Slashdot Mirror
2016 Was Second Hottest Year For US In More Than 120 Years of Record Keeping (climatecentral.org)
Last year was the second hottest year for the United States in more than 120 years of record keeping, according to the National Climatic Data Center, marking 20 above-average years in a row. While Georgia and Alaska recorded their hottest year, every state had a temperature ranking at least in the top seven. Climate Central reports: The announcement comes a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which released the U.S. data, and NASA are expected to announce that 2016 set the record for the hottest year globally. Both the global record and the U.S. near-record are largely attributable to greenhouse gas-driven warming of the planet. In addition to the pervasive warmth over the last year, the U.S. also had to deal with 15 weather and climate disasters that each caused more than $1 billion in damage. Together, they totaled more than $46 billion in losses and included several disastrous rain-driven flooding events. These events, along with continued drought, lay bare the challenge for the country to learn how to cope with and prepare for a changing climate, said Deke Arndt, the climate monitoring chief of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. The temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 2.9 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average for 2016, displacing 2015 and ranking only behind 2012, when searing heat waves hit the middle of the country. More notable than the back-to-back second place years, Arndt said, was that 2016 was the 20th consecutive warmer-than-normal year for the U.S. and that the five hottest years for the country have all happened since 1998. Those streaks mirror global trends, with 15 of the 16 hottest years on record occurring in the 21st century and no record cold year globally since 1911.
... in the ass, pussy grabber.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
the earth is over 4 billion years old and has had icecaps for 20% of the time.
What's the maths on 4 billion vs 120 years?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
How do you reconcile between eras so far apart in both the breadth of measurements and accuracies and methodology between now and then?
I don't think it is possible to any close "degree." Look, people didn't calibrate their thermometers all the time back then, nor did they have the scientific rigor in measurement technique to make sure they had an acceptable "averaging" setup for the measurement on a specific time and circumstance each day.
Because the data will no longer be collected, and any climate scientists who object will get it in the neck. Everything is fine citizens. Go back to what you were doing.
It's absurd to say that ALL of the weather disasters we encountered are attributable to global warming. You could just as easily say that GW has prevented several massive weather disasters we will never know about...
Weather changes, sometimes to extremes. Over time there will be massive droughts and floods and hurricanes and all other things, just as there have been through the entire history of Earth. So stop with the nonsense of trying to tie all that to GW because it just makes you all look like a bunch of panicked idiots.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While the article mentions El Nino, it conveniently fails to take "The Blob" into consideration.
Fake News for Killary lovers.
He loves fraking. Libtards confuse "natural" gas for "organic".
Ever wonder why people are skeptical of claims like this? Keep in mind that these data are subject to large adjustments instead of basing these claims on anything resembling the raw data. Sure, it's necessary to perform quality control, but the adjustments go far beyond that. In fact, if you plot the quality controlled data prior to the adjustments, the temperature record is mostly flat. However, the adjustments to the data set look like a hockey stick. When you need to adjust the data in order to get a signal, you end up making ridiculous claims like vaccines causing autism. Global warming is about as credible, except that scientists have decided it's true. To their credit, organizations like the National Climatic Data Center are transparent about their adjustments, so we can actually determine that the adjustments are the source of the warming signal.
I respect the scientists at NCDC, though I think their research is very flawed. The problem is that, when someone points out these facts, people show up and aggressively attack anyone who raises these problems. Slashdot has some users who do this, especially people like MightyMartian. Ever wonder why people call global warming a religion? It's because, even when facts clearly show the opposite, people angrily defend the cause. I respect the scientists at NCDC, but so many other people angrily defend global warming like the religion it is.
Climate is a long term average. 1 year has no meaning. Stupid articles such as these only open Climate Science to attacks when inevitable you end up with a colder then usual year despite the long-term average shows a clear upward trend
The temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 2.9 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average for 2016
So that's -16 degrees celsius! Yeah, that's a minus!! The Earth is cooling rapidly and freezing!! Global warming is a leftist commie lizard people Soros conspiracy!!1!1eleven!
We're all gonna die!!!!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
as satellite data series slowly grows in length (and we transition to renewable energy because it is cheaper) it is getting ever more obvious that the warming is not going to be catastrophic. Can we start focusing on real problems instead?
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/every/plot/uah6/trend
EOL
Meanwhile 2017 is shaping up to be one of the coldest years in over 100 years, but once NOAA manipulates the data, it will be even hotter than 2016 LOL
What with Meryl Streep and all at the Golden Globes. The only year that I can remember that was hotter was Madonna at the 1992 MTV Music Awards.
For those that somehow think that Mankind has nothing to do with Climate Change -- it is a documented Fact that the amount of Greenhouse Gases produced by Mankind far outweigh the Pollutants naturally produced by the Earth 2.4 MILLION pounds of Co2 are released by us every second -- that's 207.36 BILLION pounds of CO2 every day. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ca... That amount DWARFS the amount of CO2 the Earth produces naturally -- in fact the Earth now produces less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcan... Additionally, An estimated 14 billion pounds of trash-most of it plastic -- is dumped in the world’s oceans every year. http://seastewards.org/project... So not only has MANKIND completely contaminated and inundated our atmosphere with Green House Gases, we have contaminated and polluted our Oceans to such an extent that it's effecting the Global Ocean Currents and killing off aquatic life Your willful ignorance and refusal to accept anything not stated by FOX News as fact changes nothing, but only assures that your children and their children will suffer and possibly die due to exposure or extreme weather related event because of your ignorance and hatred for Science Furthermore, carrying on arguing that Mankind is not the cause of the Climate Change is so completely deluded, you might as well spend your time smearing the walls of your house with your own feces while claiming ignorance of the cause of the foul odor and swarms of flies all around you -- because that's exactly how crazy you sound
Your electric car? Yeah it runs on electricity, that comes from coal. The tires come from oil. The plastics are petroleum based. And on.. And on.. And on.. There is no substitute for oil, only replacements in niche areas.
I am still waiting for the day when the "majority" cares so much about the environment that they will actually give up their oil lifestyle. If all of you climate change cry babies did that, then we'd get the reductions in green house gases you want. Stop driving to work, stop shopping at Wal Mart, stop going to the grocery store for the organically grown bananas that were shipped from South America. OIL MAKES YOUR LIFESTYLE POSSIBLE you hypocrites! If all you cry babies actually did what you say it wouldn't matter what the climate change "deniers" said or did huh? Because you all the majority, right? We'd get those reductions all on YOUR behavior alone.
Fact is you are all full of crap and won't give up your oil lifestyle so just shut up!
Think how hot it might have been if global warming was real!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
How many times have I heard it's weather not climate applied to the U.S. Regional numbers ?
Anyway, It's kind of amazing that 100% of the reported warming in the U.S. comes from adjustments to the raw data
https://realclimatescience.com...
Whats more those adjustments perfectly correlate to the increase in CO2 levels
Oh my
The earth is in a mini ice age. There's no know method of extracting temperature rates from the geologic record, which is what leads to the scary xckd graph. It is inevitable that we return to a warmer earth. It's also inevitable that people reliant on government^H^H^H^H^H corporate funding publish what their government^H^H^H^H^H^H corporate overlords expect.
Wouldn't be a regular week on Slashdot without a climate post. We get it, editors: you have an agenda. We all get it.
They're the same color as POOP! Can't be a coincidence. When will you all WAKE UP and REALIZE the simple TRUTH of this?!?!
-- a.p.k. -- BTW, my HOSTS file decided to FUCK me UP THE ASS. I admit, I liked it. I spam this site because I like to share the feeling of being anally violated by a large throbbing black member. Enjoy! I know I sure did!
Divide the area of the U.S. by the area of the world: 1. Proportion of total surface area: Area of U.S.: 3,790,000 sq. mi. Earth's total surface area: 197,000,000 sq. mi. 3,790,000 / 197,000,000 = 0.0192385787 = about 1.9 %
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
It would be more convincing if they had error bars on those numbers.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think you're at the "ok, global warming is real, but its not a big deal, honest" stage?? But that's at least semi-positive. You've accepted the basic warming, even if you want to downplay the short time scale its happened over by adding in ancient ice cap melts.
The earth will be fine, its not a living thing in and of itself, it's the stuff on the earth that dies e.g. Dinosaurs, Triassic extinction event, trilobites extinction and the biggest of them all, the Permian extinction (96% of life wiped out), life gets wiped out on it's surface, but the earth chugs on.
It's worth looking at the Permian extinction, the great dying where 96% of species died out. A similar style dyout would wipe humans off the planet. That was a rise of 8 degrees celcius, with 2000 parts per million CO2. We've raised the CO2 from 280ppm to 370ppm to the year 2000 and to 404ppm this year and still accelerating.
So we're looking at as much as 1000ppm by 2100, which is really past a point at which we could stop it.
Permian is believed to be a de-oxygenating event of the ocean, so all marine life died out because it couldn't breath, which in turn released decay gasses into the atmosphere and snuffed out the land animals.
That's potentially Trumps great grandchildren dead, so not really a big deal, he'll never meet them, let alone date them.
"Not the hottest we have seen in the tiny span of time we have been keeping records compared to geologic and astronomical time frames."
I know it's not as good of click bait, but honestly, this is a non story. Call me when it is 5C hotter globally and I might actually care (or I might not, honestly warmer temperatures have been historically good for life in general and humans in particular).
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Really.
If 2016 was indeed the hottest year on record, then 2017 will almost certainly be cooler, due to statistical variation.
So Trump will be able to Rightfully claim that his novel policies on climate change are working.
And the right will all praise the Donald.
Sad but true.
can you agree that there are a series of trends that point towards increased extreme meteorological events.
No, and you can't either.
"We currently do not know how tornadoes and severe thunderstorms may be changing due to changes in the climate, nor is there hope that we will be able to do so in the foreseeable future."
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hillary lost, get over it. Obviously enough people hated her more than they loved the planet. But if you really want to bring out the global warming fake news, you should do it in the summer, not when so many Americans are suffering from an extreme winter storm and would welcome a little more global warming.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Dear Americans,
There are lots of other countries beyond the wall. Lots of them were even hotter than you in 2016. And lots of people in these countries died starving because they could not grow food.
http://images.slideplayer.com/14/4489494/slides/slide_52.jpg
Count of all top level comments taken from page as I loaded it.
People objecting with the first argument they could think of, regardless of validity: 10
Nuts blaming everything on The Conspiracy: 4
Global warming alarmist copypasta: 2
Worthless spam: 7
People discussing the article: 4
Global warming news sure brings out the crazies.
NOT the hottest year then?
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', which is why they renamed it 'climate change', which doesn't mean anything, because the climate is always changing, yet is ALWAYS meant to be taken to mean 'catastrophic man-made global warming'. The alarmists are paid more, the more they terrify us into thinking THEY are necessary. They are not. Any changes in the Earth's temperature is caused by the sun, and there is nothing we can do about it, AND we are heading into another ice age. How are these liars and fraudsters going to explain that? Oh wait, they won't have to, because they'll all be retired with big fat pension by the time it happens. Hence the problems are always 'decades away', so they never have to answer for their blatant lies.
The idea that last year was the hottest 'on record' is bullshit, and obvious - remember the drought of 1976 in the U.K.? THAT was a hot year. Last year wasn't remotely hot. It's laughable that so many people just ignore what they see and experience EVERY DAY throughout a year and instead choose to believe 'the experts'.
And I mean the whole climate debate.
There's a river running through the town I live in. For centuries, the river banks have been devoid of settlements. Why? Because the river has that nasty tendency to rise past its bed every now and then. Doesn't happen often, only every, say, 30 years or so. The periods are apparently long enough, though, that people don't remember it. And hence people did build houses right inside that flooding zone. Some older people have been warning them, telling them that it's not a good idea and that they're going to regret it. They have been rebuffed, damn luddites, we have the technology to tame the river, no problem there, put it in a fast moving bed and let the flood go downstream.
Guess what: They did the same upstream.
Now, last year it was 30ish years since the last flood and now a few people have a new swimming pool in their basement. And instead of now going "Fuck, we should've known better" the same people that ridiculed those that told them that this is going to happen are now lamenting that nobody could foresee that and how they now want to get disaster aid.
And I have a hunch that exactly the same is going to happen when disaster strikes those that now ignore any warnings, build at the beach front and then suddenly stand in 20 feet of water. Then suddenly they'll lament and complain how nobody could have foreseen that and then those that told them for ages are suddenly expected to aid them.
And it will be my pleasure to just shoot to kill when they try to climb my hill to get out of the water.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Record high days, wow, must be climate change no global warming. Record cold days, that just weather ignore it. Many climatologists remain unconvinced that there is global warming and point to irregularities in data collection worthy of Gilligan, like a light bulb that is always on in a box that has the sensor to record the temperature. Temperature stations in urban areas or airports where average temperatures are higher. And many many more. Even the infamous 97% figure is cooked. Many of the scientists counted object to their papers and views being classified as favoring the hypotheses of global warming, or human caused global warming. Others point to our descent into a similar Minimum as the Marauder Minimum. Some predict a mini ice age. But when the figures don't agree with the global warming hypothesis then it's is weather phenomena (wait a sec, let me adjust my model!)... it's really quite easy. Bury a series of probes in the mantle. Uniformly distributed, not favoring fault lines or avoiding them. Launch a series of satellites that cover 100% of the earth from their combined viewpoints. And cover the earth facing sun. Measure solar output, heat gain or loss on earth, and contributions from earths internal heat. Might as well map greenhouse gas patterns and ir absorption on earth and map solar patterns not just the overall. Maybe even map the magnetospheres. And measure the temperature of the surface and at layers in the atmosphere. (I'd be looking for methane-hydrates releasing methane over the continental shelves myself.) Right now, we spend millions on grants to colleges and agencies who get money if they agree with global warming, and lose grants and funding if they disagree. That makes the argument political not scientific.
The end is nigh. Better repent of my sins.
There was a statistically insignificant difference between 2016 and 1998 (0.02C). Both of these years were very strong El Nino years, fyi. In other words, after 18 years of "global warming" the El Nino years have the same temperature.
Please can we stop the tsunami of bollocks about global warming? It's fucking tiresome.
If it wasn't for our modern satellite technology,better ground and communications equipment and,many more people actually involved,we would not know this was the second warmest year. This assumes we are being told the whole truth. Will they blow the trumpets this loud when in the future we have the second coldest year ever?
I read every comment and based on that you are all fucking nuts. Climate Change is true only in regards to normal ebbs and flows of global conditions. What we have here is a simple trend that some twats think is trending too quickly. One thing is certain, we'll probably kill each other or get hit by some object from space. Hell a gamma ray blast is more certain. Worry about real issues and threats.
Homo Erectus extinct 1 million years ago? George Michael just died last week.
Wow how much CO2 did we drop from the atmosphere from July to the end of the year?
Or was it the El nino - a solar event. So was 2010, 2005, 1998, 1934 - which was about the same as the 2015/2016 El nino season.
It was really El Nino all along. What a shame to 27 years of doom-saying predictions of when the Arctic will melt.
All this off the back of 2016 being the record setting year for greatest food production ever seen in human history :)
You can cry up global warming or global cooling or climate change or whatever buzzword you want to use all you want.
The lot of you sorry sacks are going to go and pump out little stupid mewling brats anyway, even as you purportedly cry about the environment.
You're arguing over what to call the gaping maw in the Titanic's side as the band slides into the briny deep.
Good luck with that.
Dumbasses.
What can you PROVE?
I think you're full of shit. Is that proof you're both wrong and full of shit? No? Do I have to provide some proof other than my "think" on the matter?
"nor did they have the scientific rigor..."
All you're doing here is the "If they haven't corrected for changes, then it's garbage.
But when it IS corrected, youre first in line to complain that "They've fudged it to SHOW warming! Where's the RAW DATA!!?!??!".
They change the baseline because time moves on and the epochal decade changes.
They also document the changes made, every one of them.
And BEST was run by someone who thought like you and wanted to do their own reconstruction from data. He found the same trend, indistinguishable from the IPCC's reconstruction.
If you don't like the result and wish to check it is valid, feel free to go and do the same work as Muller did.
" the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which released the U.S. data, and NASA are expected to announce that 2016 set the record for the hottest year globally. "
The globe is 100% of the planet, dumbass.
