Greta Thunberg day in NYC

[steve mercier]

I also added him to the ignore folder

I have only ever added one person the ignore . I am not ready to toss Handlebars in the that pile. I do wonder if he even owns a bicycle though.

 

[Handlebars]

More to Mr. Coffee's fears:
Glacier National is taking down their doomed timelines signs.

Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.,


Founder, Lysander Spooner University


May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.
In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s ‘gone by 2020’ engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”


Almost everywhere, the Park’s specific claims of impending glacier disappearance have been replaced with more nuanced messaging indicating that everyone agrees that the glaciers are melting. Some signs indicate that glacial melt is “accelerating.”
A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old black-and-white photos of glaciers from bygone years (say, “1922”) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished (say, “2006”). Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer. Thus, such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive.


Last year the Park Service quietly removed its two large steel trash cans at the Many Glacier Hotel which depicted “before and after” engravings of the Grinnell Glacier in 1910 and 2009. The steel carvings indicated that the Glacier had shrunk significantly between the two dates. But a viral video published on Wattsupwiththat.com showed that the Grinnell Glacier appears to be slightly larger than in 2009.


The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade. Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.


(Note that since September 2015 the author has offered to bet anyone $5,000 that GNP’s glaciers will still exist in 2030, in contradiction to the reported scientific consensus. To this day no one has taken me up on my offer. –R.R.)

 

[Handlebars]

I have only ever added one person the ignore . I am not ready to toss Handlebars in the that pile. I do wonder if he even owns a bicycle though.

I can answer that question!
My new ebike I have ridden for 3 days now. One day it rained so I didn't. Over 100km of city road rode.

 

[Handlebars]

So to the fearmongered items, a question believers might ask, is "WHY IS GLACIER NATIONAL QUIETLY REMOVING THEIR PREVIOUS TIMELINE SIGNS and now saying "future generations?"
Why would they do that?
Think. Because it was overhyped beyond actual scientific support for it and now time is almost completely up for their fears to be realized.
The rate of recession was huge around 1900 just after achieving their biggest national historical size in about say 1850/1870 little ice age growth...

...in other, better, words, the Little Ice Age growth was unsustainable.

What do fear-instilling cults do when their doomsday predicted timeline runs out? Change to a new timeline.

It's the people that are telling the young innocents that in 12 years the world will end and that they will never reach adulthood, who are irresponsible.
Responsible people would say that was unsupportable fiction, and it is. People are lying to the young, driving them into hoplessness, and that should stop.
wiki

In June 2019, Thunberg spoke by video link with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Who claimed the world will end in 12 years.
that was not true. Not even close. It was a sleazy political lie to an already fears-affected child. People with a conscience should decry
it.

Real Clear Politics

At a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event with Ta-Nahesi Coates, newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) issued a chilling warning about climate change.

"Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?" Ocasio-Cortez told Coates. "This is the war — this is our World War II."

 

[Handlebars]

In case anyone here was similarly deceived by AOC or the media on this issue, I take responsibility to show the facts of the matter, Mr. Coffee.


Checking these atrocious political lies from politicians, aimed at children, this is our duty as adults. The statement only says a certain temperature change range will be essentially "baked in" for the future if nothing is done in the 12 years. That's all that was said. Nothing at all about the world will end. It was just a cheap lie from a dirty politician to put fear into children.
This is what they said about that 12 yrs thing from 2018.

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15)[note 1] was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 8 October 2018.[1] The report, approved in Incheon, South Korea, includes over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries.[2] In December 2015, the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference called for the report.[2] The report was delivered at the United Nations' 48th session of the IPCC to "deliver the authoritative, scientific guide for governments" to deal with climate change.[3]
Its key finding is that meeting a 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) target is possible but would require "deep emissions reductions"[4] and "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society."[2] Furthermore, the report finds that "limiting global warming to 1.5 °C compared with 2 °C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being" and that a 2 °C temperature increase would exacerbate extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, coral bleaching, and loss of ecosystems, among other impacts.[2] SR15 also has modelling that shows that, for global warming to be limited to 1.5 °C, "Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050."[2] The reduction of emissions by 2030 and its associated changes and challenges, including rapid decarbonisation, was a key focus on much of the reporting which was repeated through the world.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_°C#cite_note-Bump-11

But I would be remiss if I didn't ask "1.5 C degrees rise from when and what temp ?"

