Weblog Awards
Best Canadian Blog
2004 - 2007
Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me "what Canadians think". In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."
homepage
email Kate
(goes to a private
mailserver in Europe)
I can't answer or use every tip, but all are appreciated!
Katewerk Art
Support SDA
I am not a registered charity. I cannot issue tax receipts.
Want lies?
Hire a regular consultant.
Want truth?
Hire an asshole.
The Pence Principle
Poor Richard's Retirement
Pilgrim's Progress
Trump The Establishment
Oh look and it appears to be approximately a 20 year cycle….funny how that happens.
Not that it is you never know without full study
Ah, see, it’s becuse of global warming.
As usual, Ralph pins the tail on the donkey.
ca.news.yahoo.com/s/05072006/2/national-alberta-premier-slams-al-gore-interview-attacking-oilsands-projects.html
h/t nealenews
Good for Ralph. How did Gore get to the showing of his movie–did he swim? Is he walking everywhere he goes? Just like any other fake socialist–he wants the rest of us to give up everything but he will keep consuming.
If he closed his mouth that would keep a whole bunch of CO2 from going into the atmosphere.
The sad truth is,even our best climatologists,along with other scientists,DO NOT have enough data to say conclusively ANYTHING about long term temperature trends and man’s possible impact…sure doesn’t stop them from making great claims to the contrary though.
I remember as a kid taking physics in high school thinking that scientists had to have more ethics and integrity than ANY other group I could think of.Seeking the TRUTH was their ultimate responsibility.And,of course,if they could not find that irrefutable proof,they had nothing more than a theory.
Of course,with some age,hopefully,comes some wisdom.Now I witness innumerable’scientists’coming up with whatever’data’their funder has paid for.Drug companies immediately come to mind.
It certainly is possible that mankind MAY very well be causing global warming and considering possible actions may be prudent.But we are NOT able to’prove beyond question’that this is indeed fact and it should not be presented as such!
To see these people make claims as if they were irrefutable,when in fact they cannot yet even be proven,makes them political hacks,not scientists!
CO, read some science. It’s not the scientists making “great claims” . . . . “as if they were irrefutable.”
It’s far easier to say things about long-term temperature trends than it is to predict tornadoes. As an analogy, which would you rather bet on – the overall direction of the TSE over the next year, or the exact value of one specific stock next week?
It baffles me to see self-proclaimed individualists, who also claim to be opposed to big government, spending their own time and money spreading misinformation to prevent individuals from recognizing the problem and doing what they can in their own lives to fix it.
Not to throw a damper on their parade but isn’t boasting of a tornado free season just begging the weather gods to get even?
BTW, never have paid attention to hanging chad gore so why start now?
TC,I may be wrong,but I believe the point of Kates post was to’highlight’the unproven links Gore makes,as part of his schtick,between global warming and ANY severe weather we have seen around the world.Thus,how does he explain away this rare calm tornado season in Kansas?
Laura,if you seriously do not believe a great many scientists and’experts’,especially in this heavily politicized arena,can be bought,or coerced by their peers,you are far too naive to be lecturing anyone on proper scientific protocols.
Laura don’t make claims about things you don’t know anything about.
I can tell you as a professional trader I can 9 out of 10 times tell what any given stock will do in a week. What a whole index will do over the course of a year is a far more dubious prospect.
Let’s say the predictions of the reasonable global warming conjecturers turn out to be correct. The global average mean temperature will go up by two or three degrees over the next hundred years, which will take us back to where we were before the current centuries-scale cold period we have been coming out of.
Was there global disaster when the Vikings were growing grapes and making wine in Groenland? So, where’s the problem? People are being sold a fraudulent bill of goods by professional fear mongers, doom sayers, and ambulance chasers. They’re being played for suckers, and they’re acting the role.
Call for P.T. Barnum, freak-show courtesy telephone please.
Something that made a lot of news this past year:
North America had one of the mildest winters on record. Environmentalist explanation: It must be proof of global warming. Everyone be afraid and do what we tell you.
Something that didn’t make a lot of news this past year:
Russia had one of the coldest winters on record. Environmentalist explanation: Me sorry. Me no speak Rusky.
Correct, Bryceman, Japan had record cold too. And I had to smile at this: a half-dozen months ago, New Delhi (where it was summer) had its first frost in 75 years.
