Tuesday, November 24, 2020



NYE on MSNBC – Jan. 26, 2015: But is the economic effect of storms like this is huge. You cancel half of the flights out of the world’s — one of the world’s busiest airports, certainly the eastern seaboard is a very busy area economically for airplane travel and so when you start having big storms and you don’t have the infrastructure to deal with it, you are costing your society a lot of money and we’re in the developed world where we can handle this stuff.

So I just want to introduce the idea that the strong winds that we had in southern California, the very strong winds that will be associated with this storm in the next couple of days, these could be connected to climate change. Now proving any one storm is connected, specially cold-weather events is difficult. But I just want to present that.”


    • “Just shameful!”

      I agree! Climate Depot is shameful.

      Climate change was predicted to cause cold spells in some places several years ago:

      “Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere… may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.”


  1. Even Bill Nye is “scientific” enough to choose his words carefully ~ notice he makes ZERO conclusions:

    Blizzard due to climate change is an “idea”…

    Strong California winds “could be connected” to climate change…

    Computer models that have been consistently wrong, dire predictions that have not come true (and the exact opposite has), even the radical alteration of the NAME OF THE THEORY:

    “Global Warming” is now “Climate Change”

    When *every* result proves the theory, how will we know we have solved this crisis?!

          • Yeah, that magazine cover is a *myth*

            Do a little research – in the 1940’s scientists were saying “warming” – at the turn of the century 1890’s into the 1900’s it was “cooling”.

            Riddle me these, genius:
            1) “Man-made Climate Change” causes floods and droughts. It causes extreme cold and extreme heat. When the “resulting proof” is so brutally opposite – how will we know when the problem is solved?

            2) CO2 as a greenhouse gas went up to 370ppm from 270ppm over the last 150 years (hockey stick graph). That is 100 parts per million, or a hundred bucks to a millionaire over 150 years.

            The leading greenhouse gas = water vapor.

            CO2 is not a very efficient greenhouse gas – even so, the oceans contribute far more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other source. “Man-made” only accounts for 22%.

            How much are you willing to spend / tax and cripple economies to reduce 22% of a 100ppm increase of CO2 into an atmosphere that has “maybe” heated up by 1 degree Celsius over a 150 year period?

              • You won’t answer my two questions, one of your two links is broken . . . and you cannot spell “Show” or the proper “sites” . . . Shouldn’t you be in school?

                If it is a snow day for you, consider this your schooling – YOU’VE BEEN COMPLETELY SCHOOLED – goodbye.

                • “..or the proper “sites” ”

                  After quoting , you cite the source. Which could be a website.

                  You were correct- which is more than I can say for my thumb – show, not shoe.

                  And the title of the paper would have been enough to find a proper link. I do apologize for the incredible inconvenience that must have caused.

                  We note no mention of the points made with both sources refuting your claim about the 70s ice age fear being prominent in the literature.

                  Thanks for helping show the paucity of substantive discourse in the ‘skeptical’ dialog.

                  • The noun that goes with the verb “cite” (as in cite a source) is *citation* . . . One does not “Show the cites”.

                    I notice that you STILL have not answered my two questions . . . in true zombie sheeple fashion, when confronted with facts that question your blind belief ~ you fail to have an answer.

                    • Good god…. Cite is simply an abbreviation and as such is oft used as a noun .

                      If you want to discuss your questions, then show us how they specifically tie to the topic of the post.

                    • Make it explicit; should be easy peasy. But then you’ve not been able to support the ’70s ice age’ meme starting the thread…

                      Don’t forget the quotes and cites….

                    • Poor little thing, stuck like a piglet in a sinkhole . . . you refuse to answer two simple direct questions, until you do – you are but a gong clanging in the wilderness.

                      Fear not, little one ~ you are not alone in your ignorant blind acceptance of the AGW *theory* ~ and no one else in that peculiar religion can answer the questions either. As the years go by, and more and more of your AGW doomsday predictions do not come to pass – more people will open their eyes and see the bullsh!t models and fudged data…

                    • Because he couldn’t cite evidence?

                      Because he had to use insult, rough language, and name calling.?

                      Because he spent two days arguing whether cite can be used as a verb and noun?

            • The whole deal with CO2 is that even if the environment puts out much more CO2 than we humans do, it absorbs just as much as it puts out through something called the carbon cycle.

              By adding CO2 into the atmosphere, we offset that balance.

              Positive feedback loops begin to occur: slight warming of the oceans leads to an increase in evaporation and water vapor, which compounds the greenhouse effect; glaciers begin to melt, reducing the earth’s albedo (reflectivity), leading to more melting; and permafrost starts to thaw, leading to a release of CO2 previously frozen in the ground of arctic regions, adding to the greenhouse gas effect.

              In short, subtle changes in climate result in larger impacts, including an increase in average global thermal energy, which are very likely to make our lives more difficult to live in the near future.

              Oh, and you really don’t need to mask your ignorance through name calling; the thoughts of the so-called “genius” you’ve been arguing with is just common sense.

        • “..scientists were warning us ..”

          A few. Certainly not a consensus then.

          The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
          Thomas C. Peterson , William M. Connolley and John Fleck

          Bacall, an ‘anything but my tailpipe’ talking point that doesn’t hold up to a modicum of scrutiny.

          As a talking point that is so easily refuted and one that you didn’t bother to check, points out a certain level of being unskeptical.

    • Uh, bill Nye is not scientific enough. He attributed Hurricane Sandy to human influence.
      He said that although the scientists he knows won’t say so just yet, to trust him, that in a few months from then when the data was to come in, they would say it.

  2. Last time I looked, Bill Nye was a mechanical engineer. I’m an electrical engineer….does that mean my credentials are just as appropriate as Bill’s? I don’t recognize his expertise
    on this subject.

  3. “The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable.” H. L Mencken

  4. Hansen says the Venus Syndrome now, based on the numbers, becomes a realistic possibility if the greater society continues to ignore the advice of the climate scientists and burns all of the coal and all of the tar sands they can with no intervention by the people or their governments, Not talking about short-term fluctuations this century, where our sun is at some kind of recent low … over millions of years, the sun has grown much brighter than it was when CO2 levels were this high in the past. Hansen does some fairly careful mathematics with degrees C of warming, and explains why the forcing humankind is certainly cabable of delivering intersects with the degree of forcing that would set a powerful group of self-amplifying feedbacks in place that would spiral out of contro, a la Disney’s Sorcerer’s Apprentice, except that it would be the entire atmosphere that would be swept up in a superheated vortex, with water splitting into oxygen, which in one of these amplifying loops recombines with C to form carbon dioxide, while the light mostly single-proton H from the water essentially boils off the top of the atmosphere and is lost literally lost in space, leaving Venus eternally dead with no water and no possible way to recreate it. Where were we?

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Field Geology on Mars Reveals Evidence of Megaflood

Guest “field geology rocks!” by David Middleton Field geology at Mars’ equator points to ancient megafloodBy Blaine Friedlander | November 18, 2020 Floods of...

Sea Levels in the Nino Nina Cycle

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach In a recent post entitled “Boy Child, Girl Child” I discussed my functional analysis of the El Nino-La Nina...