Oh, look...a footnote! :

Human activities (anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions) have already contributed 0.8–1.2 °C (1.4–2.2 °F) of warming.[4] Nevertheless, the gases which have been emitted so far are unlikely to cause global temperature to rise to 1.5 °C alone, meaning a global temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels is avoidable, assuming net zero emissions are reached soon.[35][36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_°C#cite_note-FOOTNOTESR15_Reportch._1,_p._4-37

We are at perhaps .8 or 1.2 C degrees already from preindustrial times. That changes everything, doesn't it? Preindustrial times was LITTLE ICE AGE times - cold and terrific storms, starvation and pestilence, education fell.

Politicians lying to fear-afflicted children. THAT is what is horrible here. Not saying anything to show that what was told the girl is a lie, that is what is horrible.

To repeat:

meaning a global temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels is avoidable,...

People! Good people need to speak up about the climate lies and help the fears-targeted young. Good people need to deeply question what is produced by political bodies like IPCC and by the politicians on the loose and by scientists with a history of lies and refusal to archive or to show their work, evasion of FOIA, and destruction of the evidence of wrongdoing.
Adults have that duty. What good are we to our grandkids if we can't ease the fears before they fall into deadly despair?

Phil Jones in a panic as he sensed things closing in on him, wrote to Mike Mann for passing on in 2008, regarding illicit behaviour for IPCC production that he had masterminded for several outside authors to try to help put down a peer reviewed paper critical of Mann's work:

Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise...
Cheers
Phil

It was illegal for a government funded scientist to do that kind of deletion. Luckily Gene (Wahl) was not working for government at that time and by the time it was found out, too long a time (over 6 months) had passed for Jones to be gotten on it.

 

[MikeDD]

Greta Thunberg arrived today in NYC by the low-carbon yaucht. I wasn't there. Most of the people there are young.
Just because I'm age 69 doesn't mean I am a energy hog. I've used 4 gal gasoline this year in lawnmowers. I took a week's vacation last May , used ~ 50 gallons gas at about 45 mpg.
I use <400 KWH/month in my residence (summer) mostly to aircondition & keep my walls & pianos from molding. (I tried without once, made a mess). The electric co. says I use 75% of the electricity of an "energy efficient house" of 1200 sq ft. I use less than 125 ccf of natural gas in the dead of winter to heat my residence.
I don't support Ms Thunberg's boycott of school on Fridays to highlight the climate problem. My grandfather was forced out of school age 11 to work in the mine by the mine guards, to replace his father that "broke his neck in a fall". My grandmother worked as a maid in a boarding house to pay her way through 7th & 8th grade, the private "Hamlin Academy". That included tuition, room and board; her mother had moved away to a mine camp to follow her 2nd husband. My other grandmother was bullied out of school in 2nd grade. So when my father found a school that didn't allow bullies to afflict small diligent students, I took advantage and learned everything they would teach me. My grade point was 2nd out of 640 students. I went on to pay my way cash in advance through 4 years of college. "Free" education is a precious right not to be abused.
There should be some other climate warriors on this website: tell your story.

Greta who? Who cares?

 

[Handlebars]

Status of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | U.S. Geological Survey

Glaciers on the Glacier National Park (GNP) landscape have ecological value as a source of cold meltwater in the otherwise dry late summer months, and aesthetic value as the park’s namesake features. USGS scientists have studied these glaciers since the late 1800s, building a body of research...

www.usgs.gov

In conjunction with the past century’s long-term temperature increase, ocean-driven climate trends (Pacific Decadal Oscillation of PDO) influence GNP’s regional climate. Tree-ring based climate records reveal PDO effects that have resulted in 20-30 year periods of hot, dry summers coupled with decreased winter snowpack (Pederson et al. 2004). These periods have induced rapid recession, as high as 100 m/yr between 1917-1941, and influence the current rate of recession.

This was before CO2 level could have done it, according to IPCC. Up to 100 meters per year.

 

[Handlebars]

Glacier National. They are quietly removing their doomsday timeline notices and literature and talking about future generations instead of 2020. They were suckered by climate hucksters and now they are rightly embarrassed.

 

[Handlebars]

Greta, the child currently being abused by crafty political operatives.

 

[elect]

Sadly. that doesn't work in this "science".

First of all, I find quite ridiculous and childish your attempt to delegitimate science, starting from double quoting the term itself.

You can know it's not science because it's the only one that has never had a paper retracted even though lots of substandard garbage is produced yearly.

Although I am not quite sure you can use that fact to identify what is science and what is not, that scientific consensus is, of course, based on scientific papers, which are guaranteed to have a sufficient quality and are peer-reviewed, that is papers get reviewed by several other experts in the field before the article is published (in the journal) in order to ensure the article’s quality.

So, the garbage you say is already filtered out.

Let's take a look at the study "Quantifying the Consensus" produced to show that world famous headline 97% consensus in the climate science literature.
We can actually see the absurd amount of cheating for ourselves if we only look. It doesn't take a scientist to know it's a lie. You CAN know things about the science without being a scientist. We have seen the lying by the most famous.

You keep talking about cheating and lies like they are established and a fact. And keeping using the most famous to discriminate the whole category is also quite ridiculous.

For the most part they all know about the lying but are part of an activist group takeover that is very very powerful and controls enormous wealth distribution. It gives huge gifts to friends, and destroys opposition careers. So you get an almost perfect fear-based unanimity of cowards in chorus at the trough. It is not science.

Yep, we all know the enormous wealth quantity in the scientific fields and how the scientists are well-known for belonging to the wealthiest group of the population...

Moreover on another hand, given the interest to confute the scientifict consensus, especially in the US, I think it wont be hard at all for those few climate experts to get funds.

Also, you are kind of using some bad general human behaviour/tracts to denigrate a single specific community, this is also quite meaningful

Here is the study claim:



After they began their politically motivated stunt, they quickly realized that almost no papers state explicit agreement with the scientific quantified consensus. In truth, less than half of 1% do, according to their own data WHICH YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF in a 2 minute scan of the titles. Right here: https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

So they quickly found out they couldn't produce the expected 97% consensus. They convened a meeting to fix that. Here's the fix: secretly rule out their own definition they said they are using for "AGW" and make it something almost meaningless. Humans contribute. That is not the scientific quantified amount consensus they claim to be finding.


When you go to their data sheet, and you look for such agreement signs, after each title they have two numerals, and the second numeral is for agreement that humans caused over half of recent warming, like IPCC says. Easy to scan some for yourself and after 200 titles in the list scanned, you realize that it's all a lie. You didn't even find one category 1 paper, category 1 means that it explicitly agreed with IPCC type of AGW that humans are mostly the cause, or over half, or over 50% the cause.


Here you can see that a numeral 1 of the two numerals after each title, means they agreed with IPCC, that over half is human-caused. this is what they say they are out to find, but never again mention it.


"Endorsement 1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% "


https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

But if you look at the titles there, you'll be unable to see ANY without diligent searching, forget 97 % of them. You can scan through 2 hundred and not find one. It was all a lie ...and NO CLIMATE SCIENTIST in the propaganda group known as climate science said anything over a world wide hit in headlines that was a lie that they clearly had to know was without doubt a lie.

Anyone can understand that it's ridiculous to think all papers parrot the same thing. Scientists would know immediately that it's a false claim and that they cheated.

Their claimed definition:

Secret meeting to rule out the definition they say they are using:




They ruled out the definition they claim to be using and never again mention that type of endorsement, which is what the the paper and the title says they are to show.

And it's got nothing at all to do with the "breadth of papers". It's got to do with producing the familiar bogus 97% figure headlines when the facts do not support their propaganda.


As well as quietly dropping the required "scientific" quantification element, they kicked out 2/3 of the papers. So actually not based on 11,944 papers. Now look at their data sheet for level 1 endorsement. It's very rare.

To believe that junk is just sad. Go look for yourself for 3 minutes. See their classification given. See the 2 numerals after each title. Look for the second numeral being a "1".

That people give up their own wits and depend on this kind of propaganda, is not a good sign.

About the 97%, this is the original paper (2013), which didnt kick out anything or nobody.

Because if one wants to know how is the scientific consensus among the science community then of course he plains filters the papers based on topics ('global climate change' or 'global warming' ) and on position taken on its anthropogenic source.

Also, it's interesting to notice further:
"In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. "

Moreover, that first study is also supported by another one more recent (2016), which analyses different other surveys, where some of them claim much lower consensus.

This papers clearly shows like interpreting consensus based on expertise is fundamental.. lower consensus equals indeed to lower expertise:

https://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/11/4/048002/Full/erlaa1c48f1_lr.jpg

And if you want to confute the AGW, you should do it scientifically, not attacking scientists and experts personally. This is how science and scientific-logic works.

To conclude, if the scientific consensus is so unanimous ("with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology"), then the logic and plain conclusion is one and only one and you are not gonna like it.

 

[Handlebars]

First of all, I find quite ridiculous and childish your attempt to delegitimate science, starting from double quoting the term itself.

Your first action is to wrongly accuse. Think about that. I'm delegitimizing climate "science", not science. So you wrongly accuse.

Although I am not quite sure you can use that fact to identify what is science and what is not, that scientific consensus is, of course, based on scientific papers, which are guaranteed to have a sufficient quality and are peer-reviewed, that is papers get reviewed by several other experts in the field before the article is published (in the journal) in order to ensure the article’s quality.

Works that way in real science.

So, the garbage you say is already filtered out.

It should be, but you have been misled.

You are, unfortunately, fully ignorant of the facts. I forgive your wrongful personal denigration because it's easy to be tricked by the very very intelligent activists in this case.

Steve McIntyre was tasked with review for the most respected and highest prestige journal in the business. This is his testimony.

[Schneider] asked me to review a 2004 submission to Climatic Change by Mann et al responding to MM2003 – consistent with his public representations. It seemed to me that there was an inherent conflict of interest in such a review but this was obviously known to Schneider and I attempted to separate out my interests as a disputant from my obligations as a reviewer as much as possible.
[…] my approach was informed by ideas of due diligence that were not then characteristic of academic peer reviewing. In my capacity as a reviewer, I asked to see supporting data for Mann’s supposed rebuttal to MM2003 – the topic of his submission – and to see source code to document his allegations that we’d supposedly made grievous mistakes in implementing his methodology – again an important aspect of his submission. […]
Schneider replied that he had been editor of Climatic Change for 28 years and, during that time, nobody had ever requested supporting data, let alone source code, and he therefore required a policy from his editorial board approving his requesting such information from an author.

Phil Jones, one of the most prolific authors said this about ANY requests for data and code:

If you accede to this request the whole peer-review process goes down the tubes.


Reviewers will be able to request the earth from authors. If we all started doing this the number of reviews we could do would dramatically reduce. I currently do about 20-30 reviews a year. If I began asking for this sort of information from journals (AMS, AGU, RMS etc) I would be laughed out of court. I guess it would stop the papers to review coming.


The whole system would grind to a halt. I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either. I do many of my reviews on travel. I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition. If analyses don’t seem right, look right or feel right, I say so. Some of my reviews for CC could be called into question!

Similarly to what he received for his wrongdoing...the clownish Lord Acton, chancellor of his university, "gazed into his eyes" to "drive that kind of spirit out of the university".

He testified to it in hearings, he had NEVER EVER been asked so that his work could be checked properly.

I can find the quote if you demand it. It's work to do, but I think you get the picture. You've been operating under completely wrong assumptions. I'm well versed enough to know how you were fooled, so I am sympathetic to your position, not going to lambaste you for your understandable ignorance of the sad reality.

you keep talking about cheating and lies like they are established and a fact.

They are and I gave the evidence. You didn't bother to read it or you would have learned that it is an accurate description.

And keeping using the most famous to discriminate the whole category is also quite ridiculous.

Can you explain why pointing out the egregious infractions by most famous, who have influenced thought the most by far, is ridiculous? What would you have said if I talked about the unknown or unimportant who influence not much? You might rightly have mocked that as inconsequential.
So of course the most influential by far, are the important ones. They dominate the IPCC literature and self-promote and friend-promote.
Logic, at all? Have a try?

... the 97%, this is the original paper (2013), which didnt kick out anything or nobody.

False. They claimed 11,944 papers.

But they threw out 2/3 that had no opinion.

Because if one wants to know how is the scientific consensus among the science community then of course he plains filters the papers based on topics ('global climate change' or 'global warming' )

That is how they got the 11,944 papers for their claim. Then they kicked out those that didn't have opinion. I don't make a big deal over that, but the remainder is not "the literature". Understand? Why I didn't make a fuss, is because they declared that part of what they did. Still doesn't leave the remainder 1/3 as "the climate literature". Right or wrong, buddy? Is 1/3 of the literature to be truthfully construed as "the climate literature"? If the 100%, 11.944 papers is "the climate literature", how does roughly 1/3 of that also qualify as "the climate literature"?
Tell me. I'm listening.

