Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “falsely labeling”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
Too bad they built coal-fired power plants and they killed themselves all off. Stupid thing to do.
Wasn’t this the same era modern climate scientists say it was proven that 2xCO2 will warm the planet by 4 deg C?
Negative. Arrhenius’s theory of 1890 was DIS-PROVEN around 1905 by the general consensus of the Royal Society.
“’s theory of 1890 was DIS-PROVEN around 1905 by the general consensus of the Royal Society.”
I need to see a link for that. When did a consensus without supporting evidence disprove anything?
Arrhenius became a member of the RS in 1910.
“When did a consensus without supporting evidence disprove anything?”
Just like global warming eh?
Maybe it is wrong to use “consensus” here, the experiments of R W Wood had been discussed and considered for publication by the Royal Society in 1909 in their transactions.
Wood’s experiments were described in detail in 1914 in the Philosophical Magazine, so the evidence of refutation of the “greenhouse” effect was (and remains, as far as I am concerned) experimental.
Arrhenius’s connection with the “greenhouse” idea was obscure, he was best (and correctly) recognized for his contribution to the theory of chemical reaction rates and the temperature dependence ,
as was Tyndall for his contribution sto colloid science, and Flourier to the astounding methodology of solution to heat conduction problems.
All of these, their ideas about the “greenhouse” effect, became recognized much later, upon the (recurring) chi-chi revival of the “atmospheric greenhouse effect”
Maybe Obama can send them some stimulus money to help them build more canals!