Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Now that is a valid point. The oft repeated claims about 1970's science are not. There was no such consensus in the 70's. There probably is today, but the consensus is more limited than claimed by many (eh, I'll give you "most") environmentalists. That said, Jim Imhofe style debate by ridicule is not helpful.Most of what we get bombarded with isn't peer reviewed scientific journals. Most of the actual science is much less certain and less alarmist than what normally gets dished out to the public.
Now that is a valid point. The oft repeated claims about 1970's science are not. There was no such consensus in the 70's. There probably is today, but the consensus is more limited than claimed by many (eh, I'll give you "most") environmentalists. That said, Jim Imhofe style debate by ridicule is not helpful.
,,,, It didn't. ISIS started, which is documented, by Obama giving weapons to Al-Qaeda in Iraq after they had been defeated by the Iraqi-US-Sunni tribal alliance in North and West Iraq. Obama wanted to weaken Shia in the area and taking down Assad was the prescription given to him by the Deep State....
especially if they are OK with nuclear power for Iran but not for the West.
I saw this meme on Facebook.
I'm suspicious of memes like this, so I looked up Judith Curry. (I didn't have to look up Greta. We know who she is and what her level of expertise is or isn't.) She doesn't say it's all a hoax, but she is a skeptic. Furthermore, she is critical of the hysteria and stomping out of dissent on the issue.
However, it is true that Curry gets virtually no media attention at all. In fact, in 20 years of following this issue, I don't think I've ever seen a skeptical scientist given a platform on the issue.
When the issue is discussed, the overwhelming majority of the time, we don't see a scientist at all. We see a politician or an activist, and that person cites to selected parts of some scientific report or just yells at us like Greta does. Usually no dissent of any kind is shown, but if it is, it comes from a politician who basically gets bullied and shouted down.
If the scientific consensus on all points is so strong, then why not let the actual scientists engage? If Dr. Curry and others like her are so wrong, then let her get discredited. It shouldn't be very hard.
Right there with you. I do believe CC is a thing that we need to deal with but I don't believe the hyperbolic timeline that the left puts forth.
Thanks for posting this. Too bad math is hard.Hey BrntOrangeStampede, no need to worry about CO2. The physics shows that there isn't much more warming even possible due to CO2 concentration. Unless you are worried about a 0.33C increase or less.
Agreed. We need nukes for baseload, since coal is foolishly being phased out. Using wind for baseload is moronic, as Griddy customers learned this summer.Whether you are concerned with CO2 levels or not. An interesting energy alternative is Thorium.
Flibe Energy – Power the World
Other forms of nuclear should be pursued too. There are just so many ways good ways to produce energy that don't include solar PVs and wind turbines.
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC