Under the terms of the government’s nuclear submarine purchase, the first Australian-built Aukus class vessels come into service in the early 2040s. What else might be happening then?

According to the IPCC, at current rates, the planet will have warmed more than 1.5C above its pre-industrial state. In fact, many scientists believe temperatures could smash the 1.5C barrier as soon as 2030 or 2035 – that is, around about when Australia receives the first of its Virginia-class nuclear subs. //

It means drought and heatwaves disrupting food production, it means rising seas inundating the land, and it means millions of people fleeing regions suddenly rendered uninhabitable.

When you think about what the Australian people might require under such ghastly conditions, “nuclear submarines” do not top the list. //

With this deal, Anthony Albanese has now pledged vastly more money for hi-tech weaponry than Australia’s ever spent on preventing global warming. The $368bn allocated to nuclear submarines that may or may not ever arrive could, for example, have delivered a renewable energy grid, not once, nor twice but four times over.

Since the last ice age

It’s not the Sun
The Sun is the source of energy on the surface of our planet, so it stands to reason that variations in solar activity might cause climate changes. But solar activity has been declining over the past few decades as our planet warmed, so there’s no link. Although solar energy is immense, its variations are tiny.

“It was called the solar ‘constant’ for a long time because you need extremely sensitive instruments to see any variation in the Sun's energy output,” said Owens. Over an 11-year sunspot cycle, the solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere varies by about 0.15 percent, but it rises and falls every cycle, so it can’t drive climate trends like ours. //

In addition to these 11-year cycles, the Sun also goes through “grand solar minima” and “grand solar maxima” of activity that last decades. One of those, called the “Maunder Minimum,” was once thought to be the cause of a cold period between about 1300 and 1850, called the Little Ice Age.” But “it just doesn't add up,” Owens told me. “The temperature starts to drop long before the Maunder Minimum happened.”

The Maunder Minimum may have contributed a fraction of a degree to the cooling during the Little Ice Age, which evidence has since indicated was mostly the result of volcanic eruptions and human land use changes.

The Sun also regulates the dose of cosmic rays inflicted on our atmosphere. These are mostly protons that originate in space from things like supernovae, and there was an idea in the late 1990s that they might affect climate by seeding cloud formation. But the data shows no correlation, Owens told me, and experiments with the CERN particle accelerator show that cloud seeding by cosmic rays is weak. “The growth rate of droplets is just too small to really do anything in the atmosphere,” said Owens, so it can’t explain the Little Ice Age or modern climate change.

Owens is underwhelmed by the Sun’s current activity: “We're ramping up into solar cycle 25. It's looking very, very average!” he said. //

Mann and others have found no discernible climate oscillation in the last thousand years that lasts as long as our climate has been warming, so the warming has outlasted all of these natural oscillations.

It turns out that some apparently natural cycles are illusions. The 40-60-year-long “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” is one of several that are really just echoes of decades-long cooling caused by explosive volcanic eruptions in the preindustrial era. More recently, competition between human-caused warming and human-caused cooling resulting from sulfurous pollution has also left its imprint on the oscillation. Consequently, “key trends, such as the warming of the tropical Atlantic and the increase in hurricane activity associated with it cannot, as some researchers have claimed, be blamed on an internal oscillation,” said Mann. They are instead the result of human-caused warming. //

If an eruption is explosive enough to loft material into the stratosphere and if that material includes a lot of sulfur dioxide gas, the gas forms tiny droplets of sulfuric acid in the stratosphere. These “act like a shiny mirror,” Schmidt said, which reflect some sunlight back into space and cool Earth’s surface.

Eventually the droplets “sediment out of the atmosphere,” as Schmidt put it, and temperatures recover. The 1991 Pinatubo eruption cooled the climate by up to 0.5°C for nearly three years, but bigger historical eruptions had stronger impacts. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 caused 1816 to be “The Year Without a Summer,” and eruptions in 1257, 1452, and 1600 were probably the main causes of the “Little Ice Age.”

