New report on climate change released today

[George S]

...we have another hypothesis, where the proposed candidate for the cause DOES correlate with the observable effect:

B-b-b-but George doesn't LIKE that explanation.
Other than that - yes, right.
My apology to George if he is at this moment trying to absorb and understand why he is wrong.

B-b-b-but ... When the temperatures are wrong. . . .
The real temperatures would follow the TSI.

 

[bilby]

In 2009, The Heartland Institute published a study by Watts exploring problems with NWS’s weather monitoring locations. Watts wrote,

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

[A (sic) examination of] 860 of these temperature stations … found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

Working with others, Watts continued examining potential sources of bias at NWS climate monitoring sites, concluding in a 2015 presentation to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, “the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are [sic] about two thirds as strong as official NOAA temperature trends.”
Watts’ research generated wide media coverage. NOAA felt obligated to respond. By 2012, NOAA researchers had begun an experiment to refute Watts’ claims about the integrity of its weather monitoring system.

The results of NOAA’s experiment are now in, and to the extent it tested Watts’ claims, his concerns were verified. The coauthors of the JAMS paper found “small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum)….”

This extends the area for which temperature recordings by NWS stations are compromised by 66 percent beyond what the agency previously admitted was a problem, leading to the question: How many more monitoring stations’ data are compromised above what Watts previously found?

In particular the JAMS study confirmed what Watts and other researchers have consistently maintained: even relatively modest development near temperature recording devices can skew their measurements, particularly by narrowing the diurnal temperature range—the difference between the daily maximum and minimum temperatures. Anthropogenic heat sources such as motors and exhaust from machinery located near measuring stations, as well as built-up concrete and other types of development, accumulate and store heat during each day’s hottest period and release it only slowly overnight, resulting in higher nighttime lows being recorded, and a smaller diurnal range. Because the vast majority of the much-hyped average global warming of the latter part of the twentieth century stems not from higher high temperatures being recorded but from higher low temperatures usually recorded at night, much of NOAA’s reported temperature rise is likely an artifact of compromised data from poorly sited NWS monitors.

Ground-based temperature measurements, although below those projected by climate models, are still the closest of the three sources of temperature data (ground monitors, satellites, and weather balloons) to matching the models’ projections and trends. Skeptics have long used more accurate satellite and weather balloon data to justify their position that the models’ temperature estimates and projections don’t match real-world measurements. If, as seems to be the case, even the ground-based temperature measurements and trends are lower than NOAA and others have previously claimed, there is little if any reason to trust model projections of temperature. And if this is so, there is even less reason to trust other projections of climate doom spun out by models that are purported to flow from their temperature projections.

The conclusion media pundits, the general public, and politicians alike should draw from this new research is that there is little justification for imposing costly restrictions on fossil fuel use to fight a warming that is, in fact, not severe at all.

So we're not seeing warming due to the SUN all of a sudden?

You were happy to accept that warming was happening, before it was demonstrated to you that any warming is unlikely to be due to increasing solar irradiance, and far more strongly correlates with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

But now you are saying that problems with one kind of measurement, in the USA alone, mean that all evidence of warming on a global scale is flawed?

This is like arguing with a creationist. You are allowed to have multiple lines of argument, but if they rely on different sets of starting assumptions, then they don't add up to a compelling story - and just serve to make you look like a shifty character who will believe anything, as long as it appears to support your conclusions.

"Now that I cannot explain the observations in a way that pleases me, I deny that the observations are accurate" is pure intellectual dishonesty.

 

[George S]

In 2009, The Heartland Institute published a study by Watts exploring problems with NWS’s weather monitoring locations. Watts wrote,

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

[A (sic) examination of] 860 of these temperature stations … found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

Working with others, Watts continued examining potential sources of bias at NWS climate monitoring sites, concluding in a 2015 presentation to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, “the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are [sic] about two thirds as strong as official NOAA temperature trends.”
Watts’ research generated wide media coverage. NOAA felt obligated to respond. By 2012, NOAA researchers had begun an experiment to refute Watts’ claims about the integrity of its weather monitoring system.

The results of NOAA’s experiment are now in, and to the extent it tested Watts’ claims, his concerns were verified. The coauthors of the JAMS paper found “small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum)….”

This extends the area for which temperature recordings by NWS stations are compromised by 66 percent beyond what the agency previously admitted was a problem, leading to the question: How many more monitoring stations’ data are compromised above what Watts previously found?

In particular the JAMS study confirmed what Watts and other researchers have consistently maintained: even relatively modest development near temperature recording devices can skew their measurements, particularly by narrowing the diurnal temperature range—the difference between the daily maximum and minimum temperatures. Anthropogenic heat sources such as motors and exhaust from machinery located near measuring stations, as well as built-up concrete and other types of development, accumulate and store heat during each day’s hottest period and release it only slowly overnight, resulting in higher nighttime lows being recorded, and a smaller diurnal range. Because the vast majority of the much-hyped average global warming of the latter part of the twentieth century stems not from higher high temperatures being recorded but from higher low temperatures usually recorded at night, much of NOAA’s reported temperature rise is likely an artifact of compromised data from poorly sited NWS monitors.

Ground-based temperature measurements, although below those projected by climate models, are still the closest of the three sources of temperature data (ground monitors, satellites, and weather balloons) to matching the models’ projections and trends. Skeptics have long used more accurate satellite and weather balloon data to justify their position that the models’ temperature estimates and projections don’t match real-world measurements. If, as seems to be the case, even the ground-based temperature measurements and trends are lower than NOAA and others have previously claimed, there is little if any reason to trust model projections of temperature. And if this is so, there is even less reason to trust other projections of climate doom spun out by models that are purported to flow from their temperature projections.

The conclusion media pundits, the general public, and politicians alike should draw from this new research is that there is little justification for imposing costly restrictions on fossil fuel use to fight a warming that is, in fact, not severe at all.

So we're not seeing warming due to the SUN all of a sudden?

You were happy to accept that warming was happening, before it was demonstrated to you that any warming is unlikely to be due to increasing solar irradiance, and far more strongly correlates with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

But now you are saying that problems with one kind of measurement, in the USA alone, mean that all evidence of warming on a global scale is flawed?

This is like arguing with a creationist. You are allowed to have multiple lines of argument, but if they rely on different sets of starting assumptions, then they don't add up to a compelling story - and just serve to make you look like a shifty character who will believe anything, as long as it appears to support your conclusions.

"Now that I cannot explain the observations in a way that pleases me, I deny that the observations are accurate" is pure intellectual dishonesty.

Actually, you know about the "pause?" See, there is a Grand Solar Minimum in the offing.
Yes, in solar cycles 22 and 23 there was a degree of warming. That is, it did warm from oh, the 1970's until about 2000. However, it has since turned the corner. We are due for a cooling trend.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBIj2XQDMjw

 

[bilby]

In 2009, The Heartland Institute published a study by Watts exploring problems with NWS’s weather monitoring locations. Watts wrote,

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

[A (sic) examination of] 860 of these temperature stations … found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

Working with others, Watts continued examining potential sources of bias at NWS climate monitoring sites, concluding in a 2015 presentation to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, “the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are [sic] about two thirds as strong as official NOAA temperature trends.”
Watts’ research generated wide media coverage. NOAA felt obligated to respond. By 2012, NOAA researchers had begun an experiment to refute Watts’ claims about the integrity of its weather monitoring system.

The results of NOAA’s experiment are now in, and to the extent it tested Watts’ claims, his concerns were verified. The coauthors of the JAMS paper found “small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum)….”

This extends the area for which temperature recordings by NWS stations are compromised by 66 percent beyond what the agency previously admitted was a problem, leading to the question: How many more monitoring stations’ data are compromised above what Watts previously found?

In particular the JAMS study confirmed what Watts and other researchers have consistently maintained: even relatively modest development near temperature recording devices can skew their measurements, particularly by narrowing the diurnal temperature range—the difference between the daily maximum and minimum temperatures. Anthropogenic heat sources such as motors and exhaust from machinery located near measuring stations, as well as built-up concrete and other types of development, accumulate and store heat during each day’s hottest period and release it only slowly overnight, resulting in higher nighttime lows being recorded, and a smaller diurnal range. Because the vast majority of the much-hyped average global warming of the latter part of the twentieth century stems not from higher high temperatures being recorded but from higher low temperatures usually recorded at night, much of NOAA’s reported temperature rise is likely an artifact of compromised data from poorly sited NWS monitors.

Ground-based temperature measurements, although below those projected by climate models, are still the closest of the three sources of temperature data (ground monitors, satellites, and weather balloons) to matching the models’ projections and trends. Skeptics have long used more accurate satellite and weather balloon data to justify their position that the models’ temperature estimates and projections don’t match real-world measurements. If, as seems to be the case, even the ground-based temperature measurements and trends are lower than NOAA and others have previously claimed, there is little if any reason to trust model projections of temperature. And if this is so, there is even less reason to trust other projections of climate doom spun out by models that are purported to flow from their temperature projections.

The conclusion media pundits, the general public, and politicians alike should draw from this new research is that there is little justification for imposing costly restrictions on fossil fuel use to fight a warming that is, in fact, not severe at all.

So we're not seeing warming due to the SUN all of a sudden?

You were happy to accept that warming was happening, before it was demonstrated to you that any warming is unlikely to be due to increasing solar irradiance, and far more strongly correlates with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

But now you are saying that problems with one kind of measurement, in the USA alone, mean that all evidence of warming on a global scale is flawed?

This is like arguing with a creationist. You are allowed to have multiple lines of argument, but if they rely on different sets of starting assumptions, then they don't add up to a compelling story - and just serve to make you look like a shifty character who will believe anything, as long as it appears to support your conclusions.

"Now that I cannot explain the observations in a way that pleases me, I deny that the observations are accurate" is pure intellectual dishonesty.

Actually, you know about the "pause?" See, there is a Grand Solar Minimum in the offing.
Yes, in solar cycles 22 and 23 there was a degree of warming. That is, it did warm from oh, the 1970's until about 2000. However, it has since turned the corner. We are due for a cooling trend.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBIj2XQDMjw

Actually, you know that's horseshit?

It's not that many posts ago that I presented the solar irradiance data covering that time period, yet you have already decided to forget it, because it doesn't support your preferred conclusion.



Can you point to the place where the yellow line trended consistently upwards between 1970 and 2000? No? That's because the stuff you are talking about didn't happen. Cool story though - if you started with your preferred conclusion, rather than following the evidence where it leads.

It's just like arguing with a creationist. You've even got the rapid changes of subject down pat - if one part of your evidence is debunked, just present something totally different, and hope that that will show the Darwinists how wrong they are.

 

[Elixir]

It's just like arguing with a creationist. You've even got the rapid changes of subject down pat - if one part of your evidence is debunked, just present something totally different, and hope that that will show the Darwinists how wrong they are.

Indeed. I bet you STILL haven't explained why there's still monkeys.

 

[Elixir]

B-b-b-but ... When the temperatures are wrong. . . .

Sorry George. Facts are what they are. Your ignorance may be invincible, but your story is horseshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For over 3 decades we have endured an endless stream of abysmal climate prediction failures. Not one single prophecy of doom has eventuated, not one. I've asked before for some alarmist here to produce even one single cult like prophecy that has eventuated. Luckily I wasn't holding my breath for a response.

The North Polar ice cap is still there in Summer. It still snows in Winter in the northern hemisphere. The Marshall and Gilbert and other low laying islands including the Maldives haven't been inundated. Neither has New York, Florida a third of Bangladesh or the Nile Delta. Greenland is still covered with ice and there hasn't been the migration of millions of climate refugees.

It must be very frustrating for the cultists and alarmists when nature doesn't cooperate.

You have been repeatedly asked for an example of a failed prophecy of doom made by a climatologist. You still haven't provided one.

Well, both poles are still there, Greenland is still covered under an ice sheet, the low laying islands are still there, in fact some of them have increased in size. The dams on Australia's East coast are still holding record amount of water, and the desalination plants built during the Crudd/Gillard/Crudd government on the advice of a very dodgy Tim Flannery are still in mothballs. The seas haven't increased inanduating Florida, New York and coastal areas of Australia or anywhere else for that matter. Why, even Venice is still there just as it was 200 years ago.

On June 30 1989, only six months after the political IPCC was founded- Associated Press published an article by a Mr Peter Spielmann, predicting a multitude of climate disasters by the year 2000 if we didn't reduce our CO2 emissions. In October 2018, 29 years later, those very same predictions, almost word for word, were trotted out again, but this time the apocalypse is to occur by 2050. The hysteria has risen to a crescendo with claims of a GW/CC/CD some alarmists in the US like that idiot AOC declaring we have only 12 years left before the planet becomes uninhabitable, though the BBC is saying 11 years.

I'm sick of inane sayings such as GW/CC/CD is real. Of course it's real. It is constantly changing because that's what climate does, it changes. What the public has witnessed is the absolute failure of ALL GW/CC/CD predictions. Just how long are we going to to tolerate the IPCC, Green parties, and loony Left and others crying wolf?

I asked for failed predictions by climatologists. There is a lot of hysteria in the press but that's not relevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, you know about the "pause?" See, there is a Grand Solar Minimum in the offing.
Yes, in solar cycles 22 and 23 there was a degree of warming. That is, it did warm from oh, the 1970's until about 2000. However, it has since turned the corner. We are due for a cooling trend.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBIj2XQDMjw

You're missing some key facts here:

1) The "stopping" of the warming was due to the 2000's being a time of natural cooling coupled with 1998 being an outlier. When nature should have been cooling us we were holding roughly constant instead.

2) You're omitting that nature switched back to warming and temperatures shot up.

What we should be seeing is an oscillation around an average temperature. Instead we see periods of rise and periods of level. The coming "cooling" you talk about will be another period of basically flat temperature which the deniers will use to say global warming has ended.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Many of my friends claim that global warming is the same as Malthusian predictions about human population. Malthus was correct because at local levels it has happened repeatedly. Globally we have simply produced more food and spread it around.

But what about sea level rise and climate change due to warming? What are the answers? At the end of the last ice age people simply dispersed inland and there were a lot less people. Can the same thing happen today without war, famine and in some instances cultural and societal collapse?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's just like arguing with a creationist. You've even got the rapid changes of subject down pat - if one part of your evidence is debunked, just present something totally different, and hope that that will show the Darwinists how wrong they are.

Indeed. I bet you STILL haven't explained why there's still monkeys.

Without monkeys how would we have monkey business?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's just like arguing with a creationist. You've even got the rapid changes of subject down pat - if one part of your evidence is debunked, just present something totally different, and hope that that will show the Darwinists how wrong they are.

Indeed. I bet you STILL haven't explained why there's still monkeys.

Without monkeys how would we have monkey business?

Which one? The Marx Bros or the Grant/Rogers film?

 

[ideologyhunter]

The remake, funded by Rev. Franklin Graham and starring Ben Stein. Also available livestreamed from the Texas State Textbook Commission.

 

[bilby]

Many of my friends claim that global warming is the same as Malthusian predictions about human population. Malthus was correct because at local levels it has happened repeatedly. Globally we have simply produced more food and spread it around.

Malthus was wrong on both counts. We were able to use technology to increase food production geometrically (fertilisers, agricultural machinery, new crop strains), and also to make population grow arithmetically, and ultimately to start to fall (the contraceptive pill).

Nothing he forecast came to pass. He was wrong, period.

But what about sea level rise and climate change due to warming? What are the answers? At the end of the last ice age people simply dispersed inland and there were a lot less people. Can the same thing happen today without war, famine and in some instances cultural and societal collapse?

Perhaps. But it's not a risk we need to take, and it's a huge risk - mass displacement of people hasn't got a good track record at all, largely because the people who (by pure luck) find themselves in places lots of people want to move to, tend to end up fighting a genocidal conflict against the people who want to move.

Historically, those who are moving in tend to be more numerous, more motivated, and wealthier, and it's the people who stand in the way who get wiped out. But sometimes it's the other way about. Typically, someone gets massacred either way.

Smaller scale disasters (eg cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis) with temporary consequences we usually cope with quite well*, but longer term mass movement of people without genocide has not been something we have shown a lot of aptitude for.



*Offer not applicable in United States of America, its states, territories and overseas possessions. Conditions apply.

 

[Elixir]

At the end of the last ice age people simply dispersed inland ...

I can't help forming the dystopian vision of people living away from the oceans, fleeing from the stench of cultured meat which is the oceans' sole purpose, and other than microbes and cockroaches, is the only major protein source on the planet besides ... humans...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Many of my friends claim that global warming is the same as Malthusian predictions about human population. Malthus was correct because at local levels it has happened repeatedly. Globally we have simply produced more food and spread it around.

Malthus was wrong on both counts. We were able to use technology to increase food production geometrically (fertilisers, agricultural machinery, new crop strains), and also to make population grow arithmetically, and ultimately to start to fall (the contraceptive pill).

Nothing he forecast came to pass. He was wrong, period.

You're only half right. He said nothing about the size of possible technological improvements to food production, what we have done to increase yields in no way rebuts the doom he predicted. What he missed was effective contraception. Note that we have seen a small foreshadowing of a Malthusian doom in modern times--the Rwandan "genocide."

 

[bilby]

Many of my friends claim that global warming is the same as Malthusian predictions about human population. Malthus was correct because at local levels it has happened repeatedly. Globally we have simply produced more food and spread it around.

Malthus was wrong on both counts. We were able to use technology to increase food production geometrically (fertilisers, agricultural machinery, new crop strains), and also to make population grow arithmetically, and ultimately to start to fall (the contraceptive pill).

Nothing he forecast came to pass. He was wrong, period.

You're only half right. He said nothing about the size of possible technological improvements to food production, what we have done to increase yields in no way rebuts the doom he predicted.

Yes it does. He said that food production could not be made to increase geometrically. Then we went and did so. For ling enough that population stopped growing geometrically - which he said it wouldn't.

What he missed was effective contraception.

And effective modern agricultural technologies. In other words, he was wrong.

It's understandable why he was wrong - predictions are hard, especially about the future.

But he was, nevertheless, wrong.

Note that we have seen a small foreshadowing of a Malthusian doom in modern times--the Rwandan "genocide."

Note that this is a special case of an underdeveloped small nation with tightly controlled borders that were placed without regard for the tribal rivalries of the locals, an almost entirely agricultural economy in which land ownership was paramount, and a strong tradition of dividing land between multiple children at each generation. There were a LOT of causes for the Rwandan genocide, and Malthus, while he would not gave been surprised by it, cannot be reasonably cited as having predicted it.

Malthusianism in Rwanda is a 'postdiction' - supporters of the hypothesis declared AFTER the event that their philosophy predicted it would happen. I find that less than compelling.

 

[angelo]

It's just like arguing with a creationist. You've even got the rapid changes of subject down pat - if one part of your evidence is debunked, just present something totally different, and hope that that will show the Darwinists how wrong they are.

Indeed. I bet you STILL haven't explained why there's still monkeys.

Without monkeys how would we have monkey business?

Speaking of monkeys. Climate variations has been responsible for our very own evolution. Which supports what Iv'e been constantly saying here. That climate has been changing on the third rock from the sun since it's formation.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution

 

[bilby]

Without monkeys how would we have monkey business?

Speaking of monkeys. Climate variations has been responsible for our very own evolution. Which supports what Iv'e been constantly saying here. That climate has been changing on the third rock from the sun since it's formation.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution

But NEVER in human history has it changed at anything CLOSE to this rapidity.

As has been repeatedly explained to you in this thread.

Your claim makes as much sense as saying 'I don't need a parachute. I have been having falls without one since I was a baby. I must have fallen hundreds of times'. And then jumping out of a plane at 10,000 metres.

What is unique and dangerous is the RATE at which climate is changing. It's unprecedented. Nobody - not one single person - is suggesting that climate hasn't or shouldn't change at all. That's your strawman.

The problem is that we have seen tens of thousands of years worth of change in a single century. Walking into a wall at 5km/h is fairly harmless. That doesn't mean that hitting a wall at 500km/h is also fairly harmless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're only half right. He said nothing about the size of possible technological improvements to food production, what we have done to increase yields in no way rebuts the doom he predicted.

Yes it does. He said that food production could not be made to increase geometrically. Then we went and did so. For ling enough that population stopped growing geometrically - which he said it wouldn't.

We haven't seen a geometric increase. We have seen big increases but each such increase moves us to a new plateau, it doesn't cause further growth. Each new person breeds more people. So long as the population continues to grow there will come a point we can't feed them.

Note that we have seen a small foreshadowing of a Malthusian doom in modern times--the Rwandan "genocide."

Note that this is a special case of an underdeveloped small nation with tightly controlled borders that were placed without regard for the tribal rivalries of the locals, an almost entirely agricultural economy in which land ownership was paramount, and a strong tradition of dividing land between multiple children at each generation. There were a LOT of causes for the Rwandan genocide, and Malthus, while he would not gave been surprised by it, cannot be reasonably cited as having predicted it.

The borders caused the ethnic tension. They didn't cause the Malthusian killings that followed the initial ethnic conflict.

Malthusianism in Rwanda is a 'postdiction' - supporters of the hypothesis declared AFTER the event that their philosophy predicted it would happen. I find that less than compelling.

Except Malthus didn't attempt to predict the exact form.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Without monkeys how would we have monkey business?

Speaking of monkeys. Climate variations has been responsible for our very own evolution. Which supports what Iv'e been constantly saying here. That climate has been changing on the third rock from the sun since it's formation.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution

But NEVER in human history has it changed at anything CLOSE to this rapidity.

Chicxulub.