But you’ll notice the professional frauds have already changed the packaging on their unfit-for-human-consumption product, now instead of calling it Global Warming, they’re calling it Climate Change.
I think I’ll call my broker and tell him to buy carney shares.
my kid explained it all to me very succinctly.
it aint global ‘warming’.
its undue EXTREMES in temperature. thus the exceptional mild winters on this half of the globe and record freeze ups in russia where it already gets really cold.
got that?
wild swings in temperature, not necessarily overall increase. and I realized, ya, it makes a certain amount of sense if you ascribe a given amount of ‘heat energy equilibrium’ to climate, the average doesnt change but the highs and lows do. and THAT is what we are seeing.
critics of al gore are shooting the messenger.
as far as the mean temp 1000 years ago in the time of the vikings, where were the shorelines of the world then? anybody know for sure? any archeological evidence of shoreline change over the last 5,000 years? oceans I mean, inland fresh water shorelines aint a problem because theyre already always above sea level.
bryceman,Vitruvius,with all due respect,is citing a cold winter in Japan and Russia to dispell global warming any more honest than attempts to link random severe weather as proof of global warming?
The truth is,NOBODY knows for sure what long term affect man’s footprint will have on our climate(if any).Although I find I cannot trust the current junk science supposedly supporting this’impending disaster’,it would be prudent to keep a wary eye on things….
BTW,so you may understand exactly where I am coming from,I believe the Kyoto plan to be an utter crock of sh*t!
Fair enough, Observer, though that was my point, poorly expressed, that instances are not trends.
Intersting to note that Robert is proposing changing the packaging on the fraud artists’ product from Climate Change to Wild Weather Swings. Very innovative, Robert. Keep up the good work, and eventually you’ll stumble on the real winner: Day is Hotter than Night.
You’ll be packin’ ’em in to the big tent, lad. Just like Peter Popoff.
ah yes, mr popoff. I still relate to any and all how Mr Ragni the fraud exposure specialist took his people to a popoff revival and did some electronics eavesdropping.
my my my, what have we here. the missus reading off the contents of the info cards of the desparate hopefuls and there’s popoff claiming ‘god spoke taaaa meahh’ etc etc
see, the way it worked, the ailments would be listed on the cards and she would dictate the details via one way radio to a tiny ear piece.
popoff meanwhile would claim ‘inspiration’ and peg the wishful thinking dead on and go from there, ever more dramatic.
it caused some people an earlier death when they stopped taking meds having been ‘cured’.
meanwhile there mr st vitus dance, I ask again, any sources regarding archeological record on ocean’s shorelines? this is the stuff I lend credence to. not the petty ideological motivated harping.
we didnt have skyscrapers until the last century, but are they in the path of the ancient shoals locations?
Right, Cosford, I shouldn’t be talking about things I know little about. Really, though, exact price versus overall direction?
To use my analogy in reverse, then, Gore shouldn’t be talking about things he knows little about. I would much rather see people dipping into a few journal articles than relying on his movie. And CO, if you actually read some articles in climate journals (not just Nature and Science), you would see that the scientists are not acting anything like you would expect if they’d been bought. They debate, they challenge, they counter each other’s findings with apparently contradictory findings – and they gradually refine an overall understanding which, so far, still points in the same general direction.
Bryceman, I saw some considerable discussion of the warm/cold regions last winter, among those amateurs who like to dig into the details a bit. They weren’t attributing it to global warming, but discussing the cyclical factors that produce such regional fluctuations. (If environmentalists really are attributing one cold winter in one region to global warming, then I wish environmentalists would shut up.) And Vitruvius, the warmth the Vikings enjoyed in Greenland was more of a regional fluctuation than a global event.
And just in case you missed it other times I’ve commented here, I do not support Kyoto. I support individual responsibility. Waiting for a government-imposed “solution” is selfish, irresponsible, and bound to fail. BUT – individual responsibility is not going to accomplish much as long as there are so many individuals inexplicably trying to prevent other individuals from believing there’s a problem.
critics of al gore are shooting the messenger
Perhaps, and that in itself is a good thing. But more importantly they’re also blasting his message. Gore’s a grandstanding fear monger. His “An Inconvenient Truth” is pure alarmist propaganda, playing fast and loose with the ‘truth’. One of his most outrageous claims being that there’s virtually no scientific disagreement with his point of view.