“The ocean has a long memory of any changes in temperature,” Schmidt told me, so cooling by past eruptions, like the enormous 1883 eruption of Krakatau, still slosh back and forth in climate variations today.

Ironically, human-caused warming will raise the altitude of the stratosphere, making it harder for eruption plumes to reach it, and will also speed up a stratospheric wind known as the “Brewer-Dobson Circulation,” which will enhance the cooling by those fewer eruptions that manage to reach the higher stratosphere. //

We can rule out the usual natural suspects people often bring up to sow doubt about our role in climate change, and we can rule in humans because multiple lines of evidence prove our role. As the IPCC and agencies in the US, UK, Europe, Japan, China, and others have documented in exhaustive detail, global warming is unequivocally driven by emissions from human activities.

As sure as sure can be, it’s not natural—it’s us.

This year, however, Biden has supported growing the production of off-shore wind energy “by a factor of 714 by 2030.”

Yet nowhere in the Biden plan is there mention of its potential environmental hazards. For instance, there seems to be a connection between off-shore wind turbines and recent whale deaths. By disrupting communication between marine animals, noise from the turbines is hazardous to whales, dolphins, and other underwater creatures, according to the federal government’s own research. And environmentalists say that disruption could even be deadly. Yet corporate media are trying to cover for the Biden administration by characterizing these observations as a Republican “conspiracy theory.”

The problems with wind turbines are bigger than the ocean. They’re known to slaughter eagles, disrupt wildlife habitats, and displace bird feeding and nesting areas. A 2013 study found that wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in the U.S. — a number that’s surely higher after another decade of climate-crazed activism. That’s to say nothing of the negative effects wind turbines have on people. //

Yet with all the disastrous effects wind turbines have wrought on both human and animal life, they are no real substitute for coal or nuclear energy. Not only are turbines unreliable as they depend on wind to operate, but they only make up a small fraction of American energy consumption; in 2020, wind and solar production combined accounted for less than 5 percent of total energy consumption. //

“Indigenous rights, human rights, must go hand-in-hand with climate protection and climate action. That can’t happen at the expense of some people. Then it is not climate justice,” Thunberg told Reuters.

This time, she’s right. When environmental policy becomes anti-human and anti-nature, it should be resisted.

Using litigation to achieve policy ends has become a tried and true tactic in political and advocacy fights. However, in recent years, climate activists have used the courts as a weapon to attack large energy companies — essentially leveraging the legal system as a proxy to win a war of public opinion. Nowhere is this form of “lawfare” more pronounced than in the raft of climate litigation facing energy producers. //

The counties, cities, and states filing climate lawsuits are not only attempting to pin down fossil fuel producers for alleged harms but also to leverage America’s state and district courts to diminish their standing in the court of public opinion. Leveraging of the judicial system in the name of politics not only threatens the rule of law, but also jeopardizes whether oil and gas will be available when America and its allies need them. //

Energy production provides tangible benefits to all Americans. First, hydrocarbons are central to powering our economy and creating essential products. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy notes that Americans use at least 6,000 everyday products manufactured with petrochemicals. //

Second, homegrown fossil fuels ensure America’s energy security and reduce our dependence on less reliable and often untrustworthy foreign countries and companies along with their dirtier product and insecure supply chains. Third, and importantly, energy producers are often the ones paving the way for low- and zero-carbon energy solutions through innovating next-generation technology. Climate lawsuits undermine all these goals. //

The ironies here show the goal of these lawsuits is bringing litigation to change behavior, not to uphold the rule of law. In reality, plaintiffs do not have to win in court to succeed. By casting energy producers as villains, they advance the dubious narrative that the companies producing the energy the American economy requires are blocking a low-carbon future. As one journalist explained, climate lawsuits are useful tools for special interests because of the “effect the suits could have even before they’re decided in court.” Such suits do not have to prove any actual wrongdoing or legal violations, as long as the “lawfare” they wage degrades the reputation of energy producers.

Implementing net zero will depress the global economy more than the atmospheric warming that the campaign against carbon dioxide emissions is supposed to prevent, according to a comparison of research by recognized experts. In other words, abandoning efforts to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuels likely would make virtually everybody richer.

The comparison is presented in a short 12-minute video titled “How human disruptions impact GDP” by Dr. Lars Schernikau, an energy economist, commodity trader, and author of The Unpopular Truth… about Electricity and the Future of Energy.

Dr. Schernikau reviews the cost of “human” disruptions such as from Covid or the Ukraine-Russia war with estimates of implementing net zero, which were calculated by consultants McKinsey & Company and Wood Mackenzie, and projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for atmospheric warming’s effect on GDP.

According to the data, the cost of implementing net zero would range from seven to 10 percent of GDP by 2050, while the cost of abandoning net zero would be but a fraction of that—0.5 to four percent of GDP from a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. The difference is measured in many trillions of dollars. Moreover, the higher cost of net zero is compounded by being incurred 50 years earlier than the predicted effect of warming

To comply with the European Union’s climate diktats, the Dutch, Belgium, and other European governments have pledged to more than halve their emission of greenhouse gases. To meet these radical targets, they are forcing the farmers to cut down on their livestock or go out of business.

In the Netherlands, Europe’s biggest meat exporter, the government is trying to “convince farmers to reduce livestock herds or leave the industry to cut emissions,” the London-based Financial Times reported last week. //

Eva Vlaardingerbroek @EvaVlaar
·
The farmers form virtually the only self reliant societal group in The Netherlands that has enough manpower to bring the government to its knees.

And that’s exactly why they’re trying to get rid of them.
11:11 AM · Mar 3, 2023 //

The Netherlands is the world’s second-largest agricultural exporter after the United States. Farming and dairy sectors also play a key role in Belgium’s economy.

With Ukraine, the proverbial breadbasket of Europe, devastated after a yearlong war, the EU wants to put tens of thousands of Dutch farmers out of business in pursuit of a foolish climate change agenda. “Dutch government proposals for tackling nitrogen emissions indicate a radical cut in livestock – they estimate 11,200 farms will have to close and another 17,600 farmers will have to significantly reduce their livestock,” the BBC estimated last July. //

Fat_Freddys_Cat | March 6, 2023 at 4:22 pm
Have any journalists asked Dutch or EU officials where they expect to get food from if they run the farmers off the land? It seems a rather obvious question but I don’t see it being asked.

At the end of 2022, climate startup Make Sunsets announced it had launched two payloads of reflective sulfur into the New Mexico sky as proof of concept for its planet-cooling technology. By filling the sky with sun-reflective sulfur, the company hopes to attack climate change directly by simply reducing the world’s temperature — and it’s hoping to make a fortune in the process by selling carbon credits to greenhouse gas emitters.

But because blocking out the sun would produce catastrophic consequences for food and energy production and even human health, these credits would have to include both the “cost” of each ton of carbon dioxide offset by the sulfur and the negative effects of less sunlight reaching the Earth. Once accounting for the damage from blocking our sun, it’s likely Make Sunrise’s credits are worth less than zero and are a net liability for humanity that could, if scaled, cause significant damage to our planet.

To prevent financial fraud and ecological catastrophe, including acid rain, the Biden administration must take immediate action to shut the company’s operations down for good.

After a 20-year career as a tech reporter for CNET and the public radio program Marketplace, Molly Wood has come to see the climate crisis as an engineering problem requiring a lot more investment. In one of her last journalism projects, she produced the acclaimed documentary podcast “How We Survive” for Marketplace. //

She says framing the climate crisis as an engineering problem gave her a path to explore resilience, adaptation and solutions.

“That's why I called that series ‘How We Survive’ because the eight-episode podcast was the culmination of about four years of ongoing reporting under that name. And it really was a very literal approach to, okay, well, how are we not gonna die when things start to get more and more terrible.”

Now, she’s moved out of journalism and into venture capital, where she sees greater potential for climate solutions through focused investments. “Money can actually enable a solution to be born,” she says.

“We always talk about how capitalism is the disaster, it is the market failure, it's the thing that's created this problem. Greed is the reason that we’ll never get out of it,” she says. “But also, [the climate crisis] seems like kind of a big business opportunity.”

