Greta Thunberg day in NYC

[Handlebars]

They caught one guy from India making up numbers in his climate paper about a decade ago.

indianajo, I think you're referring to Pachauri, head of the UN IPCC, and publishing his fake "Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035 causing massive draught death toll and huge wars over water" scam. That Guy? Then had charges in India for certain kinds of ungentlemanly assaults he was known for?

 

[Handlebars]

Real characters, the fellas are. Phil needs to be right so badly that he was simply the right guy for the job.
Phil Jones

As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

 

[Handlebars]

Glacier National Park. It was supposed to be ice free a long time ago, since before AGW kicked in.
Here's the government:

While the glaciers that carved GNP’s majestic peaks were part of a glaciation that ended about 12,000 years ago, the relatively small alpine glaciers that cling to mountainsides today are considered geologically new, having formed about 7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 AD and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around 1850 AD.

People have been led to believe weird things about glaciers, like no glacier should ever disappear or even melt much.

 

[Handlebars]

As for Professor Mann, multiple investigations have cleared him of any wrongdoing. He is in the process of suing some of his accusers for defamation. The defendants in that case seem to be busy trying to get the case dismissed and firing and hiring different legal representation. Apparently their latest argument is that the case should be dismissed because they were merely engaged in "exaggeration for the purpose of debate". Translation: they (the defendants, not Professor Mann) were lying.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy (gets in the weeds but does make it pretty clear that the lying wasn't by scientists.

Mr Coffee.
Professor Michael Mann lists the Oxburgh Inquiry as one of his exonerations
He repeatedly claimed that he was exonerated by everyone including the Lord Oxburgh panel report, and even filed that claim to the court, as you may have read from your own sources of information.

However, in his book, Professor Mann seems to have forgotten his lines, and truthfully stated "our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee, and the hockey stick was not mentioned in the report".

 

[Handlebars]

Professor Mann's widely touted in the media Nobel Prize Claim?
Nope. He and a few other bold or overly self-congratulatory climate scientists had already been warned that they were NOT recipients. They aren't. Some decided that they just were. Some wouldn't give up easily.

Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute:

“1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.
Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.

Professor Mann responded petulantly on twitter showing a photo and said

IPCC certificate acknowledging me ‘contributing to award of the Nobel Peace Prize’. Do they want my birth certif too?

He claimed to be a Nobelist to the court as well, AFTER that. It would be no wonder if he continued resisting discovery for years on end while defendants twist in financial hardship.

To be fair, the certificate was a certificate of thanks from IPCC brass (Geir Lundstad made a wrong assumption that Mann made the certificate of thanks for himself), but the brass had warned the people who received personal thanks not to claim they are Nobel Recipients.

 

[TForan]

She would be perfect for a Stephen King movie.

 

[ChezCheese:)]

Climate science deniers seem always to be men who don't want to be blamed. Like, they don't want to be told by their moms/wives that the grass needs mowing: "It's not my fault the grass grows - - why should I have to mow it? " Jeez. Forget about the BLAME. Deal with the situation. It is what it is and we have to live with it, adjust to it. Minimize our collaboration with the problem.

The most important thing we can do is plant trees. Lots of trees. Trees will be here long after we are gone and our children and theirs, actively making the world better.

 

[Handlebars]

Um, you believe that climate deniers don't want to plant trees and that climate SCIENTISTS don't fly to exotic reef island hotels for vacations?'

 

[steve mercier]

Um, you believe that climate deniers don't want to plant trees and that climate SCIENTISTS don't fly to exotic reef island hotels for vacations?'

Handlebars you are like a dog with a bone my learned friend.

 

[ChezCheese:)]

That isn't what I'm saying, as you probably know. Believe me, I have a husband who loves to "poke the bear", so somebody trolling online doesn't faze me.

No, the futility of pretty much everything we can do as individuals to ameliorate the climate emergency was brought home to me when the loggers clearcut nextdoor: http://useful-delicious.com/2019/06/10/sunset-over-the-apocalypse/. I don't think we as a species deserve this planet, so we ought to try to leave it in better shape somehow, and trees are it, in my opinion.

 

[Handlebars]

Steve Reality bites:

The Climate Change Hypocrisy Of Jet-Setting Academics

By Nives Dolšak and Aseem Prakash

Huffington post
Recently, we witnessed a fascinating conversation among a few of our professorial colleagues about their frequent flyer status on a prominent airline. Two of them had achieved “Diamond” status ― the very top of the priority boarding pecking order. They spoke the most and were the loudest. The others, with either Platinum or Gold frequent flyer medallions, also noted how “busy” they were with “all this travel.”

The group casually mentioned the various benefits ― such as seating upgrades and access to airport lounges ― that come with their statuses, but the bragging was not really about those perks. It was about importance and recognition. After all, only the most successful academics fly around the world, attending conferences, participating in workshops and giving lectures. Congratulations all around!

 

[Dionigi]

This started with a story about a sweet 16 year old kid with a cause and evolved into a mean-spirited discord.

 

[Handlebars]

That isn't what I'm saying, as you probably know. Believe me, I have a husband who loves to "poke the bear", so somebody trolling online doesn't faze me.

No, the futility of pretty much everything we can do as individuals to ameliorate the climate emergency was brought home to me when the loggers clearcut nextdoor: http://useful-delicious.com/2019/06/10/sunset-over-the-apocalypse/. I don't think we as a species deserve this planet, so we ought to try to leave it in better shape somehow, and trees are it, in my opinion.

I do know you didn't say that, but it sure sounds like you're saying people who deny that the propaganda is credible, they are the irresponsible ones. that's why I asked. It's very often the reverse; deniers are thrifty and love nature. Climate disaster believers, on the other hand often JUSTIFY their excesses (for the jet setting scientists it's a limosine life because they are saving the world).

