Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

[Typhoon]

Doomberg | The Windmill That (Almost) Spoiled Supper

[Typhoon]

Manhattan Contrarian | Be Thankful That COP26 Has Ended

cop_vs_co2-levels.png (381.94 KiB) Viewed 12858 times

I'm looking forward to COP27.

Plants, even mores so.

[Doc]

Manhattan Contrarian | Be Thankful That COP26 Has Ended


cop_vs_co2-levels.png


I'm looking forward to COP27.

Plants, even mores so.

[noddy]

Im on the side of action now.

climate change requires monitoring, mitigation, automation - sensors and custom controllers and electronics out the wahoozie.

good chances of some sweet gubmint funding.

have no fear, the graphs arent going to change because China and India arent going anywhere but with any luck ill get some of my tax money back.

[Typhoon]

Im on the side of action now.

climate change requires monitoring, mitigation, automation - sensors and custom controllers and electronics out the wahoozie.

good chances of some sweet gubmint funding.

have no fear, the graphs arent going to change because China and India arent going anywhere but with any luck ill get some of my tax money back.

Quite. Climate change is very much a current Western popular delusion and the madness of the ruling and chattering classes.

Best of luck in accessing some of that govt funding to recover some of your tax money.

"In South Australia I was shorn . . ."

[noddy]

https://www.cnx-software.com/2021/11/18 ... thon-perl/

As a former software engineer who’s mostly worked with C programming, and to a lesser extent assembler, I know in my heart that those are the two most efficient programming languages since they are so close to the hardware.

But to remove any doubts, a team of Portuguese university researchers attempted to quantify the energy efficiency of different programming languages (and of their compiler/interpreter) in a paper entitled Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages published in 2017, where they looked at the runtime, memory usage, and energy consumption of twenty-seven well-known programming languages. C is the uncontested winner here being the most efficient, while Python, which I’ll now call the polluters’ programming language , is right at the bottom of the scale together with Perl.

as a c programmer, I am already a pure, selfless (boom boom) soul.

[Typhoon]

https://www.cnx-software.com/2021/11/18 ... thon-perl/

As a former software engineer who’s mostly worked with C programming, and to a lesser extent assembler, I know in my heart that those are the two most efficient programming languages since they are so close to the hardware.

But to remove any doubts, a team of Portuguese university researchers attempted to quantify the energy efficiency of different programming languages (and of their compiler/interpreter) in a paper entitled Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages published in 2017, where they looked at the runtime, memory usage, and energy consumption of twenty-seven well-known programming languages. C is the uncontested winner here being the most efficient, while Python, which I’ll now call the polluters’ programming language , is right at the bottom of the scale together with Perl.

as a c programmer, I am already a pure, selfless (boom boom) soul.

CNX. Isn't that an OS for real-time performance in embedded systems?

Would have liked to have seen Julia, which I've been learning to use, ranked as it is a modern candidate attempting to replace Fortran in high-end scientific computing.

[noddy]

https://www.cnx-software.com/2021/11/18 ... thon-perl/

As a former software engineer who’s mostly worked with C programming, and to a lesser extent assembler, I know in my heart that those are the two most efficient programming languages since they are so close to the hardware.

But to remove any doubts, a team of Portuguese university researchers attempted to quantify the energy efficiency of different programming languages (and of their compiler/interpreter) in a paper entitled Energy Efficiency across Programming Languages published in 2017, where they looked at the runtime, memory usage, and energy consumption of twenty-seven well-known programming languages. C is the uncontested winner here being the most efficient, while Python, which I’ll now call the polluters’ programming language , is right at the bottom of the scale together with Perl.

as a c programmer, I am already a pure, selfless (boom boom) soul.

CNX. Isn't that an OS for real-time performance in embedded systems?

Would have liked to have seen Julia, which I've been learning to use, ranked as it is a modern candidate attempting to replace Fortran in high-end scientific computing.

according to Julia its benchmarking on par with Rust https://julialang.org/benchmarks/

so thats nearly as fast as c, but not quite, because the safety features in the language have a cost.

in the real world, I doubt its much different and certainly orders of magnitude faster than R or Python and the other trendy data languages.

[Doc]

Given that Facebook and other big tech Socialist media sites use *FACT*check sites they may not be able to get away with this one.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/09/ ... n-opinion/

BOMBSHELL: In court filing, Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion
22 hours ago
Anthony Watts
145 Comments

Facebook has admitted in a court of law that such fact checks are not factual at all, but merely opinions.

People send me stuff.

As we have previously reported, journalist John Stossel is suing Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ labeled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”. In the middle of all this is the nefarious website “Climate Feedback” which has a bunch of climate zealots that write up what they claim are “fact checks” for articles, videos, and news stories they disagree with.

Facebook just blew the “fact check” claim right out of the water in court.

In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document (download it below) that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.

Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,


“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”

So, in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook admits that its ‘fact checks’ are not really ‘fact’ checks at all, but merely ‘opinion assertions.’

This strikes me as public relations disaster, and possibly a looming legal disaster for Facebook, PolitiFact, Climate Feedback and other left-leaning entities that engage in biased “fact checking.”

Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to supress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.

It is none of those.

Here is the court filing:

[Typhoon]

Given that Facebook and other big tech Socialist media sites use *FACT*check sites they may not be able to get away with this one.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/09/ ... n-opinion/

BOMBSHELL: In court filing, Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion
22 hours ago
Anthony Watts
145 Comments

Facebook has admitted in a court of law that such fact checks are not factual at all, but merely opinions.

People send me stuff.

As we have previously reported, journalist John Stossel is suing Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ labeled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”. In the middle of all this is the nefarious website “Climate Feedback” which has a bunch of climate zealots that write up what they claim are “fact checks” for articles, videos, and news stories they disagree with.

Facebook just blew the “fact check” claim right out of the water in court.

In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document (download it below) that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.

Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,


“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”

So, in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook admits that its ‘fact checks’ are not really ‘fact’ checks at all, but merely ‘opinion assertions.’

This strikes me as public relations disaster, and possibly a looming legal disaster for Facebook, PolitiFact, Climate Feedback and other left-leaning entities that engage in biased “fact checking.”

Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to supress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.

It is none of those.

Here is the court filing:

I'll be surprised if this Captain Obvious revelation causes more than a ripple outside of the man-made climate change skeptics circle.

[Typhoon]

What one gets when people who have no clue how a contemporary industrial economy works, presume to instruct those who run it.

WUWT | How the War on Fossil Fuels Will Kill People - Urea Edition

Doomberg | How to Brick an Entire Economy - Urea Edition

[Doc]

Given that Facebook and other big tech Socialist media sites use *FACT*check sites they may not be able to get away with this one.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/09/ ... n-opinion/

BOMBSHELL: In court filing, Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion
22 hours ago
Anthony Watts
145 Comments

Facebook has admitted in a court of law that such fact checks are not factual at all, but merely opinions.

People send me stuff.

As we have previously reported, journalist John Stossel is suing Facebook after Facebook’s ‘fact checkers’ labeled climate change information that Stossel posted as “false and misleading”. In the middle of all this is the nefarious website “Climate Feedback” which has a bunch of climate zealots that write up what they claim are “fact checks” for articles, videos, and news stories they disagree with.

Facebook just blew the “fact check” claim right out of the water in court.

In its response to Stossel’s defamation claim, Facebook responds on Page 2, Line 8 in the court document (download it below) that Facebook cannot be sued for defamation (which is making a false and harmful assertion) because its ‘fact checks’ are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.

Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook’s complaint is,


“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”

So, in a court of law, in a legal filing, Facebook admits that its ‘fact checks’ are not really ‘fact’ checks at all, but merely ‘opinion assertions.’

This strikes me as public relations disaster, and possibly a looming legal disaster for Facebook, PolitiFact, Climate Feedback and other left-leaning entities that engage in biased “fact checking.”

Such “fact checks” are now shown to be simply an agenda to supress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.

It is none of those.

Here is the court filing:

I'll be surprised if this Captain Obvious revelation causes more than a ripple outside of the man-made climate change skeptics circle.

Probably. But is another tool in the argument toolbox. I think I am going to be following this trial.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Poorer nations not falling for greenwashed imperialism
The rich countries are continuing on their path of excess carbon emissions while shifting the goalposts for others

If fossil fuels have to be given up, which has now become an urgent need given the current environmental challenges, countries in Africa and a significant part of Asia, including India, need an alternative way of providing electricity to their people. What then is the best course for poorer countries to follow for electricity production if they do not use the fossil fuel route that is being used by rich countries?

This level of investment in renewables may not be a problem for a rich country. But for a poor country trying to build its basic infrastructure of electricity, roads, railways and other public infrastructure, including schools, universities and health-care institutions, this switch to renewables will not be easy without financial support from the rich countries.

This is why the rich countries asking the poor countries to make net-zero pledges without committing to providing them with any money is completely hypocritical.

https://asiatimes.com/2021/12/poorer-na ... perialism/

[Typhoon]

Poorer nations not falling for greenwashed imperialism
The rich countries are continuing on their path of excess carbon emissions while shifting the goalposts for others

If fossil fuels have to be given up, which has now become an urgent need given the current environmental challenges, countries in Africa and a significant part of Asia, including India, need an alternative way of providing electricity to their people. What then is the best course for poorer countries to follow for electricity production if they do not use the fossil fuel route that is being used by rich countries?

This level of investment in renewables may not be a problem for a rich country. But for a poor country trying to build its basic infrastructure of electricity, roads, railways and other public infrastructure, including schools, universities and health-care institutions, this switch to renewables will not be easy without financial support from the rich countries.

This is why the rich countries asking the poor countries to make net-zero pledges without committing to providing them with any money is completely hypocritical.

https://asiatimes.com/2021/12/poorer-na ... perialism/

The 3rd nations world would to well to ignore this current moral panic of the Western chattering classes.

On the another hand, it's another opportunity for 3rd world kleptocrats to top up their offshore bank accounts.

[Typhoon]

Doomberg | California Ditzkrieg

“An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” – Orlando Aloysius Battista

If one wanted to destroy an economy from within, it would be hard to do a better job than what Germany is doing to itself. By systematically shutting down baseload-critical nuclear power facilities and replacing them with intermittent renewable energy, Germany has left itself – and by extension, the entire European Union – vulnerable to shortages of reliable sources of electricity. Not satisfied with that error, Germany has further impaled itself by attacking its suppliers of natural gas – the remaining option for producing reliable baseload power, having ruled out nuclear and coal – turning a mistake into a predictable catastrophe.

And a catastrophe is precisely what has befallen Germany and wider Europe. One need look no further than the explosion in the cost of electricity for proof of what this blitzkrieg of stupidity has accomplished. The full fallout from these blunders will continue to reverberate for years to come. Having smashed their fine China on the kitchen floor, we fully expect Germany’s leadership to walk right over the ceramic shards in bare feet.

https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_d8db2277-9107-4ffd-8d2c-2e692066076e_2872x1490.png (266.36 KiB) Viewed 12697 times

[Typhoon]

Doomberg | New England [USA] is an Energy Crisis Waiting to Happen

[Doc]

Well there you go -- What was it that Boxer said after the supreme court ruled that a private company Pfizer could legally seek eminent domain over the homes of 350 families. Giving them in some cases nothing in compensation. In order to build a research lab on the harbor Then two years later closing it down and selling off the property? OH yeah "It is as if God has spoken"

I guess that is it then... We will all have to give up our freedom to prevent our demise as a species, from all kinds of threats to our species, and persons, real and imagined.

https://fee.org/articles/authoritariani ... dy-argues/

‘Authoritarianism’ May Be Necessary to Fight Climate Change, Cambridge Study Argues

There are many genuine threats facing humanity. None of them require authoritarianism or the infringement of civil liberties.
Wednesday, January 5, 2022

Jon Miltimore
Jon Miltimore
Education Authoritarianism Climate Change COVID-19 Emergencies Robert Higgs James Madison Crisis and Leviathan War Civil Liberties

A recent study published in American Political Science Review, a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University, begins with a teasing question: “Is authoritarian power ever legitimate?”

For many, the answer is clearly no, concedes the study’s author—Ross Mittiga, an assistant professor of political theory at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. But Mittiga, in the abstract to the study, suggests otherwise:

“While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach.”

‘Explicitly Argues for Authoritarian Governance’?

The study caught the eye of Alexander Wuttke, a Twitter user who studies political behavior at the University of Mannheim in Germany.

“In my reading, it explicitly argues that we must put climate action over democracy and adopt authoritarian governance if democracies fail to act on climate change,” tweeted Wuttke.

In an extensive thread, Wuttke explained why he disagrees with Mittiga.

“I am genuinely puzzled about the origins of this anti-democratic intuition that seems to give rise to the entire endeavor of exploring whether we should sacrifice democracy for the sake of a higher good,” Wuttke says at one point. “The article argues that crises not only can legitimize but may require authoritarian governance. This is not true. Democracies have fought the pandemic without giving up being democratic.”

[

b] A prestigious journal in political science, @apsrjournal, has published a disturbing piece of l political theory.

In my reading, it explicitly argues that we must put climate action over democracy and adopt authoritarian governance if democracies fail to act on climate change. pic.twitter.com/HxFsjaYNfW
— Alexander Wuttke (@Kunkakom) December 31, 2021[/b]

In a rare (and refreshing) display of civility for Twitter, Mittiga said he appreciated Wuttke’s thoughts and thanked him for "his good will in sharing these comments with me before posting.” In his own thread, Mittiga sought to address what he said were “several mischaracterizations or confusions” in Wuttke’s comments.

“The relevant question is *not* whether giving up democracy was somehow necessary for addressing the emergency (in this case, COVID-19). Clearly, it was not, and I certainly never suggest as much in the paper,” Mittiga explains at one point. “Rather, the real question -- the one that gets at what I tried to argue -- is whether democracies have addressed the emergency in purely democratic, rights-respecting ways. The answer is, of course, that they have not.”

I appreciate @Kunkakom engaging with my article (across disciplinary lines!) and for his good will in sharing these comments with me before posting. While I'm happy to watch the debate unfold, I'd stress that @Kunkakom's thread contains several mischaracterizations or confusions. https://t.co/xGHIXSFryI
— Ross Mittiga (@RossMittiga) December 31, 2021

‘Less Legitimate’ Nations Shun Authoritarianism?

For those interested in capturing the nuance of the differences in what Mittiga says he meant in the study versus what Wuttke believes he wrote, I suggest a careful review of their threads (and the study itself).

However, Mittiga’s own description speaks for itself. He says that COVID-19 clearly resulted in “severe restrictions on rights of free movement, association, religious practice, and even speech,” all of which “are authoritarian in nature, though, I would argue, they have often been nonetheless legitimate.”

Mittiga then explains that governments that failed to take authoritarian steps to mitigate the threat of COVID are perceived as “less legitimate. (Think here of the Trump or Bolsonaro governments.)”

“I believe the same is true with respect to climate change,” Mittiga explains. “Those governments which are able but unwilling to confront the climate crisis -- which poses one of the greatest threats to safety and security we have ever faced -- are, for that reason, less legitimate.”

Whatever nuances Wuttke may have missed in Mittiga’s study, it’s clear that Mittiga is in fact arguing that “legitimate” governments should shun democratic principles and civil liberties and embrace authoritarianism to confront challenges such as climate change.
The Lesson of Crises

Say what you will about Mittiga’s proposal—which is myopic and dangerous—his logic is sound. If “legitimate” governments embrace authoritarian measures to combat a deadly pandemic that poses a genuine threat to humans, why should they not embrace authoritarian measures to combat climate change, which many argue poses an even greater threat?

There’s a popular meme among libertarians: “If you allow politicians to break the law during emergencies, they will create an emergency to break the law.”

Verdict: true pic.twitter.com/eyKlmUzNgI
— Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) January 4, 2022

It’s a cynical take, to be sure, but it contains more than a nugget of truth. Progressives have long been frustrated by the American system, which was designed to disperse centralized power, something they feared above all else.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny," James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers.

For this reason, the Founders created a federalist (decentralized) system with numerous checks and balances. That system endured stubbornly for generations, but over the course of the 20th century the checks and balances eroded—not so much slowly as sporadically.

In his book Crisis and Leviathan, economist Robert Higgs points out that there’s a pattern to the erosion of constitutional limits on power: they happen during crises. In 2020, the crisis was the pandemic, which precipitated lockdowns and the most widespread infringements on economic freedom in US history (which saw the top 1 percent accumulate a record percentage of wealth).

Mittiga is not wrong when he asserts the pandemic resulted in authoritarian “restrictions on rights of free movement, association, religious practice, and even speech.” But he may not realize this is part of a pattern. As Higgs shows, the erosion of civil liberties and the biggest power grabs in history came during periods of crisis.

World War I brought the draft, crackdowns on “disloyal” speech, unprecedented government propaganda, the chilling Palmer Raids, and much more. The Great Depression gave birth to the New Deal. World War II brought (again) the draft and Japanese internment camps, and more. Korea brought the nationalization of steel mills. The 9-11 attacks spawned the War on Terror and the Patriot Act.

These are hardly the only examples. What’s important is that crises have historically served as the catalyst for authoritarianism, and, as Higgs notes, the emergency powers often persist long after the emergency has abated.

Higgs refers to this phenomenon as “the ratchet effect,” which suggests that governments simply lack the will or ability to roll back bureaucratic power strengthened for supposedly temporary needs, giving credence to James Madison's prophetic warning that a free people would be wise to guard against "the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in government."

None of this is to say climate change does not exist or that the COVID-19 pandemic is not a serious problem, any more than it is to say the Great Depression, World War I, the 9-11 attacks, and World War II were not serious problems.

Each of these events was real and consequential. None of these events, however, justify authoritarianism or the infringement of civil liberties.

A brief reading of history shows that there will always be a crisis, conflict, or catastrophe around the corner that those in power will use as a pretext to violate the very liberties governments are supposed to protect—and if there’s not one, you can bet they’ll find one.

[Typhoon]

The belief that that the general populace should be ruled by a supposedly enlightened elite goes all the way back to Plato and his [naïve] concept of the "philosopher - king".

In more recent times Paul Erhlich [author of "The Population Bomb"] and his disciple, John Holdren, advocated suspension of democracy and civil liberties in response to their 1970's prediction of an imminent population explosion + energy crisis leading to a collapse of civilization in the 1980's.

Vox | How American foundations fueled a terrible atrocity in India

The Ford and Rockefeller foundations funded “population control” programs that went horrifically awry.

PR China under Mao also based their one-child policy on such doomsday predictions with predictable results.

Academics are generally averse to democracy, freedom of expression, and the individual having economic freedom and choice.

So this latest polemic comes as no surprise.

[Doc]

The belief that that the general populace should be ruled by a supposedly enlightened elite goes all the way back to Plato and his [naïve] concept of the "philosopher - king".

In more recent times Paul Erhlich [author of "The Population Bomb"] and his disciple, John Holdren, advocated suspension of democracy and civil liberties in response to their 1970's prediction of an imminent population explosion + energy crisis leading to a collapse of civilization in the 1980's.

Vox | How American foundations fueled a terrible atrocity in India

The Ford and Rockefeller foundations funded “population control” programs that went horrifically awry.

PR China under Mao also based their one-child policy on such doomsday predictions with predictable results.

Academics are generally averse to democracy, freedom of expression, and the individual having economic freedom and choice.

So this latest polemic comes as no surprise.

Or as Rahm Emanuel said: "Never let e good crisis go to waste"

What is surprising is the broadness of the collusion to "Make it so".
It is like all the mass murders of the last century by authoritarian regimes never happened.

[Typhoon]

FoS - K. Gregory, P.Eng| The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.

Executive Summary

Many governments have made promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels with solar and wind generated electricity and to electrify the economy. A report by Thomas Tanton estimates a capital cost of US$36.4 trillion for the U.S.A. economy to meet net zero emissions using wind and solar power. This study identifies several errors in the Tanton report and provides new capital cost estimates using 2019 and 2020 hourly electricity generation data rather than using annual average conditions as was done in the Tanton report. This study finds that the battery costs for replacing all current fossil fuel fired electricity with wind and solar generated electricity, using 2020 electricity data, is 109 times that estimated by the Tanton report. The total capital cost of electrification is herein estimated, using 2020 data, at US$433 trillion, or 20 times the U.S.A. 2019 gross domestic product. Overbuilding the solar plus wind capacity by 21% reduces overall costs by 18% by reducing battery storage costs. Allowing fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage to provide 50% of the electricity demand dramatically reduces the total costs from US$433 trillion to US$24 trillion, which is a reduction of 94.6%. Battery storage costs are highly dependent on the year’s weather and the seasonal shape of electricity demand.

[Typhoon]

Manhattan Contrarian | What Solution Do Renewable Energy Advocates Offer For The Problem Of Storage?

[Mr. Perfect]

[Typhoon]

The European Physical Journal Plus | A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming

Abstract

This article reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of heatwaves (number of days, maximum duration and cumulated heat), while global trends in heatwave intensity are not significant. Daily precipitation intensity and extreme precipitation frequency are stationary in the main part of the weather stations. Trend analysis of the time series of tropical cyclones show a substantial temporal invariance and the same is true for tornadoes in the USA. At the same time, the impact of warming on surface wind speed remains unclear. The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet. It would be nevertheless extremely important to define mitigation and adaptation strategies that take into account current trends.

[Typhoon]

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXIX

Evaluation of the Homogenization Adjustments Applied to European Temperature Records in the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset

There are lies, damned lies, and statistical homogenizations of data.

[Typhoon]

Quartz | Lithium-ion batteries are fueling the fire on a burning cargo ship full of Porsches