DiEM25
@DiEM_25
·
The world’s elite has arrived in Davos on over 1000 private jets to lecture you about climate change.
3:15 AM · Jan 16, 2023 //

One other policy that is restricting air travel covers what is deemed “short-haul” flights – meaning trips of a shorter distance that can be made using rail services instead.

Over half of the jets parked on the tarmac at Davos arrived on what would have qualified as a short-haul jaunt. Those would be the very people in Europe, who have been proposing these policies to be enforced upon the gentry, using a G6 to hop over to the Alps.

The conference itself promoted a series of panels, breakout sessions, think tanks, closed-door meetings, and other lectures and speeches designed to tell us – the globe – what we are doing wrong. It is a socialist’s nocturnal emissions fantasy of the new world they want to see crafted and delivered under the umbrella heading unironically dubbed The Great Reset. That they use that dystopian descriptor unironically is a perfect sign of how little they care about the opinions of the rabble they intend to lord over.

Former Vice President and 2000 presidential election loser Al Gore has spent his post-political career warning anyone who will listen that the earth is in its death throes due to global warming (now called climate change because somehow that’s better).

His 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” amassed $49 million at the world box office and catapulted Al into the top ranks of climate hysterics, and he’s never looked back, constantly jetting to meetings around the world to preach his truth.

This week he’s at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, because of course he is.

Is he doing this because he truly believes what he’s saying, or because he cares so very much about you? While we can’t read his mind, one thing we do know for sure: climate change has been very, very good to Al Gore. Though he was worth approximately $1.7 million at the end of his vice presidency, he has now amassed an estimated $330 million fortune, owns houses in Virginia, California, and Tennessee, and receives a cool $2 million a month for a figurehead position at the Generation Investment Management green energy fund he founded with former Goldman Sachs Managing Director David W. Blood. //

Deplorables4Trump
@lbrot1
·
Follow
Replying to @algore
Al Gores $9,000,000 beach house, steps away from the ocean. Listen up liberal sheep, would anyone who really thinks the oceans are rising own this? Just like how they live in mansions, fly private planes and have huge “carbon footprints.” If they were truly concerned they’d stop!
1:04 PM · Jan 6, 2018 //

flguy
2 hours ago
A highly successful modern snake-oil salesman, relieving fools of their money. 'A fool and his money are soon parted' is an age-old saying for a reason.

Although scientists are still studying the size and severity of storms that killed 19 people and caused up to $1 billion in damage, initial assessments suggest the destruction had more to do with California’s historic drought-to-deluge cycles, mountainous topography and aging flood infrastructure than it did with climate-altering greenhouse gasses. //

Although the media and some officials were quick to link a series of powerful storms to climate change, researchers interviewed by The [Los Angeles] Times said they had yet to see evidence of that connection. Instead, the unexpected onslaught of rain and snow after three years of punishing drought appears akin to other major storms that have struck California every decade or more since experts began keeping records in the 1800s. //

None of this is meant to diminish the impact of the storms or belittle those who were killed or harmed. The point is, storms like these are “historic” only in the fact they’ve occurred often in history before. Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist Alexander Gershunov says the quiet part out loud:

“We know from climate models that global warming will boost California storms of the future, but we haven’t made that connection with the latest storm systems,” said Alexander Gershunov, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “Assuming that these storms were driven by global warming would be like assuming an athlete who breaks a record was on steroids.”

How does it compare to past storms? Turns out 1956 was much worse:

Indeed, this mid-winter’s precipitation was far behind the 1956 season, when California had received a whopping 85.3% of its average annual precipitation by Jan. 17, according to the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes. As of Wednesday, California had accumulated about 70% of its average annual total, the center said.

Exxon's scientists accurately projected things its executives didn't want to hear. //

Currently, the major oil companies appear to have settled on an awkward compromise with the reality of climate change: They generally acknowledge that their product is helping drive it but plan to continue to produce as much of that product as they can. But that reflects a major change for these companies, which up until recently were funding think tanks that minimized the risks of climate change and, in many cases, directly denying the validity of the science.

