Category: Science: Environmental

Is the Earth’s Climate History Largely a Fraud? | Power Line

In this debate, there are two types of evidence. The first is the raw material of science, observation. The second is climate models…

means video games

created by alarmists for the purpose of generating scary scenarios. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with science understands that observation (type 1) trumps theory (type2). Which is a serious problem for the left-wing warmists, since temperature records show that their models are wrong.

Source: Is the Earth’s Climate History Largely a Fraud? | Power Line

Articles: Hurricanes, Climate Models, and Wild Guesses

Despite myriad predictions of monster storms after Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, there were not a plethora of superstorms to follow. Why not? These megastorms were predicted based on the “settled science” of global warming, climate change, severe weather, and the like.

Source: Articles: Hurricanes, Climate Models, and Wild Guesses

Blog: You just might be a Progressive Democrat if…

If you believe that being gay is hardwired and unchangeable but insist that male and female are merely social constructs and that folks can change their “gender identities” from one day to the next, there’s a good chance you are a Progressive Democrat.

Source: Blog: You just might be a Progressive Democrat if…

When Too Little CO2 Nearly Doomed Humanity – Dennis Avery

Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the C02 level was about 2200 ppm—still five times the current level.

Source: When Too Little CO2 Nearly Doomed Humanity – Dennis Avery

Articles: Academic Global Warming Advocates and the Power of Incoherent Jargon

Certainly it is a worthy thing to study ways to provide security and resilience for our cities. However, if you start with an unchallenged belief in imaginary global warming, you are going to end up making things worse. Substituting wind or solar power for conventional power plants does not provide greater energy security, for obvious reasons. Worrying about fashionable, imaginary water shortages distracts from real urban problems such as crime or broken families. Worrying about food security is fairly comical given the obesity epidemic.

Source: Articles: Academic Global Warming Advocates and the Power of Incoherent Jargon

Publications – Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming | Heartland Institute

Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability?

Free copy of the book in pdf format. Link is in the article.

Source: Publications – Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming | Heartland Institute

Introducing The People’s Current Truth App!

The People’s Current Truth App™ requires some permissions

· Location

· Pictures

· Texts

· Social Security number

· Bank account

· Access to all other financial assets

· Access to all social media

· 24/7 tracking and surveillance

· Frontal lobe access

· Block inappropriate reading, viewing, and unapproved historical material

Source: Introducing The People’s Current Truth App!

The WaPo’s lovely palpitations about new EPA head Scott Pruitt

The funniest thing about the article is the authors’ (yes, “authors,” as it took two of them to write this steaming pile of ignorance) . . . the authors’ certitude that consensus is the same as science. In WaPo land, there is no solar activity; there are no pauses in the warming; there aren’t any computer simulations that were decisively wrong; there are no laughable predictions about 20 foot increases in the ocean’s level or double-digit temperature increases; and, most significantly, there is no record of fraud.

Source: The WaPo’s lovely palpitations about new EPA head Scott Pruitt