Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Latest Research In Climate Science
- UK Sucking Carbon
- Price-Free Tesla
- Four Years Past The Deadline
- Cooling Minnesota
- UK Net Zero
- Erasing 1921
- “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Warming Toledo
- One Year Left To Save The Planet
- Cold Hurricanes
- Plant Food
- President Trump Gets Every Question Right
- The Inflation Reduction Act
- Saving The Ecosystem
- Two Weeks Past The End Of The World
- Desperate State Of The Cryosphere
- “most secure in American history”
- “Trump moves to hobble major US climate change study”
- April 11, 1965 Tornado Outbreak
- The CO2 Endangerment Finding
- Climate Correlation
- What Me Worry?
- Heatwaves Of 1980
- More Proof Of Global Warming
Recent Comments
- gordon vigurs on Latest Research In Climate Science
- gordon vigurs on UK Sucking Carbon
- Bob G on Latest Research In Climate Science
- Tel on Latest Research In Climate Science
- Tel on UK Sucking Carbon
- william on One Year Left To Save The Planet
- Bob G on UK Net Zero
- arn on One Year Left To Save The Planet
- conrad ziefle on One Year Left To Save The Planet
- Ulric Lyons on Erasing 1921
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!