In the case of ExxonMobil, that includes denying its own science. Thanks to documents obtained by the press, we now know that Exxon sponsored its own climate researchers who did internal research, collaborated with academic scientists, and came to roughly the same conclusions about carbon dioxide that the rest of the scientific community had—and executives were made aware of it. //

A climate projection's skillfulness is a measure of how closely it agreed with the historic record. And again, Exxon scientists performed well. The aggregate skillfulness of their internal climate models is over 70 percent. By that measure, they outperformed contemporary models from the scientific community. //

jhodge Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
11y
6,193
Subscriptor++

Dark Jaguar said:
We can't trust corporations though. That's not how we solve this problem. Taking their autonomy away and making them a branch of the government may just be an absolute necessity to get through this. The fundamental need of any society is survival. All other rights take a back seat to this, because they are dependent upon it. I don't care if someone's an Ayn Rand objectivist, survival is more important than A=A.

No - down that path lies totalitarianism. If survival trumps all other values, and the state is charged with ensuring that survival, then no limits on the power of the state can be tolerated.

We're just going to muddle through this, keeping in mind that people generally don't act until a crisis is immediate. The climate is going to change, and there are going to be widespread impacts with winners and losers.

We are not as ultimately as rational as we like to think, and our actions pretty much always optimize for the short-term.

The other part of the fiction about E cars is that batteries are made with a massive amount of raw material, mined by diesel-driven equipment, and slave labor.

Notwithstanding the dream that E-Cars are produced in Santa’s magic workshop, they are not. All of the raw minerals and elements needed for EV batteries are strip-mined. Liberals happily drive their E cars while scolding truck drivers, almost certainly never consider the environmental and human cost of the battery powered “clean vehicles.” Almost all of the known deposits of cobalt are found in the Congo. Slaves/Child laborers harvest those raw materials. The conditions for miners range from horrid to barely humane.

China has the corner on graphite and lithium. America will import almost all of its lithium and 100 percent of its graphite from Communist China to make E-Car batteries. How does the CCP get those elements out of the ground? Thank a Uyghur slave. China employs hundreds if not thousands in the forced labor of minerals. The mining giant Xinjiang Nonferrous Metal Industry works hundreds of Uyghurs in its mines. EV car? Thank a slave.

When Al Gore, John Kerry and the New York Times gang up on someone, you know a political hit is on. That’s what happened last week to World Bank President David Malpass, for the sin of not turning the international lending institution into an arm of Democratic Party policy on climate change. //

The Journal points out that bringing third-world countries into the first world…

…requires energy, which today is still most efficiently and affordably provided by fossil fuels. Yet Mr. Kerry recently cautioned African leaders against investing in long-term natural gas production, as if they have an alternative if they want to develop.

This is an indulgence in a place like California, which is affluent enough to pay twice what its neighboring states do for energy. //

…it amounts to condemning countries in Africa and much of the developing world to more decades of poverty. //

Kerry may even be consigning poor countries to needless hunger from rising prices and perhaps a global shortage of natural gas for fertilizer. Climate monomania is easier to preach with a sea-side view from a bluff in Martha’s Vineyard than it is from a village with unreliable electricity in the Congo.

As the world is painfully learning, the technology doesn’t exist for a rapid transition to a world without fossil fuels. //

Lectures from Mr. Kerry are hard to take when he travels around the world by carbon-spewing private jet or government aircraft. As for Mr. Gore, he has been predicting climate doom for decades even as he invests in green energy backed by copious government subsidies. And what do they have to show for their decades of climate advocacy? They hold conferences and set unrealistic emissions targets. But the U.S. emissions reductions in recent decades are almost entirely the result of the expansion of natural gas production that the climate lobby wants to shut down.

What level of CO2 is toxic to humans?

This could occur when exposed to levels above 5,000 ppm for many hours. At even higher levels of CO2 can cause asphyxiation as it replaces oxygen in the blood-exposure to concentrations around 40,000 ppm is immediately dangerous to life and health.

How much c02 in the air is dangerous?

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends an 8- hour TWA Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 5,000 ppm and a Ceiling exposure limit (not to be exceeded) of 30,000 ppm for a 10-minute period. A value of 40,000 is considered immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH value).

How much CO2 is too much for humans?

350 to 1000 ppm is a good quality concentration in an enclosed room. This is what the Earth is, a confined space. 1000 to 2000 ppm, the air quality is low. From 2000 to 5000 ppm, CO2 concentration starts to cause problems (headaches, insomnia, nausea).

Nearly six years after the United States helped negotiate it, the Senate has ratified a global climate treaty that would formally phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, industrial chemicals commonly found in air conditioners and refrigerators, insulating foams and pharmaceutical inhalers.

The Kigali Amendment, an addition to the Montreal Protocol climate treaty, aims to drastically reduce the global use of the compounds.

"This measure will go a long way to lowering global temperatures while also creating tens of thousands of American jobs," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said before Wednesday's vote, which passed 69-27.

HFCs were widely adopted in the 1980s and 1990s to replace another family of chemicals, chlorofluorocarbon, or CFCs, which damage the Earth's ozone layer. But after the switch, HFCs emerged as some of the most potent greenhouse gases, hundreds to thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide. //

On the climate side, there is some evidence that commitments to cut back on the use of HFCs are not being followed. A study published in Nature Communications in 2021 found that atmospheric levels of the most potent HFC, HFC-23, should have been much lower than what scientists detected if China and India, countries responsible for manufacturing the majority of the compound that turns into HFC-23, had accurately reported their reductions.

But grid operators, utilities and clean energy advocates say it doesn’t make sense to blame electric vehicles for the soaring electricity demand during the recent heat wave. And in the future, as utilities make needed adjustments for widespread EV uptake, there’s no reason why transportation electrification should overburden the country’s grid, they said.

In fact, experts see EV batteries as part of the solution.

They help to reduce planet-warming emissions and can add needed flexibility to electric utilities that are sure to come under more strain as global temperatures continue to rise.

Garrett Fitzgerald, senior director for electrification at the Smart Electric Power Alliance, called the backlash over California’s charging delays “undue criticism or panic.”

“The grid can handle it, we’re taking the necessary steps, but we’re just at the very beginning of putting those processes and programs in place,” he said. “A future grid will absolutely be able to handle a future demand of transportation electrification.”

That success will hinge on utilities being proactive in planning for millions of additional EVs on the roads in the coming decades. It will also take some adjustments, experts said. EV owners and utilities must take advantage of up-and-coming charging technologies that will save the grid from unnecessary stress. //

Adding capacity to the grid would be necessary with or without transportation electrification. Perhaps a more important consideration, experts and utilities said, is load management—utilities’ ability to accommodate fluctuations in energy supply and demand in real time to avoid outages.

“It’s less about being able to meet the energy consumption required for EV charging, and it’s much more about meeting the demand for that electricity, and specifically when, where and at what power we’re providing that demand,” said Fitzgerald of the Smart Electric Power Alliance. //

Managed charging, for example, allows utilities to remotely start or stop vehicle charging to accommodate grid conditions, with the vehicle owner’s consent. It can be particularly useful for companies that operate many electric vehicles that need to be charged but not necessarily all at once.

Time-of-use pricing encourages EV owners to charge their vehicles during off-peak hours, rewarding them with lower rates for doing so. And vehicle-to-grid or vehicle-to-home technology can allow certain EVs to sell electricity from their battery back to the grid during times of need, or to power a home during an outage. //

Improvements to the grid are seen by experts as necessary not only to prevent power outages from high demand, but also to help the U.S. meet its climate goals by facilitating the transition away from gas-guzzling vehicles. The stakes are high.

“If we don’t get this right, we are not going to be able to reduce our climate emissions, we are not going to be able to mitigate transportation pollution, and we are not going to be able to actually serve this increased demand from people around the country who want to play their part in being part of the solution,” said Baldwin.