He also claimed in the movie that by simply looking at Antarctic ice cores with the naked eye, one can see when the American Clean Air Act was passed. Pure fantasy, unless Al’s eyeballs can detect a few chemical parts per billion.
A more detailed critique here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef
It was The Great Randi, Mr. James Randi, who debunked Mr. Popoff, Robert, not some Mr. Ragni.
Shorelines advance and recede, every year, every century, every millenia. I don’t have much sympathy for people who build large-scale permanent structures vertically close to shorelines, inland or otherwise. Unless the structures are dikes, of course.
And, Laura, it doesn’t really matter what frequency the Vikings were tuned to, variations in the earth’s climate oscillate at all frequencies. I see no evidence that the amplitude profile (think Fourier transform) of the signal has significantly varied over the last few hundred million years.
Ice ages come and go. Life’s like that. Enjoy it.
Randi. right thats it. he does a lot of stuff for skeptical enquirer, the latest issue of which I have upstairs. he’s still alive fending off lawsuits.
ragni was one of the dudes that brought us the stage play ‘hair’. hes dead so he doesnt have to worry about any lawsuits. or global warming.
so mr vesuvius, how fast can we expect this ice age to go? I didnt know we were in one, I thought that ended 10,000 years ago allowing the first inhabitants of n america to cross the bering. seems your oscillation is going the wrong direction…
all I know is summbuddy is fuking around with the atmosphere and the last 4 summers here in RobertJville have hit record temp spikes.
Frankly, I’m getting tired of interacting with people who don’t even have the common good grace to spell my name correctly, so I’m not going to.
Yes Laura baby. How exact you wanna be, to the 1000th of a cent. You no not of what you speak. How dare I question your example. Well let me tell you. Millions of people have lost money with exactly that kind of thinking. So if that’s the depth and breadth of your knowledge prefaced with a patently false example then it dosn’t speak well to the validity of the rest of your aurgument.
Having said that don’t let me get in the way of any individual effort you may wish to partake. But you will have to excuse me if I object to the Gore
crowds misleading packaging when it comes to anything they have to say. And the promotion of activeties based on misleading public statements by those who are supposed to be leaders in the society and therefore should hold themselves to exemplary ethical standards, but like Gore fail miserably. The means justifies the ends. Heard that one? How many lives wasted or lost over that kind of thinking from those who are most powerful in our society.
And yes Dear if you actually think about your Stock Market analogy and knew just how many thousands of factors go into influencing the trend in the market you will begin to understand how really absurd your statement is.
So will the Dow be higher or lower next year?
Yes. The Dow will be higher or lower next year.
Vitruvius, I wasn’t talking about frequency (although I did mention cycles just in case somebody thought I’d never heard of the North Atlantic Oscillation). I was talking about scale. The Vikings had it warm, but that doesn’t mean it was warm everywhere. The trend that has set off warning bells recently is apparent warming world wide.
OK I’ve been told. I regret that example. I don’t pay attention to markets because I’m too busy reading climate science articles.
A tip of my hat to you Laura, it takes real character to admit a mistake and move on.
Thank You.
Gore, Jacuzzi, Martin, Clinton. What A BUNCH OF LOSERS. They fell for the “Chicken Little” calamity HOAX. Many “articles” claimed we would have more frequent extreme weather events like Midwest tornadoes. One year does not a trend make, but to have the lowest # (0) of twisters since 1950, 56 years, is truly signifigant for the March-June period.
Can you imagine the CBC/CTV screamers if there had been a lot of tornadoes ? I will wait to see how they report this Kyoto debunking story. Losers all.
The Medieval Warm Period (Vikings) WAS a world wide event. It was the Hoaxy Mann, hockey sticker, that claimed the phenomena was local.
It is less than clear to me, Laura, that it is apparent that current changes are abnormally signficant. And, I am rendered extra-skeptical, exactly because of the tactics of the purveyors of said conjecture.
The big question is: what are the forcing functions? They way I read it, they’re not significantly anthropogenic. The time-series analysis doesn’t work for me.
Sadly, it’s hard for us to tell, the air is thick with the claims of the snake-oil salesmen. And thus it has always been.
Some people think this uncertainty means we should stop everything. Cease and desist. Now.
Not me. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead I say. We’ll figure it out some how. We always have before.
