrington North Dakota! but seriously, I’ve never heard it called the Carrington event, but had heard of the event which occurred in 1859. changing subjects, in our list of what’s NOT making the news is the Panama canal. you may recall that 6 months ago “climate change” and an El nino was causing a terrible drought in Panama, which was negatively affecting the canal. never mind, Gatun lake, which feeds the canal, is now at a level that’s above average for July.
https://www.space.com/the-carrington-event
With our weakened magnetic field a less powerful solar eruption could disable satellites and electrical grids knocking us back into a pre-industrial society
Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again,
and what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
A chasing after the wind.
Electromagnetic effects cannot be used as an excuse for preventing access to affordable energy. Believing the climate hoax is promoted out of concern for mankind is the height of naivety. According to Klaus Schwab, the climate hoax is essential to justify the ‘great reset, without which the entire edifice collapses. That is why the climate crisis is so aggressively promoted, despite the complete absence of evidence or sound scientific basis. Smearing opponents and censoring alternative explanations is the clearest proof that it is humbug promoted for purely political reasons.
And…if the Beaufort Gyre reverses…ICE AGE HERE WE COME! Remember chew & swallow quickly or food will be found in your mouth 10000 years later??????
I’ve heard both: The flares cause warmer weather, and the flares cause more clouds, making cooler weather. It seems that right now we are getting hotter weather, during the current flareup.
Just looking at the Arctic ice currently, and it will be quite interesting to see what the end of July shows. Weather patterns are not looking too bad. They are quite variable, allowing for more ice to survive. Earlier in the year, we had a high pressure ridge over NE Canada that kept a fairly strong easterly flow across the Hudson Bay, which piled the ice rather thick on the W side, and also, caused the ice to blow out of the W areas of the CA Archipelago in to the Beaufort Sea. Watching to see how long the ice lasts in the Hudson this year. Normally it’s all gone by the end of the month, but there’s a possibility it my survive a little longer, as it’s a bit thick from being piled up. Kara Sea is also pretty full yet, which we haven’t seen much of in recent years, especially it’s S end. Chukchi Sea looks pretty good, too, considering most recent years it has been on the lower side.
My understanding of statistics is that there is an easy test to determine whether “this” is different from “that”; that being data set one, and this being data set two. Data set one could be all temperature data from the late 1800s to say 1980 and two could be all temperature data since. Even if the temperature peak in one is higher than in two, it doesn’t mean there is a statistical difference, the higher peak is just a random outlier.
The GHCN code download link is still broken.
I saw the claim of Palm Springs breaking temperature record with 124 deg and thought I would check how accurate the claims might be.
https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/historic-heat-wave-set-topple-all-time-temperature-records-west
So I remembered the GHCN code that you had, but no longer had access to the
computer where I had run it previously and thought I would download afresh.
Google claims the file does not exist and says there is no cached version either.
Thanks for your efforts.
Las Vegas sets a new high temperature record of 120. if you look at the graph it was 120 for about 5 minutes. probably jet blast. but in case it wasn’t jet blast let’s spend a trillion dollars so it never happens again. :-). https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/nv/las-vegas/KLAS/date/2024-7-7
Off topic but climate style – pro Western ‘Russian’ MSM Mediazona in cooperation with BBC used to track down numbers of Russian soldiers which went pretty well along with the leaked 8 : 1 ratio of Ukraine : Russian soldiers.
They doubled the number of Russian victims overnight by using a new Algorhytm (probably the AGW 2030 soros) using ‘probate’ and ‘flash’ methheads to 120K .
Seems Ukraine has started to lose very very badly if they have to go that far.
everybody’s losing in that stupid war. the Russian Ukraine war is the most senseless war since the Falkland islands war. changing subjects …here it is almost the middle of meteorological summer and we still haven’t hit 90 in the twin cities of Minnesota this year.
Yet June was officially the hottest month ever 🙂
And in terms of war : Read Rand corporations strategical paper “Overstretching Russia ” ( with a war in Ukraine) from 2019 !!
The taking out of North Stream was also a main topic.
We are having a pretty darned hot July here, but June was not. We had very few 90 days through June. In July we have already had 4-5 100 degree days.
I am a spring chicken – only 78 years old.
I therefore really do appreciate the 50 years reprieve granted to me by these Oh So Wise men.