The last time they did a comparison test, it was 67% Clinton,33% Trump.
And the difference was 5% when the error of margin was 3% in the polls.
And Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the states, being 80,000 votes short.
So
1) Not 98%.
2) Only just out by 2% in the polls
3) It was practically a dead heat by state, gerrymandering made the difference.
4) Clinton was still ahead in votes
5) Wrong "consensus" entirely
Not a good track record.
hottest year on record by .000002 degrees. Nevermind the margin of error is .04
I wonder how long it will take to analyze the data to find out if this is real or debunked...
And is not statistically different from MBH98. Both of those show rapid recent warming.
So libtard way of saying it was cooler this year.
Central Texas only hit triple digit Fahrenheit temperatures for like two days last summer. Usually the entirety of July likes to be in the triple digits.
If it was the second hottest then global warming isn't happening, because if the earth is warming up, then it must be the hottest year, game over climate-tards!
COMPLETELY JOKING
...science demands not only predictions, but reproducibility, falsifiability, and controls.
So all we need is another planet on which to run the experiment!
(Or to be absolutely sure, another two or three.)
I don't know if a roulette wheel will pay out on the next spin, but I DO know how fast I'll lose money if I continue to put my money down on black.
That's the difference between weather and climate. You don't need to predict the next 5 day's weather to know that 100 years from now we're fucked if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere... and we may be fucked even if we manage to reduce greenhouse gases dramatically in the near future.
The data HAS been verified. For instance, look at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. This was a project funded by right-wing activists who doubted the climate science. They specifically objected to use of satellite data and felt that terrestrial weather stations were not being vetted correctly. (For instance, showing pictures of temperature stations a few feet away from buildings or barbecues which they said tainted the results.) The Berkeley guys were led in part by Richard Muller, who has been a long-time skeptic. They went and got original raw data, and did a thorough job vetting each data point.
The result is that their data agrees completely with the climate change models. Muller's public summary is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...
There are other contrarian opinions, but very few of them work with large data sets in any honest way. Nearly all the contrarian viewpoints can be linked to right-wing money and other professional gains that their mainstream colleagues do not enjoy.
But mostly, the arguments they make are trash - which is why they aren't published. They're dumb ideas, easily seen through. Science works by honest appraisal of ideas and data, not opinion or groupthink as you seem to believe. It's not perfect - lord knows I disagree with a lot of scientific colleagues' approaches - but by and large good science tends to win out over bad science.
congregants of the church of global warming are, like most cult members, not particularly consistent.
They tie any weather that supports their claims to "global warming"/"climate change" and then denounce as idiots any of their opponents who point to weather events contrary to their beliefs.
AGW activists have long pointed to individual weather events like hurricanes (Sandy and Katrina ring any bells? Al Gore sure used those) and local effects of weather (like the California drought) as evidence of "climate change".... but when their critics point to similarly localized weather/effects as contrary evidence they are denounced as idiots who do not understand the difference between climate and weather.
Last winter, when AGW critics pointed to cold weather events in North America, the AGW people pointed to a warmer Russian winter, asserting that one needed to consider the entire northern hemisphere. This winter, with freezing weather and snow in something like 49 states, Russia is reporting its coldest Orthodox Christmas in 125 years so that argument is not so very convenient to the cultists who go right-on hyping global warming and claims of a current, ongoing, global immolation. The rules for what constitutes the part of the planet we must pay attention to and which parts of the planet we will extrapolate data for (rather than using ACTUAL data) are extremely and conveniently elastic.
Remember: the planet is over 5 BILLION years old (I use that nice and low number to deliberately to avoid arguments over which older age to use while still making my point). We have global (but VERY spotty) weather data for about 250 years with a resolution of at best 1 degree of accuracy. We have global weather data from satellites for less than 40 years. Let's go with the best possible AGW numbers: We have coarse, uncalibrated temperature data for the planet for 250/5000000000 of the planet's existence, or 1/20000000th of Earth's History, and from that we are worrying about a possible 0.1 degree warming over the next century and are willing to take actions to mess with entire economies and the well being of millions of people living today to try to mitigate that tenth of a degree. and based on an uncalibrated and untracable one-in-twenty-million sampling with data points that only had an accuracy of a full degree in the first place.
That's what it should remind you of. Greedy land developers (and the banks giving them loans) have been driving the development of flood-prone areas, and buying off politicians so as to not get in the way with (shudder) regulation. Capitalism ensures that these kind of "mistakes" will happen, all the time, in every industry it touches.
But that's the genius of the religion, as failures are treated as successes, as the failing company will go through the capitalist natural selection process, and be replaced by the next company who may make the same sort of "mistake", but with different loans and shareholders backing it up.
bullshit! just because the government wants to lie does not make it true, funny thing happened, only 41% of the temp data came in, and the others were written in. Funny 1.5 degrees F, but if you don't put the bad data in than it is cooling. food for thought.
We have been measuring and recording temperature for more than 120 years. The poms were very good at it. Why can't we have the older data?
From a statistical standpoint we'd probably want a good 100 parallel Earths to get a proper sample.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
I'm sorry, your argument is completely invalid. Not only has there been significant historical debate over both climate change and AGW, but there are still contrarian researchers publishing in respected journals. The reason that no one takes them seriously is because the foundational science for AGW was done over 100 years ago, and we have tried and failed to rule out alternatives since then.
There are two ways to approach the question, "How do we know x?" Obviously with empirical facts it's a question of what observations were made, but you can either approach it from a perspective of, "What are the current best obvservations?", or you can take the historical approach and ask, "How did we get here?" Did you know that the theory of CO2-induced climate change was considered completely disproven up until the mid 1950s? Ice ages were accepted as having happened historically, but the default position was that the climate did not change, that while it might have warmer or cooler cycles that these would always balance out in the long run. The need to explain ice ages was the driving force for theories of climate change beginning in the late 1850s. Now, Arrhenius did correctly identify CO2 as a potential climactic influence, and his seminal 1896 paper gives a factor of sensitivity that still agrees well with the IPCC estimates.
However, Arrhenius was considered debunked, for a couple of reasons, until the mid 1950s when better analyses of the upper atmosphere were being conducted. Studies like Callendar 1949 "Can Carbon Dioxide Influence Climate? provided a new understanding for the behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, and helped to dispel the idea of a static or cyclical climate. Also another key observation was that the oceans turned over much more slowly than had been suspected. These things led to calls for increased research and eventually the tide of opinion accumulated behind AGW in the space of about fifteen to twenty years. Nobody was fired or lost funding, because then the science wasn't politically useful to anyone. The only thing that universities and funding institutions care about is where the facts lead to. It's also worth noting that internal research by the oil industry in the 1970s reached similar conclusions about the validity of the AGW theory.
You are trying to make this a political subject. You do not know the science in question, you are simply saying it is wrong, and wrong because of some political reason. You need a scientific argument. Your political argument is also bankrupt, because not only do we have legitimately conducted and published contrarian research, but Dr Roy Spencer, frequent contributor to WUWT and perhaps the most notable contrarian, was lead author on sections of the IPCC reports. That's not exactly what I would call silencing dissent.
The evidence available in the 19th Century was sufficient to advance a theory of CO2-induced climate change. The evidence gathered over the intervening years has been conclusive. If you would like some exposure to what exactly has happened in climate science in the last century, you might start here, or just get on Google Scholar and start going through the publications. There's only a handful of papers published before 1950 so it's not like you have to go poring through a lot of articles. Armed with the evidence, you might then be able to suggest defects in it, and gather counterevidence. As things stand, that would basically require radically new physics, but that's science for you. You can put what buildings you like to the torch, but you can't burn down a scientific institution without doing better science.
And the absolute lack of conscience to experiment on those 100 paralel earths with different approaches - and not mind killing 99*7 Billion people in the failed experiments...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
"You do know that money is not really created or destroyed, right?" I don't know this. Please convince me with evidence, facts, and accurate definitions. I suspect by money you mean wealth because I can come up with examples of money being created / destroyed all the time. The US Mint's primary purpose is to create money. Every time I use a $100 bill to light my cigar I destroy money. So, assuming you mean wealth, or some other economic term, please explain and defend. On the face, your entire claim appears to be built on a false fundamental assertion.