Friday, October 3, 2025
Wednesday, October 1, 2025
Will Asteroid Apophis Hit Earth?
AI Overview
If Asteroid Apophis were to strike Earth, it would release an immense amount of energy, equivalent to over 1,000 megatons of TNT, or hundreds of nuclear weapons, causing widespread destruction across a radius of hundreds of kilometers.
...
Important Note: While a hypothetical strike by Apophis would be catastrophic on a regional and potentially global scale, the scientific community has determined that it is no longer on a collision course with Earth for the foreseeable future.
The Cost of Climate Alarmism
Lomborg points out that global warming and climate change are real but exaggerated. These exaggerations result in catastrophic consequences, both environmentally and economically. Using data and models for hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding to exemplify these exaggerations, Lomborg points out that climate disaster is on the decline thanks to human adaptation.
Climate alarmists conclude future disasters will cost the world trillions of dollars, but those data points assume people will do nothing. Through adaptation, the reality is fewer people will be impacted by climate disasters, and the cost of damages will decrease due to better preparation, technology, and innovation.
KEY POINTS
Global warming is a real problem, but it's often over-exaggerated.
Global warming is a real problem, but it's often over-exaggerated.
Fire burn areas have decreased from 4% per year of global land in 1900 to only 2.5% in recent years.
Deaths from climate-related disasters have declined from 500,000 in 1920 to just under 7,000 per year in recent years.
The cost to mitigate climate change outcomes is more affordable than the cost of implementing Net Zero policy.
"The cost of Net Zero is the equivalent of passing a "Build Back Better Bill" every year for the next 29 years."
Climate change and the scientific method
Climate alarmists seek to silence those whose research raises doubts. Instead of claiming that "the science is settled,"
Since the late 1970s, climate scientists have told the American people that global temperatures would increase more than one degree Celsius by 2020. However, actual satellite temperature observations do not support these predictions. Observed temperatures were less than half as high as the climate models' predictions...
...
Since the late 1970s, climate scientists have told the American people that global temperatures would increase more than one degree Celsius by 2020. However, actual satellite temperature observations do not support these predictions. Observed temperatures were less than half as high as the climate models' predictions...
Commenting on the recent hurricanes, many climate scientists have tried to link these storms and climate change. But the historical record disproves them. Hurricane landfalls in the United States since 1900 are on a steady decline. The cost of damages from these storms, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is also shrinking. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has affirmed that they have "low confidence" in climate change contributing to extreme weather.
...
For example, some claim that the Paris Climate Accord will reduce global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius. They have barraged the American people with this falsehood to garner support for the deal. But MIT data shows that the agreement would decrease warming only 0.16 degree Celsius by 2100 – over 80 years from now – and only if all 195 countries completely abided by the agreement.
...
For example, some claim that the Paris Climate Accord will reduce global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius. They have barraged the American people with this falsehood to garner support for the deal. But MIT data shows that the agreement would decrease warming only 0.16 degree Celsius by 2100 – over 80 years from now – and only if all 195 countries completely abided by the agreement.
Global Warming Fears -Climate Dollars
The Conflict
As the Spencer-Christy method to measure atmospheric temperatures was being developed—a method that would permit scientists to test the greenhouse gas warming hypothesis in the Charney Report—international organizations did not wait to act. They were being mobilized to control greenhouse gases that the untested hypothesis of the Charney Report guessed would cause global warming. The international solution proposed was to control emissions of carbon dioxide.
Yet a conflict arose among scientists over the question of whether the Charney Report's hypothesis had been adequately tested, and the dispute became very public because governmental organizations with large public funding were involved. The conflict, in other words, was and remains largely political, not scientific, and it is financed by governments.
Independent researchers have tested the Charney Report's hypothesis against atmospheric temperature data, which now extends over 37 years, and found the hypothesis wanting. The Report's assumptions are simply not supported by empirical observation of nature. The hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded. As Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate in physics, liked to say, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
From Warming Fears to Cooling Claims
The lack of significant warming in recent years has become such an embarrassment that many desperate persons are now abandoning the term "global warming" in favor of the term "climate change"
As the Spencer-Christy method to measure atmospheric temperatures was being developed—a method that would permit scientists to test the greenhouse gas warming hypothesis in the Charney Report—international organizations did not wait to act. They were being mobilized to control greenhouse gases that the untested hypothesis of the Charney Report guessed would cause global warming. The international solution proposed was to control emissions of carbon dioxide.
Yet a conflict arose among scientists over the question of whether the Charney Report's hypothesis had been adequately tested, and the dispute became very public because governmental organizations with large public funding were involved. The conflict, in other words, was and remains largely political, not scientific, and it is financed by governments.
Independent researchers have tested the Charney Report's hypothesis against atmospheric temperature data, which now extends over 37 years, and found the hypothesis wanting. The Report's assumptions are simply not supported by empirical observation of nature. The hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded. As Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate in physics, liked to say, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
From Warming Fears to Cooling Claims
The lack of significant warming in recent years has become such an embarrassment that many desperate persons are now abandoning the term "global warming" in favor of the term "climate change"
...
In addition, some political advocates of climate alarmism have invented the claim that increased carbon dioxide will worsen extreme weather events like hurricanes, but this, too, has no basis in broadly accepted theory or in empirical observation. As the Swedish climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson has written, "there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations."
Similarly, professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, Boulder, has published extensively on extreme weather, including at the center-left website FiveThirtyEight.com run by Nate Silver. He writes, "There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally." But in the same article he observes that even though the U.N. IPPC backtracked on earlier claims related to extreme weather, he and his findings were attacked by the Obama White House
...
The failure to find physical evidence that supports the Charney Report's assumptions does not stem from any lack of funding—from both governmental and private sources—in strong support for projects trying to find such evidence.
https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/a-short-history-of-global-warming-fears/
Similarly, professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, Boulder, has published extensively on extreme weather, including at the center-left website FiveThirtyEight.com run by Nate Silver. He writes, "There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally." But in the same article he observes that even though the U.N. IPPC backtracked on earlier claims related to extreme weather, he and his findings were attacked by the Obama White House
...
The failure to find physical evidence that supports the Charney Report's assumptions does not stem from any lack of funding—from both governmental and private sources—in strong support for projects trying to find such evidence.
https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/a-short-history-of-global-warming-fears/
Climate Alarmists Eschew Alarmism
I'm wondering what the difference is between "climate doom", and realism based on scientific data? Legitimate scientific papers from the 80s and 90s concluded, "we have ten years left to address climate change, before it's too late". These weren't fringe articles, but rather, genuine peer-reviewed papers in recognised scientific journals. So…are these papers suddenly no longer valid? Why is someone who reads these, and concludes that it's too late, called a "doomer"?
...To which I answered:
You busted a troubled narrative. Climate exaggeration has been mainstream for decades, and it is now alarming the alarmists.
...To which I answered:
You busted a troubled narrative. Climate exaggeration has been mainstream for decades, and it is now alarming the alarmists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)