(A.K.A. Non-Original Rants)

–Co-opting good stuff from all over the ‘Net and maybe some original thoughts—ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

________________________________________________________________________________________________

1,609 Scientists do not agree….

 Apparently the science isn’t settled and there’s a lot of scientists putting it out there.

One thousand six hundred and nine scientists have signed on to a declaration that “there is no climate emergency”.  Two of them are Nobel Laureates.  

They say:

“Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.”

Further (this is a link to their actual declaration):

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Yep, journalists and government agencies (but I repeat myself) have been on this fear wagon as much as they have been on covid.  And they are using the same psyop strategies for both.



  1. “Climate policy relies on inadequate models”That's the polite way of saying “Provably false”

    Like

  2. Matthew–Exactly. Think the hockey stick model that was completely debunked.

    Like

  3. saying “Provably false”You Seriously misspelled Intentionally

    Like

  4. Justin–Yes, intentionally false is probably more accurate.

    Like

  5. Justin_O_Guy said…I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not evil.Just FUCKING STUPID…….

    Like

  6. Matthew and Justin–I can see both of your points, but there's been so much 'coincidence' that I'm thinking we're now in 'enemy action' territory. It's agenda driven. Remember 8 out of 10 scientists agree that they don't want to be defunded….

    Like

  7. It will be buried/denied by the left… sigh

    Like

  8. Sometimes computer models are useful. But they can miss infinities in the equations if they are not on that spot exactly. Otherwise they can show a smooth graph where there is nothing like that at all. But weather models are much worse because of the principle ''Garbage in- garbage out.''

    Like

  9. NFO–Hopefully people with spread the news.Avraham–Another part of the equation is cherry-picking data to ensure a specific result. Or throwing out data that keeps the 'preferred' result from manifesting.

    Like

  10. “Climate policy relies on inadequate models”That's the polite way of saying “Provably false”

    Like

  11. Matthew–Exactly. Think the hockey stick model that was completely debunked.

    Like

  12. saying “Provably false”You Seriously misspelled Intentionally

    Like

  13. Justin–Yes, intentionally false is probably more accurate.

    Like

  14. Justin_O_Guy said…I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not evil.Just FUCKING STUPID…….

    Like

  15. Matthew and Justin–I can see both of your points, but there's been so much 'coincidence' that I'm thinking we're now in 'enemy action' territory. It's agenda driven. Remember 8 out of 10 scientists agree that they don't want to be defunded….

    Like

  16. It will be buried/denied by the left… sigh

    Like

  17. Sometimes computer models are useful. But they can miss infinities in the equations if they are not on that spot exactly. Otherwise they can show a smooth graph where there is nothing like that at all. But weather models are much worse because of the principle ''Garbage in- garbage out.''

    Like

  18. NFO–Hopefully people with spread the news.Avraham–Another part of the equation is cherry-picking data to ensure a specific result. Or throwing out data that keeps the 'preferred' result from manifesting.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *