Fact checking NASA climate predictions from 1986 using app.visitech.ai
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Fact Checking NASA
- Bob G on Fact Checking NASA
- Bob G on Fact Checking The New York Times
- Bob G on Fact Checking The New York Times
- Bob G on Fact Checking The New York Times
- Bob G on Fact Checking The New York Times
- arn on Fact Checking The New York Times
- conrad ziefle on Fact Checking The New York Times
- arn on Fact Checking The New York Times
- Bob G on Fact Checking The New York Times
Good job Tony. but just sayin…most of what you report is over my head. I’m still struggling with this to report. …. how is it that where I live, in South Central Minnesota…how did the afternoon temperature at 3 09 pm in St Cloud Minnesota, reach three below zero yesterday, and the all time record low high for yesterdays date is also three below zero ? just to get you up to speed, roughly 135 years ago the CO2 level in St Cloud Minnesota was under 300 parts per million and now it’s 420. so how can it be as cold now as it was a hundred years ago… when we have so much more CO2 in the atmosphere??? how come all the additional CO2 didn’t warm our weather? could it be that CO2 is a Trace gas? and doubling a trace gas does not make a tiny bit of difference? I’ve presented this information to our local University meteorologist and he told me the science is settled and don’t bother him anymore with this crap… ok. and Santa will be coming soon.
The idea of a ‘fact check’ pre-supposes that knowledge consists of facts, i.e. phrases that can be parroted with no understanding of the underlying governing principles (the relationships between facts). As Henri Poincare put it; ‘knowledge is no more a collection of facts than a pile of bricks constitute a house’. ‘Fact checking’ is an insidious attempt to suppress discussion, particularly when the official narrative is shaky, if not downright nonsensical. The underlying theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is arrant nonsense, so it is not surprising that it is not supported by actual measurements. It is a post hoc conjecture based on the single observation that Venus turned out to be hotter than anticipated, No independent, testable hypothesis has ever been promoted, let alone subjected to experiment. Various demonstrations of the absorptivity of CO2 prove nothing beyond an inability to distinguish contrast from irradiance or energy from power. As science it is rubbish, even in conceot. Its protagonists are more showmen than scientists, starting of course, with Carl Sagan