By Rob Bradley writing at IER
“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”
— Philip Shabecoff, “Global Warming Has Begun.” New York Times, June 24, 1988.
It has been 30 years since the alarm bell was sounded for manmade global warming caused by modern industrial society. And predictions made on that day—and ever since—continue to be falsified in the real world.
The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988—and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff—constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).
Erroneous Predictive Scares
Consider the opening global warming salvo (quoted above). Dire predictions of global warming and sea-level rise are well on their way to being falsified—and by a lot, not a little. Meanwhile, a CO2-led global greening has occurred, and climate-related deaths have plummeted as industrialization and prosperity have overcome statism in many areas of the world.
Take the mid-point of the above’s predicted warming, six degrees. At the thirty-year mark, how is it looking? The increase is about one degree—and largely holding (the much-discussed “pause” or “warming hiatus”). And remember, the world has naturally warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age to the present, a good thing if climate economists are to be believed.
Turning to sea-level rise, the exaggeration appears greater. Both before and after the 1980s, decadal sea-level rise has been a few inches. And it has not been appreciably accelerating. “The rate of sea level rise during the period ~1925–1960 is as large as the rate of sea level rise the past few decades, noted climate scientist Judith Curry. “Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans don’t seem to be to blame for the early 20th century sea level rise, nor for the sea level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.”
The sky-is-falling pitch went from bad to worse when scientist James Hansen was joined by politician Al Gore. Sea levels could rise twenty feet, claimed Gore in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, a prediction that has brought rebuke even from those sympathetic to the climate cause.
Now-or-Never Exaggerations
In the same book/movie, Al Gore prophesied that unless the world dramatically reduced greenhouse gasses, we would hit a “point of no return.” In his book review of Gore’s effort, James Hansen unequivocally stated: “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”
Time is up on Gore’s “point of no return” and Hansen’s “critical tipping point.” But neither has owned up to their exaggeration or made new predictions—as if they will suddenly be proven right.
Another scare-and-hide prediction came from Rajendra Pachauri. While head of a United Nations climate panel, he pleaded that without drastic action before 2012, it would be too late to save the planet. In the same year, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, predicted “global disaster” from the demise of Arctic sea ice in four years. He too, has gone quiet.
Nothing new, back in the late 1980s, the UN claimed that if global warming were not checked by 2000, rising sea levels would wash entire countries away
There is some levity in the charade. In 2009, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that the world had only 50 days to save the planet from global warming. But fifty days, six months, and eight years later, the earth seems fine.
Climate Hysteria hits Trump
The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II. “World War III is well and truly underway,” declared Bill McKibben in the New Republic. “And we are losing.” Those opposed to a new “war effort” were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers.
Heading into the 2016 election, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson warned that “a vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.” In Mother Jones, professor Michael Klare similarly argued that “electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil fueled ultranationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.”
Trump won the election, and the shrill got shriller. “Donald Trump’s climate policies would create dozens of failed states south of the U.S. border and around the world,” opined Joe Romm at Think Progress. “It would be a world where everyone eventually becomes a veteran, a refugee, or a casualty of war.”
At Vox, Brad Plumer joined in:
Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States…. We’re at risk of departing from the stable climatic conditions that sustained civilization for thousands of years and lurching into the unknown. The world’s poorest countries, in particular, are ill-equipped to handle this disruption.
Renewable energy researcher John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve “missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.” Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding “the destruction of organized human life.”
Falsified Alarms, Compromised Science
If science is prediction, the Malthusian science of sustainability is pseudo-science. But worse, by not fessing up, by doubling down on doom, the scientific program has been compromised.
“In their efforts to promote their ‘cause,’” Judith Curry told Congress, “the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem.” She continued:
This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.
Even DC-establishment environmentalists have worried about a backfire. In 2007, two mainstream climate scientists warned against the “Hollywoodization” of their discipline. They complained about “a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” To which Al Gore (the guilty party) responded: “I am trying to communicate the essence [of global warming] in the lay language that I understand.”
“There has to be a lot of shrillness taken out of our language,” remarked Environmental Defense Fund’s Fred Krupp in 2011. “In the environmental community, we have to be more humble. We can’t take the attitude that we have all the answers.”
