| There are 14 comments on this blog. |
|
|
I have to agree with GBD. Working in Big Bear the air was too crisp and clean. I couldn't breathe. My lungs needed smog to function properly.
Smog is like oxygen to me.
|
|
|
Reminds me of a song.
Smog is like oxygen.....you get too much you get too high.....not enough and you're gonna die.
By E L O
|
|
|
Oh Oh......the kid is stackin again.
|
|
|
Butz had a busy morning
|
|
|
Well if they stop playing with Weather modifications maybe that will stop.
Now ask yourself how does a Cat 1 hurricane explode into a Cat 5 going on shore ? That just does not happen in Nature.
As both of them did in Mexico. Could it be that Mexico is not playing along with the Globalist climate change scam ? And this is how they get punished ?
I wouldn't be going on a Cruise there for about three years.
|
|
|
A paper published by the Norwegian government’s statistical agency just recently, written by two of its retired experts, touching on this very subject of "correlation without causation" has called forth so many shrieked accusations of climate apostasy that you know it must be interesting.
The authors ask a simple question: Are computerized climate simulations a sufficient basis for attributing observed warming to human CO2? After all, the Earth’s climate has been subject to substantial warming and cooling trends for millennia that remain unexplained and can’t be attributed to fossil fuels. As statisticians, their conclusion:
""“With the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.”""
Since we’re using abstruse calculations of an annual average global temperature to validate the climate models, it matters if these calculations—based on disparate instruments and unstable sampling frequencies and a variety of “proxies” for times and places when no measurements were taken—are accurate and meaningful.
Before 2015, as I’ve previously noted, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 2005 and 2010 were equally warm to the second decimal. By 2015, the record was changed to claim 2010 was warmer than 2005. Such adjustments are common and the Norwegians point out the obvious: “It is impossible to evaluate the validity of such administrative changes for an outside user of these records.” In 2017, independent researcher Marcia Wyatt showed 16 such revisions had been made to the long-past temperature record in just the previous three years.
I dunno about a Global Climate Cabal but I can smell the stench of garbage science in the current Climate Change Religion.
|
|
|
More on Lahaina.
It sure looks like the CCP Satelite did a job.
.
|
|
|
People people stop it we do have a crisis at hand it is true global warming it's real 💔😭 just go to your local store or any chain restaurants and see their employees the lack of O2 is evident. And let's not talk about how people in general are acting and behaving the stupidity level has never been so high and all of this is due to global warming 🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
^ most intelligent post on this blog yet!
|
|
|
In the title, Dagsvik and Moen ask, 'How much does the temperature change due to greenhouse gas emissions?' Their statistical model, however, does not use any data on greenhouse gases. After they have asserted, in their review, that multiple factors affect temperatures including natural variations, their model does not take such natural influences into account. It is completely useless to investigate the question they have posed. According to the model, the maximum temperature that can be expected within the normal range on a random July day in Oslo is 51 degrees Celsius! Only when it gets even warmer will the model allow that temperatures are outside the normal range. An instrument that is so insensitive cannot be used to evaluate theories of climate change, because these do not suggest that temperatures should have increased by tens of degrees because of past greenhouse gas emissions.
It should be noted that Dagsvik and Moen could have used their model to investigate the question of whether observed temperatures are inconsistent with the theory that temperatures have increased. This would be closer to answering the question they pose in the title of their manuscript. However, they have not done that.
This is what happens when you think that being able to turn on a computer is equal to getting an education.
|
|
|
More cow farts!
|
|
|
The Lame news will make you stupid far worse than the truth. Throw three doses of Spike portein and Ta Da....
|
|
|
Hey0 laboring to extricate himself after stepping in so much of his own shit lol
Tell us how "to" is a verb again. ).gif)
The Norwegians are retired and have no axe to grind, as does Hertwich. His article can be dismissed out of hand. I had read the article by Hertwich before posting this blog. Way too obvious from the language in his post, he's a Kool aid drinker worshipping at the altar of the Climate Armageddon gods. The IPCC is laughably dependent on researchers who get paid to deliver product the IPCC likes otherwise they lose funding
In fact, numerous other climate researchers have looked at the same issue over the last 10 years or more and reached the same conclusion. Given the "state of current technology" and measurement systems, no definitive answer can be given as to the correlation between man-made CO2 and global warming.
The various climate models have been off in their predictions of already known data by factors, so what good are they? And, why would any rational person design policy based on their high rate of bullshit results 
That's just a fact as is the remedial nature of Hey0's intelligence and the joy he derives from dancing in his own mierde.
|
|
|
Also, we all need to pollute more, according to Hansen.
|
| There are 14 comments on this blog. |
