Colonizing the Moon has been claimed to be the stepping stone for colonizing planet Mars (NASA: “En Route to Mars”). Some folks are all in favor, with headlines like “Make American First on the Moon again!”
Even the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has been adamant in his doom scenario projections: In one hundred years or so, mankind can no longer live on earth. That’s a big “upgrade” from “… one thousand years …” that Hawking made just a few months ago. No wonder then, the (renewed) race to the moon and planets (not limited to Mars) is just getting underway.
One of the main accusations launched by climate activists is that anyone arguing against man-made global warming is “anti-science.” They tell us that the science is “settled,” and that anyone who objects is ignoring a blindingly obvious set of facts.
But what to do about someone like me? I’m in hearty agreement that the global climate has warmed by roughly one degrees Celsius over the past 150 years. However, my study of the relevant geology and physics leads me to believe that solar variability, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for this warming.
In the wake of last month’s marches for science and climate in Washington and around the country, Americans are divided in their support of the events’ goals and their sense of whether it will make a difference. In particular, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that most Democrats and younger adults are convinced that these public events will help the causes of scientists.
Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille has upset many defenders of consensus science with a ground-breaking peer-reviewed study that casts doubt on the validity of Max Planck’s famous theory of radiation. It is shown that Planck misrepresented Kirchhoff’s Law such that the behavior of nature is not properly accounted for. Robitaille now presents a series of lectures for viewing on Youtube.
Throughout “The Theory of Heat Radiation’ the celebrated Max Planck employed extreme measures to arrive at Kirchhoff’s Law. Professor Robitaille exposes the flaws in Planck’s work that others have previously declined to address.
Obviously it can’t be both. If you are surprised it means you didn’t predict it would happen. And then to call the surprise “inevitable” means the only thing you are certain of is that you can’t predict climate.
I (Duane Thresher) was a contributor to the National Academy book “Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises”. So was Dr. Gavin Schmidt, leading global warming spokesperson and current head of NASA GISS (anointed by former head Dr. James Hansen, father of global warming). Unlike Schmidt, I questioned the whole premise but was just a graduate student at the time so didn’t speak up.
So, you keep hearing about the Paris Climate Agreement but still don’t know anything about it? That’s OK. There’s a lot of hot air but not really much to know.
Ostensibly the agreement is about countries reducing their carbon emissions to fight global warming. But the most important thing to know is that the only agreement in the Paris Climate Agreement — by both climate change warriors and global warming skeptics — is that it will have little, if any, effect on global warming.
Written by Professor Tim Ball – PhD Climatology (London)
It is good to see constructive dialog among colleagues. To further such discussion it is necessary to keep to PSI’s commitment to open public debate, when the science demands it. John O’Sullivan – https://principia-scientific.com
Well said John. Your point was exemplified in the traditional math exam instructions “Show your work.” In fact it is more important in real science because without it reproducible results are not possible.
Scientists associated with the UN’s IPCC predicted that the huge consumer/industrial emissions of the modern era would cause not only “unprecedented” global warming but also dangerous “runaway” warming, which would then produce “tipping point” climate change.
Industrial emissions continued to rise rapidly in the early 21st century, but temperatures did not increase as much as some expected. The latest salvo in an ongoing row over global-warming trends claims that warming has indeed slowed down this century.
In recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño.
Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”.
Recently, I gave a seminar on “fake news” to professors and grad students at a large public university. Early in my talk, I polled the audience: “How many of you believe climate change is the world’s #1 threat?”Silence. Not a single person raised his or her hand.
Was I speaking in front of a group of science deniers? The College Republicans? Some fringe libertarian club? No, it was a room full of microbiologists.
The biggest cowards in America today can be found in colleges and universities; they are the administrators, followed closely by a large number of their faculty. They have and continue to allow our institutions to be taken over by a monolithic world view that is increasingly totalitarian and antithetical to the diversity of opinion on which the search for truth depends.
Snow is running at well above normal levels across the Northern Hemisphere; courtesy Environment Canada
Overview: Europe had an extended period of colder-than-normal weather in April accompanied by lots of snow and now much of the US is experiencing an extended period of colder-than-normal weather as we transition from early-to-mid May. Snowfall has been running at above normal levels this winter across the Northern Hemisphere and continues at those higher-than-normal levels as we heads towards the middle of May.
Microsoft has released an urgent update to stop hackers taking control of computers with a single email. The unusual bug, in Microsoft anti-malware software such as Windows Defender, could be exploited without the recipient even opening the message. Researchers working for Google’s Project Zero cyber-security outfit discovered the flaw at the weekend. The fix has been specially pushed out hours before the software giant’s monthly Tuesday security update.
Viewers may question much of what they hear and read about scientific and medical studies after watching the latest “Full Measure” cover story. It’s a cautionary note issued by respected industry leaders who say unseen interests are exerting enormous control over research and what is—or isn’t—published. Their startling claim: that a large percentage of articles in prestigious medical journals are simply not to be believed.
The biggest mistake made by supporters of the ‘consensus’ for man-made climate alarm is believing that government climate science has standing in the wider scientific community. It doesn’t. Below we explain why.
First, most people do not realize that the history of climate science – as taught in schools and universities and spoken about in a quiescent press – is less science, more propaganda. The narrative sold is that climate research is a long-established, prestige discipline which is composed of elite experts espousing long-accepted scientific proofs on how our climate works. This myth is not only laughable but is readily exposed when the diligent reader performs their own research.