Also, it's interesting to notice further:
"In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. "

Yes, but that afterthought addition to cover a-- wasn't what the study was about. They cheated during the process and peeked to find the masked author names, they conferred, and did other unallowed actions. No author wants to be dragged by the activists and IPCC, which refused to disallow self promotion and conflict of interest, is full of climate activists who have SIGNED agreements of support with activist organizations WWF and Greenpeace.

Then you change the subject to other studies which also can be critiqued for egregious fault..such as including study of the climate of black holes in space/time and air conditioner studies.

BUT you fail to discuss the hidden change of the meaning of AGW that they purported to be using. Why is that? You now know it's true and you avoided the main part. That's not a brave critique.

What could be more important than a secret change to the definition of AGW in order to castrate it? Please do not diverge into pointing at other things I would have to take apart at length. That is a diversion and you're now aware.

 

[Handlebars]

f you accede to this request the whole peer-review process goes down the tubes.


Reviewers will be able to request the earth from authors. If we all started doing this the number of reviews we could do would dramatically reduce. I currently do about 20-30 reviews a year. If I began asking for this sort of information from journals (AMS, AGU, RMS etc) I would be laughed out of court. I guess it would stop the papers to review coming.


The whole system would grind to a halt. I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either. I do many of my reviews on travel. I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition. If analyses don’t seem right, look right or feel right, I say so. Some of my reviews for CC could be called into question!

I guess it would stop the papers to review coming.

So he's ADMITTING that they never get properly checked, and if he demanded it in a case where something looked amiss, he would be blackballed.
Instead, he goes by "feels"

Do you not understand the import of this statement?

Phil Jones the Director of CRU and the former Director of CRU TOm Wigley, together could not get either of their birth years and ages correctly calculated in an email.
And he thinks it's just fine to go by "feels".

No modern climate papers from the activists have ever been actually checked, according to Phil's testimony. It's been prevented.

How do you like them apples? You've been operating under a delusion. It's not your fault...until now. You have been informed.

 

[Handlebars]

Schneider replied that he had been editor of Climatic Change for 28 years and, during that time, nobody had ever requested supporting data

It's just ludicrous what they have ordinary people believing about review. Can you say "unverified" ? But feels good?
Yes, try that. "This study feels so right. PASS!"

 

[Handlebars]

Here is Michael Mann talking about Overpecks idea to hammer down the Medieval Warming Period to downplay and make inconsequential, existing knowleddge of the time, that the troposphere warms up without major fossil fuel emissions - even though there was no data to support making it inconsequential. ( physical evidence existed for it being warm...records of crops grown in northern locations, and warm summers and so on.)

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2000 years, rather than the usual 1000 years, addresses a good earlier point that Jonathan Overpeck made ... that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MedievalWarm Period”, even if we don’t yet have data available that far back.

Not science. First is activism for the whole cadre of pseudoscientists. Even without data, they are intent on warping the historical record to fit the requirements of their activism.

 

[Handlebars]

Now, unless there are any questions or challenges, that was my last argument showing the untrustworthiness of climate science as it is today.
It's horrible what they have done to a generation of children and Greta being abused so, is a prime example...at least she found a way to crawl out of the despair by fighting SOMETHING..even if it was to further the problem and involve other kids to be disposable pawns of political operatives and be delinquent in school. At least she survived the terrible fears they instilled.

If anyone wants a fuller picture of the destruction of a science, this is an emails roadmap of what happened, the good and the bad..the good actions or motives are 1 in 10, and the result was catastrophic failure of a science.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

 

[Ebiker01]

Scientists need to justify their pay and often invent false hypothesis, write inaccurate reports , only to have them “revised” later on. Their title “scientist” still commands great respect and obedience for most people , young people especially.

But that’s a part of the scientific community. Most of them , Nasa folks maybe have a slightly better or a great truthful agenda, still in case of Nasa that James telescope only took 12-15years and 20$billion and is not launched yet.

 

[Handlebars]

So the super honesty of Greta seems to be a myth. She is seen sporting an Antifa T-shirt, so she deleted the photo and said she is against violence, and she said it was a borrowed shirt and had only done some music collaboration with an Antifa member (who happens of course, to be FOR violence - it's what they do) . Burning dumpsters and leaving mountains of garbage is her crowd, while honest people cleaned up 50 tons of LA garbage.

But then photos of her mom in Antifa shirt was posted, Crickets. Dad in Antifa.


When the activists hide behind children so that the message cannot be examined critically, it's probably a lie being told. And in this case it is.

 

[Timpo]

@Handlebars

The simple fact of the matter is that the glaciers are melting. Some of them have been melting for over a century. Some of them only recently began receding. In nearly all of them that we observe the rate of melting seems to be accelerating. Errors in graphs or local climactic anomalies don't really have any relevance to either of those things.

If you think that the hypothesis is wrong, that's great. How do you explain what is going on? Why are the glaciers melting? Why are nearly all of the glaciers melting? Why does the rate of glacial melt worldwide seem to be increasing?

This.

Most of us are in USA and Canada, and glaciers and desserts are relatively far away, but "out of sight, out of mind" mindset isn't making problems go away.
The extreme industrialization sure caused earth's climate change.

Are some of you really fighting whether or not climate change is real????
It's not a rocket science, it's real.

Source: NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/graphic-dramatic-glacier-melt/

oh, and don't tell me industrialization has no impact on earth climate.
It is scientifically proven, and you don't even need to know science to understand that it can't be good.

(Link Removed - No Longer Exists)
(Link Removed - No Longer Exists)

Also the desertification... every 1 second, 1 foodball field equivalent of forest is becoming desert.
NO, not every 1 month, or 1 week, not even an hour or minute, but every 1 second.

The High Price of Desertification: 23 Hectares of Land a Minute - World

News and Press Release in English on World and 1 other country about Agriculture, Climate Change and Environment and Drought; published on 15 Jun 2017 by IPS

reliefweb.int

You can see NASA's satellite images: https://dabrownstein.com/2013/03/25/desertification/

 

[indianajo]

"Mike" is Michael Mann, the most famous climate scientist on earth, the "inventor" of the hockey stick graph, he got there by learning how to hide failures of the data in how he wanted it to look, through use of a neat "trick", and make it look great.

Phil Jones, he did a clumsy version of the trick simply removing data that went a way that he didn't want it to for their story to be told, and replaced it with some from a dataset he did like and falsely named it. And...got caught.
Former Director of CRU Climatic Research Unit in England, which produces one of the 2 most influential global temperature records.
He talked about destroying the whole historical temperature record of the globe in order to evade an incoming FOIA request.

2 of the 3 most famous climate scientists.

Well, infamous I would refine that statement. Mike was covered in a bbcnews article 9/22 about a defamation lawsuit he is involved in. They said Phil's hockey stick graph involved some "interpolated" data in the early years, like before thermometers were invented. We don't need those guys to see bad news in the data. The real data is bad enough. No need to make up data.
Went down to the library to see what Scientific American magazine thought. They don't stock that magazine. Science is too controversial in southern Indiana I suppose, except the kind published in Popular Science which they did have.

 

[Handlebars]

This.

Most of us are in USA and Canada, and glaciers and desserts are relatively far away, but "out of sight, out of mind" mindset isn't making problems go away.

That is true.

The extreme industrialization sure caused earth's climate change.

Everyone knows that climate changes. It's people who believe it should be a certain temperature but cannot say what that temperature is, who seem to be confused.

Are some of you really fighting whether or not climate change is real????
It's not a rocket science, it's real.

Source: NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/graphic-dramatic-glacier-melt/

Timpo, just think about what you've been told is evidence of human induced CO2 warming. What example do you believe proves warming ? Melted ice.
You know what else melts ice? Warmth melts ice. So increasing warmth can do it but also just static degrees of warmth can do it. An ice cube melts in a frying pan on high heat but it also melts on a counter top. so evidence of melting per se is not even evidence of warming. It's evidence of enough warmth to cause melting. "Enough warmth" isn't necessarily "increasing warmth". Global warm isn't the same as Global Warming.

You can see NASA's satellite images: https://dabrownstein.com/2013/03/25/desertification/

thanks. now here's something from NASA that you might want to try to explain. How come the temperature rise in the arctic up to the mid thirties and the highest peaks of the century were all in the mid thirties by far, and we know about the dust bowl days...how come that temperautre rise was higher bigger and steeper than in the modern portion of the graph?
that was before human CO2 increases could have done it according to IPCC.

So how would you rationalize those temperature changes?