Vitruvius, I can see the logic for saying “full speed ahead.” Trouble is, I also see warnings from so many angles – not chicken-little impending-disaster warnings, but slow below-the-media-radar warnings – that I think a precautionary slow down is a good idea. Ocean acidification, agricultural dependence on fossil fuels, pressure to open more and more protected areas to fossil-fuel extraction, diminishing EROEI (energy return on energy invested) – all these problems seem to call for the same action: finding a lifestyle that’s less dependent on rapid liquidation of the fossil-fuel energy stored up from millions of years worth of biomass production.
How to achieve this kind of lifestyle change on a large scale, I have no idea. I won’t buy into schemes that try to force it. All I can do is take responsibility for my own little piece of it, and at least be living evidence to the contrary when a politician says “people won’t change.”
Laura ~ How to achieve this kind of change? Check out: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004223.html
Funny… just yesterday I read about a tornado having touched down in New Brunswick. Guess they got tired of Kansas?
And that wasn’t a man behind the curtain… it was a howler monkey, the loudest animal in the world.
As far as I can tell, climate change is more or less natural.
Why? Look at the earth’s history before the emergence of man.
The Ice Age happened. The earth went cold. Then the earth warmed up… a lot. Before the emergence of man and before internal combustion engines and oil/coal burning factories, etc…
I’m with Ralph Klein… it sounds more like dinosaur farts or something.
Auto emissions, bovine anal emissions, Al Gore’s spewing huge quantities of hot CO2 orally… they all contribute. But the earth hasn’t really warmed all that much since man began burning fossil fuels, as one would expect, owing to the chicken-little alarmism of leftist “environmentalists” and “scientists” speaking of a hypothesis as if it was a finally, conclusively proven fact.
Forgive me, but observation and logic make me take the whole alarmist climate-change scariness with a skeptical grain of salt. I choose, therefore, not to panic. I instead enjoy my new, more powerful internal-combustion automobile, doing 0-60 five seconds sooner…
Yes, greenhouse gases do cause some prevention of some of the sun’s heat from escaping into space. But really, to believe the alarmists, one would expect the earth to literally be on fire by now!
We should be more concerned about the very apparent threat from the likes of Al Qaeda and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not so sure about Kim Jung Il anymore (bark worse than bite with that frizzheaded piece of poop with glasses).
Here’s where I have a problem with the entire climate change argument…
1) the largest (by a factor of >10:1) greenhouse gas is water vapour. Nobody in the world has a firm grasp on how to work water vapour into a climate model. Does hotter temps mean more water vapour from oceans will cloud the sun’s rays and cool down the earth? or will it trap in heat and exacerbate the problem?
2) The global climate is a function of too many factors to definitively state what changing one variable will imply
3) Air pollution is a far more serious and immediate health risk than is global warming, and the list of concerns that are far more pressing than global warming is extensive.
So if an individual wants to look at the science and decides, based on that, that they want to reduce the emissions that they are responsible for (by making different choices as a consumer, or business leader) or by spreading the word. Great! But if a government is thinking that it will use its power to compel people to modify behaviours based on what is not in the top 100 of impending risks for humanity, I have a serious problem with that.
But we cannot have debate stifled. Laura, why is the disagreement you laud in the scientific community forbidden in the public at large? If someone, based on their incomplete knowledge (as describes me) finds the global warming/weather weirdness claims dubious, why do they have no right to express that opinion?
jeff p – I absolutely agree with you. The more questions asked, the better answers found. When I people who express an opinion are dismissed and insulted and labelled as political ideologues, I find it discouraging, regardless of whether their opinion is sincere doubt or sincere concern.
But if a person has or takes a significant role in the debate, I think they have a responsibility to understand it as much as they reasonably can.
Jeff p is right on the mark from were I sit. My local newspapers will not even consider questioning or discussing anything on this issue. They just bang away at the propaganda junk.
In terms of al gore, an asshole is an asshole is an asshole. forget him!
But Laura, Pot, meet kettle…
“It baffles me to see self-proclaimed individualists, who also claim to be opposed to big government, spending their own time and money spreading misinformation to prevent individuals from recognizing the problem and doing what they can in their own lives to fix it.”
It was this statement to which I was referring… Your statement presuposes the existence of a problem and therefore disallows debate ofer that core issue. I don’t think anyone should refuse Al Gore’s right to be an idiot any more than mine… Hey, truth be known we are probably both idiots 🙂
CS – yes, the Earth got warmer and colder many times through history. Climatologists kept trying to figure out why. They found there was a very nice correlation with cycles in solar energy reaching the Earth, due to variations in orbits and solar output and such. The only problem: the changes in solar flux were tiny compared to the changes in climate. They looked for something else. Finally somebody noticed that there was also a very nice correlation with cycles in CO2 levels. Rising CO2 couldn’t trigger the warm periods, because it always lagged behind the initial warming, but it could be a positive feedback loop that would explain how the warming got so strong. More warmth, more plant growth, more CO2, more warmth AND more plant growth – until something else switched the cycle off.
So what happens if you feed extra CO2 into the system? Could you get a warming cycle triggered directly by the rise in CO2? Seems plausible to me.
For a fairly accessible “history of science” perspective, Google “Spencer Weart” “Discovery of Global Warming”.
Global warming better hurry i’m losing money on a farm I bought from some vikings in greenland.
: )
Good lord. I’ve never seen so much unscientific thought. First off, a single data point, such as no tornados in Kansas in six months, is meaningless when trying to understand global climate change. Even 20 years of data points in the context of a system of this size is too small to make predictions. (Remember 1970’s prediction of the “new Ice Age”?)
To the extent that some things are observable over the last 100 years, such as CO2 content, it does appear that there is a rise in CO2. However, what isn’t proven is that the rise in CO2 is responsible for global warming, or that the rise in CO2 is mainly anthropogenic.
Now, in the face of that unresolved scientific question, the issue is: what do we do? If we choose to do nothing, we are in effect making the decision that rising CO2 levels are not causing global warming and that rising CO2 levels are not caused by man. If we raise the alarm, a la Gore, we are making the decision that man is causing the problem. Neither seems to be a prudent course to me.
I think the people worried about global warming would do better to make this argument: we’re not sure that mankind is causing the problem, but we can’t rule out the possibility. And, if we do nothing, it’s possible if the time comes that we ARE certain we are causing the problem, it will be too late to do anything about it. Doesn’t it make sense to try to reduce CO2 emissions now so that if we ever have solid proof they are raising the temperature, we have experience with the technology, tradeoffs, etc.? The potential downside of doing nothing is large enough that one should consider the costs of doing something, just in case.
Which is why I’m riding my bike a lot more, and leaving my car in the driveway.
You write, Kevin, “… it will be too late to do anything about it.” Why do you say that?
Vitruvius, my friend, read the sentence more carefully. It says “it’s *possible* if the time comes that we ARE certain we are causing the problem, it will be too late to do anything about it.” (my emphasis added).
I think I see your point, Jeff. Like I said, I don’t have any problem with somebody raising a question or a doubt, and I wish people who have relevant responses to those doubts would give them respectfully. But when somebody repeatedly raises doubts, and makes it a theme, I think they have a responsibility to do some of their own digging to understand the theories they’re critiquing. I’ve done some digging to understand what dissenters are saying. In fact, I have wished the dissenters were right, and I’ve gone to great lengths to try to believe them. But any time I’ve followed up a lead (satellite data showing insignificant warming, CO2 fertilization of plant growth offsetting CO2 emissions, cold temperatures during a high CO2 period 450 million years ago, etc.), it has crumbled under close scrutiny. And I mean my own scrutiny, my own careful reading of the dissenters’ arguments and checking of their sources. It’s very discouraging to see how often they have misrepresented their sources.
Having said that, I wish the public were more aware of the debate among scientists about how much warming, where, what impacts, good or bad, etc. I think that awareness would take the edge of panic off the public debate, for some people, and make it more of a real concern, for others.
And believe me, you are NOT an idiot! You raise some of the same points as others unthinkingly raise, but you discuss them and show that you ARE thinking. Thank you.
Ah, got it. The reason I mention it is because it seems to be that if we are talking about maybe a couple degrees over maybe 100 years, then we should probably all just continue doing the basic science and then in two or three decades when we know better what’s what, we can act then.
Vitruvius – thinking some more about your reference to Kate’s recent nano-composites post. There is certainly potential for huge efficiency gains, especially in industrial processes. When you look at the consumer end of things, though, the closer you get to a household and the human bodies in it, the less potential I see for efficiency gains. Maybe we could make the human body run on less food, for instance – but who would accept that? If we still have to grow large amounts of food and move it around, then we will need huge efficiency gains in transportation – and there I think the prospects are more dubious. Look at the recent report from the federal Round Table on Environment and Economy, with its hopeful news that we can reduce emissions by 60% by 2050. Then look closer at the report, and see where it says that by applying ALL available technological means, we can achieve 40% of that goal. Only 40%. The rest has to come from conservation efforts by you and me. And this news is from an optimistic, can-do-attitude committee.
