Global Warming Experts : Parroting The Same BS For Over 100 Years

More than 100 years ago, the father of global warming was saying the same mindless BS we hear now. Millions of people moving to Antarctica, Canada getting hot, blah, blah, blah blah. The only difference is that he thought it was a good thing.

ScreenHunter_7276 Feb. 18 15.01ScreenHunter_7278 Feb. 18 15.04 The Pueblo Leader

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Global Warming Experts : Parroting The Same BS For Over 100 Years

  1. gator69 says:

    Just you wait! Another hundred years or so, and then, another slimebucket from the shallow end of the gene pool will make another lame as prediction about climate change.

  2. IbSnooker says:

    The other, and perhaps more important, difference is that he wasn’t trying to bilk trillions of dollars out of taxpayers’ pockets and foist a Marxist dystopia on everyone.

  3. diogenese2 says:

    What a find this is Tony! What a comment on “basic science established for more than a century”.
    Like a second marriage “a triumph of hope over experience” this is a triumph of extrapolation over reason. Its also a caution about over hyping CO2 increase in “greening the world”. I don’t suppose the figs in Chicago will be any less crappy than those I grow in London! There is a long way to go before “Antarctica is the only inhabitable continent”.

  4. FTOP_T says:

    Funny how the warmest camp over on the left glosses over the father of CO2 and his theories of:

    Child Electrocution

    Pre-Nazi Eugenicsör_rasbiologi

    I guess calling a AGW supporter a Nazi sympathizer would be similar to the “denier” label, except more accurate.

    • As it happens, exposing children to electricity has made them smarter. Now, the little blighters can operate a computer by 3 years of age, absorb vast amounts of information by sitting for hours in their nappies watching PlaysKool on the TV, Who said this:: “your 8 year old daughter will have absorbed more information already than her grandfather did in his entire life”? Exposure to electricity, but not in the way the professor thought.

  5. nielszoo says:

    Arrhenius? I hate this guy. He’s the one too lazy to read Boyle or Charles or Clapeyron (and many others) and because he didn’t understand Gas Law (which had been around for 70 years) he’s responsible for the asinine “greenhouse” theory that confuses normally intelligent people by making them think a gas mix in a gravity gradient staying at equilibrium (otherwise known as lapse rate) somehow acts like some energy creating glass building that’s gonna incinerate all of us… right after we’re taxed to death.

  6. harborguy says:

    Everything old is new again.

  7. Andy DC says:

    At least 100 years ago, the climate crackpots weren’t being paid billions for their crackpot research and they were not trying to communize the world.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Not only are they running against but the commenters know what they are talking about

      • gregole says:

        Gizmag is pretty much an eye-candy site for tech addicts and engineers like me. I was favorably impressed by the push-back and you know, I am noticing (heck maybe it’s just me…) a fair amount of push-back on various technical sites on a variety of topics all seeming to fall under the rubric of “science-by-press-release” regardless of topic. It’s about time.

  8. Edmonton Al says:

    A question for any of you experts out there…
    I was led to believe that Arrhenius believed that space was “aether”, which he assumed would act as the “glass” does on a greenhouse.
    But from this experiment………………….
    The classic experiment that inspired Albert Einstein was performed in Cleveland by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in 1887 and disproved the existence of an “ether” permeating space through which light was thought to move like a wave through water. What it also proved, said Hartmut Häffner, a UC Berkeley assistant professor of physics, is that space is isotropic and that light travels at the same speed up, down and sideways.
    Is this reasonable and is it true??

  9. ducdorleans says:

    a very good find, Steven … as good as the “pall mall gazette” …

    plus que ça change, plus que ça reste la même chose … 🙂

    your being “rather proficient with computers”, is this your own searching algorithm ? … or … what are the actual words you put into google to find these ? … care to share ? … 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s