If your Dutch is rusty, the internet says he wrote:

Horrible. Due to the drought in European rivers, Hunger Stones are surfacing. Macabre warnings from our 15th century ancestors about famine.

‘When you see me, cry’

At least Koens had the sense not to write, “Due to climate change…” Because unless his 15th-century ancestors had scuba gear and a weird sense of humor, those bodacious boulders were high and dry centuries before global cooling global warming man-made climate change was ever thought of.

A group of Czech researchers relied on Hunger Stones for some of the data that went into their 2013 report, Droughts in the Czech Lands, 1090–2012 AD. They described the stones and listed the previous drought years they commemorate:

Hydrological droughts may also be commemorated by what are known as “hunger stones”. One of these is to be found at the left bank of the River Elbe (Deˇcˇ ́ın-Podmokly), chiselled with the years of hardship and the initials of authors lost to history (Fig. 2). The basic inscriptions warn of the consequences of drought: Wenn du mich siehst, dann weine [“If you see me, weep.”]. It expressed that drought had brought a bad harvest, lack of food, high prices and hunger for poor people. Before 1900, the following droughts are commemorated on the stone: 1417, 1616, 1707, 1746, 1790, 1800, 1811, 1830, 1842, 1868, 1892, and 1893.

A tree-ring study printed in Science Advances, a journal published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, confirmed that “megadroughts” used to be more common before the evil Industrial Revolution kicked off all of that cursed First World tech:

In addition, megadroughts reconstructed over north-central Europe in the 11th and mid-15th centuries reinforce other evidence from North America and Asia that droughts were more severe, extensive, and prolonged over Northern Hemisphere land areas before the 20th century, with an inadequate understanding of their causes.

scientists began to wonder if Amyloid was the cause of the disease, or merely a sign of the damage the actual cause was doing to the brain; the difference between, say, a terminal disease and the tombstone left behind after it’s taken its toll.

The science, however, was settled, and alternative hypotheses would no longer be considered.

“In more than two dozen interviews,” a 2019 STAT News expose revealed, “scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences.”

Straying outside the dogma would get you marked as a “traitor,” one prominent scientist explained, and could cost the heretic published articles, prominent posts, grant money for research, and speaking slots at prestigious conferences. //

The 100-year anniversary of Dr. Alzheimer’s discovery might have been the year for skeptics to have their say, pointing out that despite decades of research and money, no cure yet existed. //

Over the next 15 years, the 2006 study would be cited in more than 2,000 other scholarly works.

Then in 2022, it would be exposed as seemingly fraudulent by a host of credible scientific investigators.

Fraudulent, as in, literally using falsified images to make its case. The “substance,” it turns out, might not even exist.

The damage, however, was done. Since the study was first published, millions of manhours and billions of dollars had been spent chasing its conclusions. Minds that could have been working toward actual progress had instead been led astray. Conclusions based on false presumptions had been compromised — as have any studies based on those now-compromised studies that worked off of the 2006 findings.

The reality is while one (or a few) dishonest players certainly caused a great deal of damage, they couldn’t have done it without the assistance of a cabal of senior scientists who jealously guarded their theory — and put down those rebels who dared question it. //

The above is the story of how quickly greed, pride, and groupthink can get out of hand in even a strictly scientific field of research — one so many Americans across all parties and incomes and races are personally interested in figuring out.

How much easier, then, could this be in more politically fractious fields? In fields that allow the top scientists access to more than simple money and prestige, but also power.

In fields like global warming, where dissenters (or even mere skeptics) are labeled “deniers”? Just this week, Al Gore compared those skeptics to the Ulvade, Texas police, whose inaction contributed to the murder of 19 schoolchildren and two teachers.

Billions more dollars flow into this field than into Alzheimer’s research. In the name of global warming, organizations like the United Nations join powerful state actors across the planet in shaping policy and economics based on the favored research.

From its very beginning, global warming scientists’ most alarmist claims have been disproven, yet still they march on, confident as ever.

https://twitter.com/DanielTurnerPTF/status/1549737575954399233