Life has thrived on earth for at least 540 million years.
The Washington Post says earth is close to the coldest of the last 500 million years, and says this provides “a warning on the consequences of human-caused warming”
Scientists calculate Earth’s temperature changes over 485 million years – The Washington Post
We are fifteen degrees cooler than the average over 485 million years, yet One degree will cause the end of the world, according to the ‘irrefutable settled science’.
97 % of the time it was way warmer than current temperature+1.5 degrees
and even + apocalyptical 3 degrees,
yet 97 % of scientists believe that temperatures that are even in the worst case runaway warming scenario 10 + degrees cooler than average will burn the planet and kill all life.
Imagine you’d try to tell a cook that the duck he used to bake 90 min at 200 degrees C will suddenly burn away in 60 minutes at 150 degrees.
97 % of the time it was way warmer than current temperature+1.5 degrees
and even + apocalyptical 3 degrees,
yet 97 % of scientists believe that temperatures that are even in the worst case runaway warming scenario 10 + degrees cooler than average will burn the planet and kill all life.
Imagine you’d try to tell a cook that the duck he used to bake 90 min at 200 degrees C will suddenly burn away in 60 minutes at 150 degrees.
You can say that again… except the experts will be floundering in d’Nile while asking for more research funds.
Odd how the graph is like an upside-down Hokey Shtick.
It’s literally the only real hockey stick in climate science.
The only other one is the increase of (unjustified) funding of climate quacks.
Even better. If we look at most of the last 2.6 million years (Ice Age) Canada would have been under ice.
So why Canadians want it colder is just crazy.
You might be a pseudoscientist?
The comedian Jeff Foxworthy used to do a routine “you might be a redneck” which was humorous, but provided helpful tests to determine if you, or someone you know, might be a redneck. For example, “if your carryon luggage is a Walmart bag, you might be a redneck.” Or my favorite, “if you and your dog use the same tree, you just might be a redneck.”
With the proliferation of pseudoscience in an array of scientific disciplines (especially climate), I think it might be useful to adapt the Jeff Foxworthy routine as a way to help identify pseudoscientist. For example:
When the data disagrees with theory, you adjust the data until it agrees, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think consensus is a good way to establish scientific truth, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you refuse to debate your theory with anyone that disagrees, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you ever use the phrase “the science is settled”, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you ever use the phrase the “science says”, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think correlation proves causation, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you only cite data that supports your theory while ignoring any data that disproves it, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If predictions based on your theory are never correct but you still insist your theory is fact, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
You admit to being poor at math, but insist you are a good scientist, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If your theory violates thermodynamic laws, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If no matter what happens, you claim your theory predicted it, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
I’m sure there are many more, but the above list should be a good start for identifying pseudoscientist. Feel free to add to it.
If the only way you can win the debate is by silencing your opponents, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If your principal argument is consists of abuse, insults, and smearing the opposition, you just might be a pseudoscientist
If frightening children and the gullible is more important than seeking the truth, you just might be a pseudoscientist
or a Democrat Politician or World Economic villain like Clause
SUPERB!!!
+1
Excellent list. Keep ’em coming!
Great rant. Attach some photo to it and post at X. It’ll probably go viral.
“…offered a warning on the consequences of human caused warming.”
As I read these words a lawyer term came to mind:
Assumes facts not in evidence.
while us good souls debate whether human existence is on the precipice or not, the national weather service is on to more important matters. headlines, they’re changing the definitions of some weather forecasting. the one that caught my eye is a hard freeze will no longer be called a hard freeze. apparently that offended men that can’t get hard and women that have hard heads. the next time you hear a weather forecaster say cover your plants tonight because we are expecting a blank freeze tonight, you will know what they’re talking about. sadly, those under 5 years of age, will never know what a hard freeze is. lol
So these woke asinine idiots believe ice does not get hard? Let’s throw some ice cubes at them, or throw them onto an ice rink butt first.
Isn’t that one of the rules to effect a change towards marxist or communist or autocratic society? That is to alter the definitions of words. Woke, looney lefties cannot win their arguments by logical means, so they move the goalposts, change word meanings and outlaw free thinking in the process of changing word meanings.
Tony, between the mid 1970s and late 1980s, what “facts” persuaded climate alarmists to switch from warning of a pending ice age to warning of boiling oceans? The question is asked because I have not heard or seen an explanation for the sudden switch. Recommending articles about the switch will suffice as an answer.
Eemian interglacial was warmer than today so the drawing is incorrect
According to them, for most of bio-history, the temperature has been between 50-80F. I’m surprised that they show our current situation as being in the 50s, when they so often say that global warming has raised it to the low 60s. I don’t know where they are coming from when they admit that we are currently below the mean average global temperature, but say that we are causing the temperature to rise. It seems like it is destined to rise even if there were no humans, like it did from 340 million years ago until about 100 million years ago. If anything, the graph makes the argument that humans have nothing to do with global temperature. But they are journalists, so you would not expect them to see that.
The other thing is that CO2 decreased sharply for most of this period when temperatures were increasing. So their graph also argues for CO2 having nothing to do with temperature changes. Thank you Washington Post, for the fine science article. Next time, just present the graphs and leave out the writing, it’s less confusing.