Most of West Antarctica and large areas of East Antarctica were once covered in rainforest, scientists say.
Today’s icy wasteland would’ve once played host to huge amounts of plant-life – during an unusually toasty period in history 90 million years ago.
Evidence for the rainforest suggests the climate was “exceptionally warm.”
How did it get so warm without mankind emitting CO2?
Source: Scientists discover Antartica had a lush rainforest 90 million years
If you just look at the thing they are trying to measure and the tools they are using to measure it (including the accuracy of thermometers 100 years ago), you can reasonably presume that this particular science is not very scientific. On my kitchen wall are three thermometers. Two use technology vastly superior to what was available 100 years ago. The third one uses fairly old technology. They are 17 inches apart. The room temperature is maintained by a state-of-the-art home heating system. As I write this, they read 68.0, 70.2, and 73. (Feel free to try this experiment at home.)
Source: How to Measure the Temperature of the Earth
The World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency letter published in the Bioscience journal boasted the signatures of 11,000 scientists lending the full weight of their useless degrees to order that “the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity.” Reducing populations for social integrity was the specialty of such innovative environmental activists as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mohammed…
And so a letter in Lancet Planetary Health by assorted scientists, grad students, people who claim to be scientists, and people who once watched an episode of Cosmos, demanded that meat consumption drop by 2030…
“We need another kind of escape route—away from our ideologies of ownership and property, and toward more collective, healthy, and just cities,’ the socialist rag argues.
What do you mean ‘we’? You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Source: Environmentalists Want To Take Your Food, Your Home, And Your Children.
Fifty years after the birth of modern plate tectonics theory, a group of researchers highlights three key examples of how our planet’s shape-shifting outer layer has altered our climate.
Some real ‘climate science’?
Source: Three Times Tectonics Changed the Climate – Eos
With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country”, who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter? Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields — their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in Biology; a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link — so I looked.
In keyword searches across 324 pages of signing signatories, spanning 11,224 scientists, I found 240 (2%) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists. As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as: infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change — let alone allow them to tell me how to live my life.
Source: Who are these ‘11,000 Concerned Scientists’?
Roughly a thousand years before the Sahara became incompatible with humans, an area the size of England sank beneath the waves. Humans lived there. We have evidence of that (as we do of pre-desert Sahara). Another big chunk of fertile human habitat that was there in the past and gone in the present. It sure as hell ‘aint a sunk just few millimeters in depth.
…I think of this sometime when people are publicly emoting over changes in a glacier…
How much CO2 was humanity responsible for then?
Source: Sahara Desert, Wobbly Basketballs, And Annoying Politics
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.
Source: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
A member of the audience, Martha Readyoff of New Milford, Conn., said to Sanders, “Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth.…”
That last statement invalidates the question. It is an unproven assumption. The question should have been met with derision.
If you’re wondering why so many young people are mired in despair, futility, and occasionally violent nihilism, try listening to the Democrat presidential field babbling for 7 hours about how humanity is a virus that must be culled to save the Earth.
Source: Democrats 2020: ‘Ban All the Things!’
You may have noticed that nearly all of the doomsday theories seem to begin with the phrase, “if current trends continue.” But, as I have just reviewed, current trends don’t continue. Global temperatures go down, then up, then stay flat. Population growth tapers off, new oil reserves are discovered, agricultural yields increase at even higher rates. Doomsday forecasters always overestimate gloomy trends and underestimate human ingenuity in problem solving.
Source: Fifty Years of Apocalyptic Global Warming Predictions and Why People Believe Them
Booker told the vegan magazine VegNews earlier this month that he became vegan after coming to the realization that eating eggs “didn’t align with my spirit.”
So it’s a religious thing with ‘Fartacus‘…
While claiming he does not want to lecture Americans on their diets, Booker says Americans need to be nudged into fake cheese because the planet cannot sustain the “environmental impact” of the food industry.
Nudged? Now he wants to impose his religion on others.
Source: Cory Booker: Planet Cannot Sustain People Eating Meat – Moonbattery
NPR is a hotbed of liberal idiocy. The fact that my taxes fund this tripe highly offends me.
I recently graduated with my Bachelor’s in environmental science, and I’m very interested in protecting the environment and teaching others about climate change. I want to know ways in which I can better explain myself to others, just regular people who might not have the education that I have about climate change, because from where I’m standing, it’s blatantly obvious what’s going on, and it just seems like we really need to come together and actually make a change, or there’s going to be a really bad end.
In this paragraph ‘education’ is synonymous with ‘indoctrination’. I would agree with his statement that ‘we need to come together and actually make a change’. The change that needs to be made is for NPR to quit promoting known falsehoods. Here’s another example of the falsehoods promoted by NPR:
Nothing the environmentalists are suggesting would cause harm.
Then why are you waiting for the government to adopt your policies? Just start living your life the way you want the government to force the rest of us to live. Be an example. Go live in a cave.
Source: NPR: How Do We Talk to the Dangerous Idiots Who Disagree With Us? – Washington Free Beacon
The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that what would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that — a belief. It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles. It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Got that. Let’s repeat:
It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Source: Chuck Todd Devotes an Hour to Attacking a Strawman
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body. It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change. Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet’s carbon cycle. The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.
Source: The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it.