And I thought the science was settled:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/

Better start warming up those SUVs.

 

A popular site for climate crackpots

 

A popular site for climate crackpots

Actually, it's a pretty good site if you're looking for unaltered temperature data and analysis.

 

Sure, but the script has changed. It's "climate change," which I thought most people agree has been happening for 4.5 billion years on earth. It just wasn't politicized as a tool for control until recently.

In the 1950's there was also a fear of "snow ball" earth. As you know, natural processes sequester more carbon dioxide than those that release it.

John

 

As you know, natural processes sequester more carbon dioxide than those that release it.

You got it! -- Inasmuch as Earth's climate spontaneously recovered from the corollaries of the "K-T"/"K-Pg" impact (including, among other 'environmental hostility' attendant thereto, global conflagration) to say nothing of untold (additional) instances of catastrophic volcanism, it would seem our horrible species' capability of long-term disruption is less than even the most megalomanic (or disenfranchised?) among us need to believe

It just wasn't politicized as a tool for control until recently.

+1000

Actually, it's a pretty good site if you're looking for unaltered temperature data and analysis.

Ah! Yes! - Funny how that works... the way truth isn't for sale at any price -- That said - grant funds, preferred (Govt) contractor status, etc. sure can buy a lot of hot air! - global warming notwithstanding


Best regards
HP

 

It's been changed to "climate change" for funding purposes. They still talk about warming. Yes the climate changes. The weather has been a defense issue for a very long time. Both the US and Germany set up weather stations in Greenland in WWII to get an indication for a couple of days post in the European theater. Greenland's defense forces kept the German weather stations at bay ... so they could not report the conditions.

I say we fund them based on their predictions. Those that get it correct, get a big chunk of change. Those that don't, go back to the drawing board. Increases or decreases within the margin of error of the test equipment have little validity for long term predictions. Let's put 100 million split among those who get it correct, nothing for those who don't. Maybe those who don't can get a job with those who DO, at a wage commensurate with their abilities.

 

I say we fund them based on their predictions.

Surely you jest!? Competency based adjudication is sooooo unfair! (Wah!!!!!)

TTFN
HP