9 comments on “1919 or 2019? The Movie”

  1. Ok the first graph of daily temperatures over 365 days , one being 1919 and another 2019 somewhere in Canada - no difference. The second being rainfall probably in the same place with winter rain could be around 53°N, and much the same 1919 or 2019. We all know the demagogues will freak out when they see this and try and send us down another rabbit hole.

  2. Once again, John Robson, this is excellent information and a great presentation to share with young people who will hopefully start to think for themselves and become aware of misinformation bombarding them. Thank you for being so sensitive to the need to share this information in a way that even a child will understand it.
    I hope everyone will share this widely and support climatediscussionnexus.

    It ought to be illegal to publish text books or online material for students that is factually incorrect and intended to frighten them.

  3. Thank you for this compilation. I've often wanted to reference your comparison graphs and this gives me a great way to present this information to others.

  4. Thank you for this very interesting video based on very accurate and objective comparative data between 1919 and 2019. I think that a possible colder climate scenario ( driven by the effects of solar minimum and increased cosmic rays whose effects on low clouds formation are largely underestimated) should not be excluded in the next decades. I have been reading and studying a lot about the theory of Henry Svensmark, Nir Shaviv et Al and it is certainly a shame that their theory is so neglected and silenced in the mainstream debate.
    I have to congratulate you for the honest and acute critics of the climate hysteria and I thank you again for the weekly update.

  5. "Ah," will go the argument, "but these are just cherry-picked sites. Anyway, it is just local, not regional or global..."
    What does seem to be missed is that the world is filled with these "cherry-picked" sites, showing local data which contradicts the whole narrative - funny, how this data from these sites creates such a different picture when it is "homogenised" to show global trends...

  6. Brilliant! Just a few data-filled minutes suffice to debunk the whole global-warming-climate-change narrative and throw the fear-mongering activists into an existentialist crisis. L

  7. John, I have been following you post for some time now and find them always insightful and instructive. I appreciate the clear eyed and common sense explanations you so eloquently provide. We need more of this kind of information to keep us from sinking into the abyss of ignorance.
    Dana H Saylor Sr.
    A small town country boy

  8. I don't believe John Robson. I put all my faith in Greta Thunberg because it's discrimination to not have faith in a Swedish autistic bubblegummer and let's face it, the Swedes used to be Vikings
    who were really cool.

  9. Today the UK's Prime Minister has launched his new 'Green industrial revolution', which will, amongst other things, "ban the sale of new cars and vans powered wholly by petrol and diesel". Additional initiatives include more nuclear power, more wind turbines, carbon capture and trials on using hydrogen. The aim is to support (for £4bn initial investment) the creation of 250,000 jobs and put the UK on track to meet its goal of net zero emissions by 2050. Putting to one side the huge energy costs of carbon capture and hydrogen production, the electricity to power the electric vehicles and homes is yet to be agreed. Nuclear is essential to get anywhere near the power required. Wind is getting expensive as wind farms are built further offshore and by 2030, the existing ones will need maintaining or replacing. All this because the Government are convinced that there is a problem of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Our life is a carbon-based existence and we need carbon to survive. Plants need carbon dioxide and the more there is, the more they thrive (biodiversity up 14% since 1982). What came first, increased global temperature, or increased levels of CO2? there is certainly a debate about this. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *