I just came across this article and found it to be interesting infuriating:. The List Of 120 Years Of Climate Scares By Scientists 1895 - Geologists Think theWorld May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming? 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.” 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969 1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation) 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age 1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975 1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine 1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report 1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times 1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context 1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989 1990 - “We’ve 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” – Senator Timothy Wirth 1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report 1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998 2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001 2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003 2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006 2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” —Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT 2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London 2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006 2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007 2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program atNASA, see above for Hansen quotes
Here is a good one. I didn't realize any object had weight in space, I believed the direct line of sight of the sun was the real factor in our warming and cooling cycles, our axis providing our growing cycles to survive and provide food for our entire planet. https://news.yahoo.com/earth-knocked-off-axis-over-194130839.html
Somewhere around here I posted an article where scientists claim to be able to not only calculate the tilt-shift effect of that melted water, they can tell that the tilt is more than can be accounted for by that shifted volume of water. Their conclusion? Human-caused groundwater shifting makes up the difference.
So it is possible those people could be full of "shift" ? I was thinking about that claim of the melting ice and why nothing was said about the melted ice adding to the height of our oceans. That would have to be a heck of a lot of ice. I know about aquifers and most would be under our mountain ranges. I lived at 2600 feet sea level and the entire county was sitting on the largest in Nevada. That would be NYE country third largest county in the US. Las Vegas is Clark County and they do not have water reserves, but they would love to annex where I lived if they could pay off enough officials. What is interesting is that NYE county only has just over 51,800 people in a very very large spread out area. The good news is that Vegas is below a 4000 foot peak separating them and NYE county so the prospects for annexation is slim to none. It is a 65 miles drive to Vegas, I always wondered why they did not cut a road up and around Mount Charleston which would cut that drive in half for all that worked in Vegas and lived where I was living. I often drove up to the 6000 foot level and let the dogs roam a while so one evening I decided to see if my little Nissan Truck would coast all the way down the 6000 foot road. It did and I even had to brake a few times
All I know is, it is hotter than hell in TX. And the "shift" of Californians moving here is causing more stress on the electrical grid. GRRRRRRRR
GRID is not so Rancho Grande here either, but ours is due to so many trees. I think several years ago the yearly state budget to trim trees was like 14 million a year but like all other things that would go up each year, and god forbid don't destroy any tree permanently or my cousin will lose his business and contract with the state. Some days the sun is shining and not a storm within 400 miles and the power will trip off and on several times in a few days. Most of the time is in the early am hours after I get up.
from NASA: "There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause." https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The problem I’ve seen with 99% of this stuff is that they are correlative studies and correlation does not mean causation. I have seen one bit of data, oddly enough it is almost never discussed, that is indicative, to me, of the impact of human activity. It would be more convincing if there were others.
I think the presumption there would be that the professional scientists at NASA are unaware of that problem in determination. And I do not think that to be the case. Under huge political pressure to declare climate change a hoax, they refused. And that would go to them being extra careful to make sure the data is accurate. My ex was a cancer researcher. (cellular senescence). I used to review her grant proposals to the NIH, before she sent them in. I am aware of all the game playing in the scientific world. Scrupulous adherence to formal practices eliminates the vast majority of game playing. If you want more precise details of the determination methods used by NASA, you can directly contact the scientists involved and hear it directly from the horse's mouth. I think you might be surprised at how willing a professional scientist is, to discuss their work in a professional format. You know, it is not like they have groupies or something, desperately interested in everything they have to say. Texas just hit 118 degrees. I was a math major. I understand statistics with a degree of sophistication. The broad, generalized odds that Texas can hit 118 without an intercession by a non-natural source, are not in the billions to one, but far, far, far beyond that. Basically, it is just not possible without some non-natural event causing it. Oh, you can grab some anecdotal evidence of this or that...but the math will not hold generally. If the climate change proponents are correct, we are entering a realm of extreme danger. Oh, that global temperatures in 100 years become 140 degrees and it is hard to just grow crops, let alone enjoy any time outside. So, if wrong, we waste some effort trying to work on a problem. If we are right, we save the planet from destruction. With those odds at stake, common sense says spend the effort, just in case failure to do so ends humanity for all time...or any semblance of human civilization we would want.
If there is huge pressure being applied to anyone, it is those who argue against climate change, even to the point of being denied platforms. The federal government and its agencies, the MSM, academia, are stridently supportive of climate change and anyone who speaks against it, or questions it, is viewed anathema to the cause. If we are wrong, as we have been for so many alarmist predictions of Thunberg, Gore, et.al., then we have wasted 100s of billions of dollars of tax dollars and have killed, or are killing, countless industries. There have been major fluctuations in temperature, and CO2, correlated and not, over millennia, before the existence of technology. I have seen NASA’s claims; I’ve also seen well argued counterclaims. Those making these now popular claims of eminent doom need to provide experimental proof of their claims; they cannot though because it is impossible to design a controlled experiment for a planetary climate system. Is man having an effect on climate? Probably, since so many things do. Is it worth the world wide panic we see now? Certainly not. I am convinced this is just another noble sounding scam to collect tax dollars and further control society.. But, as I’ve said before, we all view the world and form our own beliefs. No way to know from our insignificant life spans what the situation is. I worry more about CMEs, tornados, super volcanoes, civil and economic disruptions, disease, etc. To each, their own.
Yeah, kind of a misnomer. I think they would have made more sense talking about mass. Weight is meaningless in space but mass is not. A large moving mass might be weightless in space but, if moving, can still crush us.
well then, anything justifies anything and there is no firm point anywhere, no reliable source of information anywhere, no basis upon which society can form any reasonable standards of fact. You wrote that there is heavy pressure from government to promote one opinion about climate change. But that is the opposite of the history. NASA made these findings during an Administration openly hostile to these findings. Is there such a thing as fact? Is there such a thing as (generally) accepted fact? If not...then, you know, we are doomed. There has to be some basic standard of fact that exists completely outside of our personal ideas. Generally, that standard of fact has been the scientific method of inquiry. Postulate an idea, come up with some proof, that becomes a theorem, come up with some more proof...that becomes a theory. Put that theory in the public. Have the top professionals reign in on that theory. And generally, all theories bend with each new generation. And eventually old theories are replaced by new ones. But, along the way our theories are our "best rough guesses" about what is going on. But we have to act upon those. If we are going to build a road, we have to act on what is the best concrete or asphalt to use, based on what is available now. Right now, we have to decide whether acting on Climate Change is a necessity. The professionals scientists at NASA...all of them experienced professionals with Phds...have already made that decision. And that decision is that action is immediately necessary. Also, we should note, that the scientists at NASA are hardly some bastion of liberal politics. They are most likely roughly evenly split between conservatives and liberals. NASA has actually had a long history of conservative leaning politics, not liberal. They are as talented a body and as independent a body as we, as a society can muster to solve this issue. If we don't accept that level of reasonableness, then we have said that there is never a way to make a decision about anything. These are not granola eating hippies. These are a lot of ex-military guys who went on to get higher degrees, former engineers from the Air Force and Navy and on. No reason not to accept their reasonable ideas.
Yes, I understand the gravity of gravity. The gravity bending light stuff - that I find fascinating. String Theory...so many interesting things that the science has been bringing out over the last number of decades. Do you like Michio Kaku? I was listening to some You Tube video he did about teleportation!!! I had not known that was a real thing!