You mention that we may be able to do far better than expected, simply through focus. Like a war-time effort. Back to my point: how can we achieve such a focus, when so many are stubbornly chanting, “There. Is. No. Problem.” ??
Wait ’till there is a problem.
A couple of degrees difference in a global mean is significant. The temperature difference between the last ice age and recent periods is only five degrees.
I cringe when I see media depictions of fireball sunsets, as if we’re all going to be lying gasping in the heat. But small changes are significant to ecological relationships. If I drive a hundred miles north, I find very different plant communities. There is a wide overlap in annual heat balance, moisture regime, etc. between that area and my own – some of their warm dry years will be warmer and drier than some of our cool wet years – but on average, their weather is cooler and wetter than ours, and it makes a difference to the plant communities. If the climate normals shift and drive the ecoregion boundaries north by 100 miles in 100 years, many plants and other relatively stationary organisms like flightless insects or soil microbes will have to move fast. Meanwhile, there is very little habitat left between the fields, for them to move through.
So what? Well, that’s another whole discussion and getting OT.
Vitruvius, I’m not sure how much research you’ve done on this. The difference between the medieval warm period from 1000-1500 AD and the “little ice age” from around 1600-1800 AD was 1.0 degrees C. And those figures are pretty much agreed upon by all parties, regardless of whether they support or reject the anthropogenic warming scenario.
So waiting for a change of two degrees, as you suggest, would be pretty late in the game. And given the political realities of actually making changes once we’ve noticed the problem? Well…
Bertrand Russell once said that when the experts disagree, the common man has to be skeptical. So it boils down to this: if you reject the warming scenario, do nothing, and you’re wrong, you risk potentially awful consequences. If you accept the warming scenario, do something, and you’re wrong, you’ve cost yourself some money and convenience.
What would you do?
Now, just to throw another contender in the ring, there are scientists who feel that we are nearing the end of one of the earth’s periodic warm cycles, and that the greater danger is another little ice age, which would be equally catastrophic, as many farms in Western Canada and elsewhere would no longer have growing seasons long enough to bring in a decent crop, leading to widespread food shortages and famine. They think we should be learning how to throw more CO2 into the air to stave off freezing!
In light of this, perhaps we should be learning to adapt to either type of climate change, which will probably occur regardless of what we do!
We always have to remember where/how/whom an “idea” originated. The “where is this guy coming from” thing ? Reveales a lot.
The way I understand it; Kyoto was born out of The United Nations IPCC. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) The IPCC report itself DID NOT recomend drastic, economy killing wealth transfer action. The Kyoto Protocol was born never the less. WHY? In my opinion Kyoto followed from the following ideas, dogma, activism, idiology, or whatever you want to call it;
One World Governance
UN Governance
Earth Charter
Stockholm Convention
Rio
Collapse of Communism (socialist panic)
Environmental Activism
Anti Establishment
University of Peace
European Anti Americanism
But mostly, plain old, Chicken Little the sky is falling, another calamity-is coming, we have to do something, anything.
Perhaps just another in a long list of world hoaxes, like;
Alien Crop Circles
Y2K
Martians
Oil For Food
Global Cooling (1970s)
Franken Foods
Chain Letters
Time Machines
Suicidal Cults
Snake Oil Salesman
Fortune Tellers
Flat Earth Society
Lost City of Atlantis
Shroud of Tourin
Roswell NM spaceship
Bermuda Triangle
Malthus world wide food shortages
Any, and all could have been nixed in the bud by simple MSM investigation. They all sold lots of newspapers.
Vitruvius: “Wait ’till there is a problem.”
Or at least until you have defined the problem.
I can’t believe that we know about every cycle and how they might interact. I distrust anyone that says they know that’s it CO2, sunspots, this or that … that is changing the climate. I strongly suspect if we do something or nothing … the earth will get warmer and cooler.
But heck, what do I know. I didn’t even know that all the times I missed a shave over the years was because it hurt to shave. When I found out – like a miracle there was a product to alleviate my suffering.