NOAA has launched a new sea level website which is based on unsupportable claims and appeals to authority.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
- “We Are From The Government And We Are Here To Help”
- Blinken Not Happy Yet
- Chief Executive Kamala
- “Investigated And Discredited”
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on Woke Grok
- Disillusioned on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Jehzsa on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- arn on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- czechlist on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- arn on Woke Grok
- Francis Barnett on Woke Grok
- Gordon Vigurs on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Gordon Vigurs on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Ivan G Wainwright on Maldives Underwater By 2050
good article in the New York Post by Bjorn Lomberg…. except for one line where he has to throw a bone to the climate hoax crowd where he states that climate change is real and is man-made. what’s real about it? sure, climate has changed in the past and it can be easily documented. there is no climate change right now and that’s why they need fraudulent documentation to try and prove their hoax. https://nypost.com/2024/09/15/opinion/shrinking-island-vanishing-polar-bears-the-climate-scare-stories-that-turn-out-to-be-false/
Listen folks,
all climate change predictions are fake
therefore climate change is real.
This is a real environmentalist, who longer ago saw that the climate change mob was diverting money from real environmentalism to a minor problem, essentially a scam on the unscientific public. I believe that there might be man made climate change in micro-regions, like cities. Actually, burning fossil fuels might counter this by inducing greater plant growth outside the urban areas. I’m pretty sure that no one has made a comprehensive study of this. I’m not even sure that they can.
“This is a real environmentalist, who longer ago saw that the climate change mob was diverting money from real environmentalism to a minor problem, essentially a scam on the unscientific public.”. Excellent point Mr Z!
But when you have a propaganda news outlet running interference for you, you can pretty much get away with all the fake predictions you can generate. From last night’s PBS NewsHour program in America:
———————————
“Nation’s top weather and climate service faces potential political storm”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/nations-top-weather-and-climate-service-faces-potential-political-storm
PBS NewsHour host John Yang: “… By July, the National Weather Service had issued some 13,000 severe thunderstorm warnings, 2,000 tornado warnings and 1,800 flash flood warnings. Weather Service and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, are targeted for drastic changes in Project 2025, that’s the roadmap for the next conservative president. Many of its authors are former Trump administration officials, although the former president has tried to distance himself from it. …
NewsHour guest Union of Concerned Scientists policy director Rachel Cleetus: “… NOAA’s Weather Service is providing information that helps communities get prepared ahead of things like extreme heat waves, major storms and hurricanes, when we have these flooding events, when we have wildfires, this agency is crucial in providing the kind of information that helps first responders get out ahead, helps communities prepare and saves lives, frankly. So attacking this agency, attacking the science that it’s doing is really damaging to the public. They would like the private sector to run rampant and not be fettered by any kind of guardrails. And we all know that the climate crisis is accelerating, getting worse, having an impact on our economy as well as the environment. …”
this line really caught my attention: “They would like the private sector to run rampant and not be fettered by any kind of guardrails”. these government fascists really piss me off. they have no clue about the value of the free market. what keeps the private sector from running rampant is competition from other similar businesses and customers that aren’t going to buy from you if you don’t provide value for the dollar. compare that to the post office, when they lose money they just raise prices. their Monopoly on first class mail makes that possible not to mention their control of a mailbox which can only be used by them. of course modern technology has bitten into that somewhat by paying online rather than mailing a bill. I’m surprised they haven’t tried to outlaw paying online. lol. if that analogy doesn’t work for you give this one a try…. The Biden Harris administration built 8 EV charging stations when they had 8 billion dollars to spend. I would call that rampant…. rampant incompetence!!! and no consequences
That same line sent smoke out my ears, too. Pure psychological projection from that Union of VERY Concerned Scientists rep. It’s the deepstate gov unelected climate mobsters who are the ones running rampant unfettered by guardrails. Namely, the requirement of justifying their work via proven science, to the public who pays their paychecks.
One more line bothered me: — “… So this [Project 2025] document is just an incredible assault on science based policy making ….”
Notice the implication from the UVeryCS rep: What do you do with folks assaulting government agencies? You jail them for insurrection. How do tyrants remain in power? They eliminate their opposition by any means possible
By guard rails do they mean like the chute they herd cattle down to their slaughter? Spell check has gotten worse. It tried to change herd into heard.
What else do you expect from people who lack the competence needed to survive in the private sector?
For over four decades, global warming and sea level models and projections have been a house of cards built on unscientific conjecture, followed by manipulation of data after the predictions began failing, to keep the house of cards erect for as long as possible. The longer they keep abusing the data, the more ridiculous their massively financed, but rickety scam becomes. Today, only people with mental frailty could believe in the criminal enterprise known as climate change.
Mr D., your comment reminded me of this. “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”. quote attributed to a British economist from years ago.
Amen Bob.
I like they way they refer to the ‘intermediate scenario’ as if it were a most moderate, reasonable prediction, when in fact it is pure humbug. The sea level plots ought to be labelled more accurately, starting from the worst; we have : ‘ludicrous’, ‘absurd’, ‘ridiculous’, ‘fantastic’ and ‘improbable’. The piece would then be correctly entitled: ‘under the ridiculous scenario’. Not so dramatic, but more truthful.
Funny! what a coincidence, those are the same chances that the Minnesota Vikings have in winning the super bowl.
I was given this essay which purports to be a history of Climate science from the time of Tyndall to the present day. It’s very long and contains lots of references to varies papers from scientists. As you would expect it tells the story from the danger of CO2 point of view but it is convincing to anybody that is not exposed to counter arguments and data. I can’t challenge any of it as I’m certainly not from a scientific background but it’s well worth reading, give yourself a couple of hours, to see how one sided most of science is.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
I am in the same boat. I was terrible in math so I had to change my major from physics to history. Now, 50 years later, I’m glad I did. I still have my love for physics but my study of history is now more useful to me.
That’s why I love Tony’s web site so much. He carefully tracks what has happened in the past without engaging in historical revisionism-something I abhor. This is where we can nail climate alarmists. We remind them what they previously claimed.
They claimed in the year 2000 that snow will become a “rare and exciting event” and “children will just not know what snow is.” Now, 25 years later, Michael Mann claims that climate change can produce more snow. That’s how he explains heavy blizzards now.
We nail them on this by using history. We remind them, as Richard Feynman once said, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is… if it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Well, observations proved their theory wrong. We rub their faces in their failed predictions.
That’s how non-technical people can beat these gibberish spouting “experts.” You don’t need a technical or science degree to do this. Just point out where they went wrong. They have been wrong about polar bears, sea level rise, the Great Barrier coral reef and snow. We just need to rub it in their faces.
Did a quick 30 second scroll by, but i think sticking needles in my eyes would be preferential to reading that from cover to cover.
At equilibrium a body re-radiates what it absorbs. The absorptivity of a gas is therefore irrelevant to its equilibrium temperature. The belief that absorptivity influences the equilibrium temperature is the fundamental error in the greenhouse effect conjecture. It is an established belief, just as the geocentric universe was the established belief for 1200 years. Challenging it meets with the same vilification as the protagonists of the heliocentric universe experienced. It remains supported almost entirely by appeals to authority, much as the geocentric system was in the time of Galileo.
This was meant as a reply to Michael Abbot, in response to the reference cited.
Thanks Gordon