Here's a scientific psychological study supporting my statement: https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Green Products Psych Sci.pdf

Consumer choices not only reflect price and quality preferences but also social and moral values as witnessed in the remarkable growth of the global market for organic and environmentally friendly products. Building on recent research on behavioral priming and moral regulation, we find that mere exposure to green products and the purchase of them lead to markedly different behavioral consequences. In line with the halo associated with green consumerism, people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green than conventional products. However, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products.

There's a problem. Not one famous climate scientist behaves as if "climate disaster locked in within 12 years" is true.

 

[ChezCheese:)]

This started with a story about a sweet 16 year old kid with a cause and evolved into a mean-spirited discord.

Quite right. I think it is wonderful that a teenager gives a d@#n about the planet.

 

[Handlebars]

Quite right. I think it is wonderful that a teenager gives a d@#n about the planet.

Surely. But adults have a deep responsibility beyond caring about an issue. They must know it as much as they can and not deny or denigrate total evidence presented to them in good faith, that says climate claims of knowledge and claims of disaster are overstatements of what is known. Adults need to ease the fears of the young when it's required.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Jeez, I spend a nice weekend out brappin' and have to come back to this?

@Handlebars, the 'argument' you are making has been completely, thoroughly, and repeatedly debunked. It was all debunked over fifteen years ago.

When I look back on this thread, it is obvious you came here looking for a fight. You follow the same old playbook -- never answer anyone's questions and always change the subject when you get challenged. So you came here to troll. But you obviously aren't a very good troll if your arguments are that stale. So I'd recommend going back to troll school.

You didn't come here and start posting in good faith. You successfully steered the conversation into the fight you wanted to pick.

I've blocked you and am not interested in anything further you have to say. I recommend that others do the same.

To all others on this thread, I apologize for my part in the hijacking of this thread.

 

[Handlebars]

@Handlebars, the 'argument' you are making has been completely, thoroughly, and repeatedly debunked. It was all debunked over fifteen years ago.

One of us is wrong.
You are pretending to know what you do not know. Of the claims you made, I showed that they were wrong. If you actually care , now that you have accused, show that i am wrong on something. Our duty after making an accusation is to show the evidence. I showed. You? No, empty claims is what you have offered thus far and off you go a-high-horse.

same old playbook -- never answer anyone's questions...

That is false. I answered your questions in excruciating detail and showed your information was wrong. I think people can see that I answered questions and pointed out falsehoods.....too much !

...and always change the subject when you get challenged.

You fail to show evidence again. Where did that take place even once?

At least I do not make a set of false derogatory accusations against a forum member and then run away from a duty to back it up.

 

[Handlebars]

You successfully steered the conversation into the fight you wanted to pick

No. I asked what evidence is it that convinces. I steered to show that what is commonly believed and greatly feared, can be shown to be less than credible. The young need to be relieved of the nightmarish fearmongered items that are not actually supported by science, especially the bits that are patently false and easily proven false.

Remember the story of babies being thrown out of incubators? What happened after that fabricated story was told to the congress by a young girl?
Mr. Coffee, we are not children. Our duty is to check the story as much as we reasonably can. BECAUSE bad things can happen when unsupported fears instilled into the innocent become unbearable.

The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H. W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيرة الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign, which was run by the American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.[1][2]

In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die.

 

[Dionigi]

Jeez, I spend a nice weekend out brappin' and have to come back to this?

@Handlebars, the 'argument' you are making has been completely, thoroughly, and repeatedly debunked. It was all debunked over fifteen years ago.

When I look back on this thread, it is obvious you came here looking for a fight. You follow the same old playbook -- never answer anyone's questions and always change the subject when you get challenged. So you came here to troll. But you obviously aren't a very good troll if your arguments are that stale. So I'd recommend going back to troll school.

You didn't come here and start posting in good faith. You successfully steered the conversation into the fight you wanted to pick.

I've blocked you and am not interested in anything further you have to say. I recommend that others do the same.

To all others on this thread, I apologize for my part in the hijacking of this thread.

I also added him to the ignore folder

 

[Handlebars]

Mr. Coffee, after your false accusations, I went back to get your last questions and present them to you.

If you think that the hypothesis is wrong, that's great. How do you explain what is going on? Why are the glaciers melting?

Mr. Coffee. I never claimed to have explicit knowledge more than anyone on earth. It's not my duty to explain all phenomena that you might point at. First I showed where I already can PROVE that you gave incorrect information. Next to MY theories? Ok, I could respond with my IDEAS, but that isn't overly helpful.
Try this on for size.
Because in that instance, probably sea or air temperature is high enough to melt ice or the sun is nice and not enough snow is falling to build it up. Soot is a big factor they say as well.
Volcanoes under the area can cause heat as well. There are many causes. Ocean currents go from the equator to the pole and dump heat.

I already showed you Glacier National Park official language on the recession and info. Many alpine glaciers we recognize from old photos and stories only grew to that large a size ENDING IN 1850 when the Little ICE AGE ended. So we are seeing from behind a mini glaciation period, to a warmer normal niceer period than that Mini Ice Age - which was quite cold and life was hard. I showed you that GN Park info already.

Why are nearly all of the glaciers melting? Why does the rate of glacial melt worldwide seem to be increasing?

Usually glaciers melt and regain. What you are asking is probably "why did the balance shift in our time?".

Is that not your question?

The answer to that is probably soot deposition, CO2 increase, and other causes. Nobody knows what the oceans do, my friend, except in big picture simpleton ways.