Most recently, Elizabeth Arnold, longtime climate reporter for National Public Radio, warned that too much “fear and gloom,” leading to “apocalypse fatigue,” should be replaced by a message of “hope” and “solutions” lest the public disengage. But taxes and statism don’t sound good either.
Conclusion
If the climate problem is exaggerated, that issue should be demoted. Enter an unstated agenda of deindustrialization and a quest for money and power that otherwise might be beyond reach of the climate campaigners. It all gets back to what Tim Wirth, then US Senator from Colorado, stated at the beginning of the climate alarm:
We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
“Right thing” in terms of economic and environmental policy? That’s a fallacy to explode on another day.
this is the thirtieth anniversary of my baptism into climate theory in an enviro course. I accepted it, but only as possible, and was prepared to be open minded about it. Thirty years. Even I’m surprised at the number of utterly failed predictions but mostly angry about how little these facts matter to the warmists.
“the stable climatic conditions …”
Seriously?? When exactly in history did that happen? 12,000+ years ago we were coming out of a full-on ice age. In between then and now we had the Roman Warm Period, the Middle Ages Warm Period, the Little Ice age (which occurred in several tranches of cold/not so cold), and other deviations. About 8,000 years ago the Earth’s tilt orientation changed and the Sahara became a desert. Cyclical superposition of the AMO, PDO, ENSO and other oceanic cycles have caused huge deviations in climate around the globe. Periods of high volcanic activity have cooled the hemispheres and brought crop failures and death. Etc., etc. Apparently they must have used their history books for door stops instead of reading them.
You forgot to mention the Holocene climate optimum.
Also the Egyptian and Minoan Warm Periods, with cold spells in between them, as also between the Minoan and Roman, Roman and Medieval and Medieval and Modern WPs, the latter being the LIA. Cold periods are generally associated with Dark Ages.
Too many MWPs, so we need better names to abbreviate. Minoan is actually a misnomer, anyway, since that warm period mostly came after the flourishing of Minoan civilization, 2600 to 1400 BC. The Modern is sometimes called the Current WP.
The moonbats STILL eat this stuff up! Never mind we’ve been waiting for the sea level flood the coasts since 1988! But their minds are made up…don’t confuse them with the facts…
Have you ever compared “sea level rise” to the DAILY tide reports?????
Current Temperatures are 1.1’C higher than pre-industrial levels and rising.
Actual pre-industrial temperatures were not fixed and can’t be established with any level of precision. Current temperatures are about 1.1C higher than an arbitarily selected reference frame in the latter half of the 19th century, a temperature that has neither been established as optimal nor typical of pre-industrial times.
The mild warming we have experienced appears to have been a net positive, independent of the benefit from CO2 fertilization.
The main problem with “climate alarm” is that so far there has been absolutely nothing to be alarmed about. Not only has global warming failed to be catastrophic, it’s failed to even be annoying. Long-term, if anthropogenic emissions prevent the interglacial from ending, then an *actual* catastrophe that we know has happened before would be thankfully averted.
@VendicarKahn
Yes, temps are higher and it’s wonderful! The Little Ice Age caused these to us Finns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1695–1697
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_of_1866–68
The first event killed third of us, and the second every tenth. So come and tell us warm is bad.
I would like to believe temps will continue to rise (Warm,good. Cold, bad. Gore, con man.), but unfortunately, past results do not predict future performance.
You say that as if you believe you have said something profound.
“Current Temperatures are 1.1’C higher than pre-industrial levels and rising.”
How many temperatures? There are many that haven’t changed much at all since that time. Some started out warmer and got cooler, some the opposite.
The sea water is not rising ,the earth is sinking into the sinus in the core ,know as “The Sinus in the Earth’s Core “‘. The skies are sinking due to man made aluminum siding and soon we will have less headroom ,a clear danger to tall people and trees. Finally sushi restaurants are causing a rice shortage , the fish are doing fine , thanks for asking.
What percentage of the total greenhouse effect is CO2 responsible for? What percentage of all CO2 is humanity responsible for? What percentage of human-caused CO2 is America responsible for?
Does anyone have these numbers?
Is this a true /false or multiple choice
You miss the point with your irrelevancy. I’m looking for the answers because I don’t have them. Do you?
There are others with a better grasp of numbers than I, and these questions can be researched online, but I’ll give you a first-order approximation:
1. We can calculate the difference between what the temperature is versus what it would be without an atmosphere. Beyond that is theory. We do know that atmospheric pressure should contribute, as well as water vapor and methane, in addition to CO2. Water vapor has a larger impact than C02, and there is far more of it in the atmosphere. Methane, too, is a greater greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but there is less of it. If all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, it is theorized that the temperature would drop 2.5 degrees C.
2. Natural CO2 is believe to be greater than 96%; what Man produces, less than 4%. This assumes that the CO2 would have remained constant in nature during the last few decades, an assumption that may not be justified.
3. The US produced 14.34% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2015, according to Wikipedia (a sometimes unreliable source). Since that time, China’s emissions have been increasing about 3% a year, while the US’s has dropped about 1.5%.
4. Yes, people have the numbers, but you need to research them yourself until you are satisfied you have the best answers, not what someone with an agenda may want you to believe.
5.Questions you didn’t ask but should: What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? What percentage of the atmosphere is Man-produced CO2? What is the ideal temperature for Earth? What is the ideal amount of atmospheric CO2 for life?
Look up whose CO2 emissions continue to rise: Europe! Those crazy environmental sticklers are, according to their own AGW religion, toasting our world.
nah not really, they are meaningless climate wise they are just wasting time, money and intellectual capital pursuing irrelevant goals incompetently
Earth has gone through millions of years of climate extreme cycles without man. 200 years of climate study is not even close to developing any conclusion of what human influence is on Earth. In fact so far the predictions have been wrong, which only proves 200 years of climate studies is very short indeed to predict accurately. I could just as accurately say the Earth could evolve around a thousand year climate extreme cycle. Which could be just as accurate and would be just as impossible to adjust or prevent. In the end we are most likely just at the mercy of its cycles and what Mother nature wants to do. Some scientists just want to feel empowered to find solutions to problems that do not exist or cannot be proven. Simply on their basis of ideology that the world needs a crisis to be better inhabitants of the planet.
Ask a climate alarmist to explain the 2,000 year old spruce forest being exposed as Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier recedes or the 4.000year old archaeological sites coming to light in the Alps. You will likely get a torrent of elitist pejoratives…or a blank stare.
John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve “missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.” Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding “the destruction of organized human life.”
Today is about the same as yesterday and will be about the same as tomorrow, but 50 years ago things were different and 50 years from now they will not be the same as this year. It’s not just about temperatures and sea levels.
In my short life of 70 years the world population has doubled, depleting resources and eroding the quality of life. The single, least costly, fastest way to restore the health of the planet is negative population growth.
If every woman was limited to two children, some would have one and some would have none. In the fullness of time, the population of the world would return to a sustainable level and the earth would be a roomier, more pleasant place. If human activity is responsible for global warming, then that would be solved, too.
So . . . are you volunteering to eliminate yourself from the plant to help the problem?
If you need help saving us by killing you ,give me a call
“The single, least costly, fastest way to restore the health of the planet is
negative population growthto increase the wealth of third world countries.”The one sure co-variable for population growth is that the richer a country becomes, the lower it’s birth rate goes.
“eroding the quality of life”
Anyone who thinks the general “quality of life” around the world is worse now than it was in the 1950s doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Rather depends on where in the world one is talking about. Most of the “first world” of western nations, quality of life has greatly improved. The “third world”, however, hasn’t and is just as bad and sometimes even worse than it was before. Some places like Cuba and Venezuela, it could be argued had better “quality of life” for the masses prior to communism/socialism taking over, just to name a couple of examples.
On balance, I’d say the “quality of life” around the world is mostly better (certainly not “eroding”) but that isn’t much comfort to those in the areas where it simply isn’t.
You paint with way to broad a brush. Third world countries that have avoided the trap of socialism are doing great.
well the trap of socialism or the trap of a ironfisted dictatorship or the trap of islamofascism. Which doesn’t really leave too many third world countries outside of those traps.
So after you got your nice 70 years, you are prepared to tell others that, no, they are not allowed the same? How elitist of you. BTW, the best way to “stabilize” the global population is to improve the standard of living in the underdeveloped areas. People that are happy with their lives, have good health care, and aren’t subsistence farmers don’t need a dozen children.
Mad Mac, if you truly think there are too many people in this world, why haven’t you volunteered to be one of the first to be eliminated?
Whose quality of life has been eroded? Standard of living is going up in every country not subjected to socialist-caused economic collapse. So are life expectancies, and enough food is now grown to feed every person on the planet. Even the poorest of the world’s poor has better access to food, clean water, and medical care (not to say it’s great, but it has drastically improved). And this is completely sustainable with today’s climate.
The rate of population growth slows, and even declines, as a country’s population escapes poverty. Increase the wealth of nations, and the population problem, if you think there is one, will take care of itself. We do not need others playing God, deciding how many people should live.
Whose quality of life has been eroded?
I think you answered your own question when you said:
Standard of living is going up in every country not subjected to socialist-caused economic collapse
though I suspect that’s not what the OP meant.
that said, I agree that on the whole, even with those socialist-caused economic collapses factored in, standard of living is basically up because where quality of life has improved it has improved greatly.
Thank you Chairman Mao, professor Menglev, and other murderous tyrants who violently impose their wills on the helpless populace.
sell it to the Africans, they are the ones that want to breed and then be anywhere else but Africa
Are you seriously arguing that quality of life today is lower than it was 70 years ago????
The Earth can easily support 5 to 10 times our current population.
Thanks for pointing out that the sun rises in the east.
Now, what to do about it… and I am stuck on education.
As long as education is actually political indoctrination, our society can be manipulated like this. If we could pry education away from government (and pro big government) hands, maybe we could teach enough of the the following generations critical thinking skills, and our group susceptibility to swallow as honest, news articles that contain “experts say” or “scientists say”, or “new research shows”.
We know these are media slight of hand phrases for “just believe the following”.
Only the ability to sort the wheat from the chafe will keep us from drinking so much cool aid.
If we could pry education away from government (and pro big government) hands…
And thank you as well for pointing out the sun rises in the east.
No need to “pry education away” from anyone’s hands. Take the initiative. Defer that new house, new car, latest electronics, etc., for a few years while you teach your own children at home.
As long as we are forced to pay for public education, we have a right, and a responsibility, to steer it in the way we see best. So keep your sneering advice to yourself.
And what of those who can’t because if they did they’d also have to forgo putting a roof over their kids heads and food on their table?
And what of those who can’t…
Then common sense would dictate that they wouldn’t…
Then telling them to “Take the initiative” really doesn’t work, now does it?
Common sense would indicate I wasn’t talking to them, now wouldn’t it?
0 for 2 John…
Feel free to add additional commentary here as you wish, however, with all due respect, I’m bored with you now.
Take care!
You’re bored because you know it’s 0 for 2 sycomputing. You offered a blanket solution that is no solution at all for a percentage of the populace. When that was pointed out to you, you doubled down rather than admit the flaw in your solution. With such poor reasoning skills on your part, it’s no wonder you are bored.
I sometimes tutor kids in science and math (the lower grades). I pretty much counter what they are taught in school with this simple observation:
“Less than sixty years ago – well within my lifetime – scientists believed that (e.g., menthol cigarettes soothed the lungs, continents were fixed in place, the universe was in steady-state, ulcers were caused by stress, Jupiter had twelve moons – Saturn, nine, etc, whatever came to mind). Much of what I was taught in school turned out to be wrong, or at least incomplete.
That’s the way it has always been. Be ready to accept that much of what you are being taught today will eventually be declared wrong. Always keep an open mind to new concepts and theories.”
No need to even specifically mention climate change.
This goes WAY back 25 years ago to Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, who pointed out the nonsenses in Al Gore’s false claims in her **Environmental Overkill** (1993). And most of what she wrote THEN applies today, as this article also shows. The false claims, the sensationalisms, and the outright lying. When we can’t quite figure out what’s going on, look for Al Gore’s money, made himself a millionaires by riding that nag.
Continuing to make the same false claims, without substantiations & confirmations & then expecting different outcomes is Crazy, by Einstein’s epigram.
La Plus Ca Change……..
I knew a waitress named Dixie Lee Ray, a finer women I never kwew
My life is but a flash, or maybe a flush. It depends on which prediction wins.
I’m still upset that no one at the EPA has suffered publicly for the Gold King Mine disaster. I’m talking tarred and feathered and run out of town, lucky to get a job sweeping the floors at a waste water treatment facility.
Until such a thing happens, these clowns will continue to preach their false gospel.
If Bill & Hillary are not going to be prosecuted for their life of crime or Ted Kennedy skated on murdering a female aide, why should some bureaucrats be hassled for dumping a little dirt in a river?
The world is always going to end in 5 to 10 years. If the world is supposed to end any sooner, then people will remember the prediction and stop listening to the forecaster. If the world is supposed to end any later, then people don’t much care…too far in the future. My own prediction is that the world will end in 7 years if everyone doesn’t send me $100.
Send it to me or the world ends next month
Send me your bank data and I’ll make a direct deposit to your account. 😎
If I came up with a new theory of gravitation, posted predictions based on that theory of the positions of the planets in our solar system six months from now, and after six months had passed none of the planets were close to their predicted position, my theory would be discredited. Somehow, however, proponents of anthropogenic climate nonsense say that in spite of the many spectacular failures of their theory to predict anything, we must still act as though their theory is correct. It’s either purely political, or the proponents are dumber than a bag full of rocks.
I would still believe you ,and so would all our college profs and media types and suburban white women who are not preoccupied with The Bachelor and Housewives of the Lower East Side
Science demands debate. AGW backers say, ‘The debate is over”. Even so-called AGW
scientists declare this insanity. Therefore there IS no science.
“Both before and after the 1980s, decadal sea-level rise has been a few inches.”
This doesn’t sound right. I thought we were looking at about 2mm/yr. That would be just under an inch per decade.
And ‘sea level’ is not the same everywhere.
so? you are arguing about the definition of “a few”?
We don’t have environmental problems we have government problems. We don’t have health care problems, we have government problems. We don’t have energy supply problems, we have government problems. We don’t have education problems, we have government problems. We don’t have financial problems, we have government problems.
We are science and climate deniers but we are suppose to believe that a man can be a woman or a woman can be a man if one decides to change gender.
If you want to cause a ‘believer’ a big problem, ask them, in front of a feminist, if they believe the only differences between a man and a woman are the hormones and ‘dangling parts’. He must either admit that a man can’t just decide to be a woman, or incur the wrath of the feminist. Either way, it’s fun to watch.
You have discovered all we need to know, now to act on this knowledge
I believe I am detecting a pattern here.
In the process of throwing away old papers I just ran across this faded fax (ancient transmission method briefly used in the late Anthropocene). There has been lots about the corruption of the education system, but is there a good synthesis of the curricula producing this hysteria?
“September 20, 1994 Educational Testing Service–Princeton
Dear Colleague:
You are invited in help set standards for a new examination entitled Environment and Humanity: The Race to Save the Planet……..”
I was very busy then and do not remember if I responded, but if so I would have been very critical because the sample questions were horrible and their short reference list included “The Annenberg/CPB video and The Race to Save the Planet and its accompanying test and study guide.” It also included Miller’s Environmental Science and Living in the Environment which were full of good information about such problems but political in advocacy.
I may have been on their list because I was teaching a small Environmental Assessment and Management class to college Juniors and Seniors. It was based on principles, and there was no good text available still in press. I had rejected Miller for the reason above. His preface admits his advocacy and this philosophical statement —– “And most statistics and facts are abstractions of human beings with the tears wiped off or living things we are threatening.” Chapter 27 was an advocacy piece including “Earth’s Ten Commandments.” Many other dire statements include “What are you doing to end your addiction to oil?” I will give him credit for an enormously difficult compilation.
I only know a little of what happened as I left academia. Their plan was for a sample program of the test to be given to undergraduates at the end of a course on the subject. I suspect Miller’s and related books were very successful.
Dan Ashley here. PhD statistics, PhD Business.
I am not a climate, environment, geology, weather, or physics expert. However, I am an expert on statistics. So, I recognize bad statistical analysis when I see it. There are quite a few problems with the use of statistics within the global warming debate. The use of Gaussian statistics is the first error. In his first movie Gore used a linear regression of CO2 and temperature. If he had done the same regression using the number of zoos in the world, or the worldwide use of atomic energy, or sunspots, he would have the same result. A linear regression by itself proves nothing.
The theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been proven correct in a small greenhouse only. As a matter of fact, plants like higher CO2 and it is frequently pumped into greenhouses because of that. There has never been a definitive experiment regarding CO2, at or near the concentrations in our atmosphere. This theory actually has much less statistical support than the conspiracy theories regarding JFK’s assassination.
Gaussian statistics REQUIRE the events being published to be both independent and random. The temperatures experienced in one part of the world are dependent on temperatures in other locales. The readings are not independent. A better statistical method would be Mandlebroten (fractal). Mandlebroten statistics are not merely “fat tailed” statistics.
A more problematic issue with the data is that it has been adjusted. Data adjustments are frequently needed –for example, if a measuring device fails. However 100% of the data adjustments used are in favor of proving global warming. 100%. Not 100% minus one adjustment. Not nearly 100%. 100% –that is ALL– of the adjustments were in one direction only. Any student that put data like that in a PHD dissertation would never receive a doctoral degree.
One study published showed parts of the Earth where warming was occuring faster than other parts of the globe. The study claimed to be of data solely from satellites. The study identified several areas (Gambia for one) which have greater warming than other areas. Unfortunately, in three of those areas there have been no climate satellite observations for years.

The statements that claim “less arctic ice in recorded history” are equally spurious. We started gathering data on that in 1957 with the first satellite fly overs. On this issue “recorded history” is a very short time period.
Some geologist friends told me that a significant amount of Earth’s heat comes from the hot Earth’s core. They further stated that they do not know what percentage of heat that is. They do know it is probably over 20% and probably less than 70%. Whereas either of those extremes seems unlikely to me, remember that I am not a geologist.
As to rising oceans, that should be measured accurately. Measuring it with a stick stuck in the sand is inappropriate. Geologists tell me that the land is shifting and moving. Measuring it against the gravitational center of the Earth is the only accurate way. However, we do not know how to do that. As a matter of fact, we don’t know precisely where the gravitational center of the Earth is. (Any physicists around that want to explain the two body and the three body problem as it relates to the Earth, Moon, and Sun, please do so.
So, according to climate scientists the world is warming up. They may be correct, they may be incorrect. However, they have been unable to support their thesis via the use of statistics.
I personally see no reason to disassemble the world’s economic systems over an unproven, and somewhat implausible theory.
You know a lot of geologists are you some kind of commie ?
No. What caused you to ask this question?
“100% –that is ALL– of the adjustments were in one direction only. Any student that put data like that in a PHD dissertation would never receive a doctoral degree.”
Not true. That is a requirement for a PhD in climatology.
God. I hope not. I would never approve a dissertation like that. The student would get a masters degree and that would be the end of it
Global warming, climate change. Just LOOK, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANET MARS. Earth is next…
Venus will wonder sadly at two green planets that roamed the heavens. Now one swirls dead in red, the other inhabited by perpetual waves of blue.
We Venusians tried to help by covertly sending to Earthlings our Venusian experts surreptiously placed in Earths political and scientific expertise.
Warning! Warning!
Venusian’s internet access is terminated due to controversial climate content issues projections causing scooby-doo to say rutrow.
I am of Uranus
The LIE has gone three times around the world before the TRUTH has even got its boots on!
The LIE does not run around the world ,the TRUTH is it runs from the Midtown Tunnel to Riverhead .
CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way. DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific knowledge.
I remember in 1972, the Chairman of the Board of Exxon, (an in-law of mine) told me we would run out of oil in 10 years. That is why Exxon diversified, even getting in to office equipment. I was in law school at the time. He was a respected industry leader. I knew he was wrong but only time could tell.
And Thomas Watson Sr. thought 4 computers would be all the world would need.
Can you tell me more, CebVa. robbradley58@gmail.com
Native of Medicine Hat, Alberta, b. 1910, John Kenneth Jamieson?
Every crisis issue of the Left has but one common solution: Give us all your money and let us dictate in perpetuity how you shall be allowed to live.