NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[AccessBlaster]

https://www.jta.org/2009/08/07/culture/the-latest-on-the-mary-robinson-controversy

Her troubling views on Jews disqualifiers her as a spokesmen for the climate change, more dirt must be dug up on this rapscallion.

More tit-for-tat is in order.

 

[isladogs]

Whether or not her planned speech about climate change seems helpful to the current debate, Mary Robinson is certainly no rapscallion. It would I think be difficult to dig up dirt on her.

She was President of Ireland in the 1990s before becoming UN Commissioner for Human Rights. In both roles she was highly regarded by people from widely differing political backgrounds. As part of her Human Rights role she spoke up for the rights of many groups including Palestinians. This led to criticism from some Jewish organisations though she was supported by other Jewish groups.

She does not have 'troubling views about Jews' and has always been a champion for tolerance and inclusion. Indeed she remains a well respected individual who is now a member of the group of 'Elders'

This is the mission statement for this group which was founded by Nelson Mandela:

Our vision is of a world where people live in peace, conscious of their common humanity and their shared responsibilities for each other, for the planet and for future generations.

We envisage a world in which there is universal respect for human rights; in which poverty has been eliminated; in which people are free from fear and oppression and are able to fulfil their true potential.

Difficult to argue against any of that

 

[Frothingslosh]

Colin, Colin.

In the US, saying the slightest negative thing about Israel or any of its actions means you're an avowed anti-Semite.

Hell, in many states, it's actually illegal to boycott any Israeli-owned business for any reason whatsoever, and there was recently talk about making it a federal law.

 

[isladogs]

Yup I'm aware of that! Just thought I'd point out that she's far from being a dangerous radical or that her supporters are from one side of the political divide

 

[AccessBlaster]

Yup I'm aware of that! Just thought I'd point out that she's far from being a dangerous radical or that her supporters are from one side of the political divide

There might is an obscurer website out there that has suspicious dirt on this person of interest, we just need to keep digging. It is the PC thing to do right? Maybe she's connected to the Cato Institute, we cant be to careful.

 

[Mark_]

AB,

I hear Robert Mueller may be available to assist...

 

[AccessBlaster]

AB,

I hear Robert Mueller may be available to assist...

LOL, right?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

This there's this old YouTube video from 2009,

Al Gore and David Suzuki lie about co2. It is 600% less effect then claimed.
https://youtu.be/R9Q8wPkoFAU

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

I've looked up professor Richard Lindzen as well, a lot of his colleagues disagree with him! Although they don't strongly disagree with him for some reason. The wording of their objections is very woolly. I don't know if this is because they're not sure, or because they're just being polite.

This letter to Trump is so obviously toned down from what it's original draught must have been like! Probably due to input from so many people not wanting to get themselves in the mire!
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...l-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

What I did think was interesting was the Rebuttal to this comment:-

Richard Lindzen
""We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming""
25 July 2012 (Source)

Rebuttal
This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.

So professor Lindzen is saying that the warming effect is 1/6 of their predictions because they haven't taken into account that a large proportion of the energy has been re radiated into space and has been detected by Professor Lindzen's satellite.

So the rebuttal is that there is a cooling effect is from aerosols and the Planets thermal inertia. Now to my mind that rebuttal, "aerosols and thermal inertia, sounds more like a woolly explanation for a failure of their figures to predict that the global warming they predicted didn't actually take place!

It's like they are implying that they satellite readings are wrong or non-existent or something because they come back with a rebuttal saying that the global warming hasn't taken place because of aerosols and thermal inertia... Why not come back and say professor, your figures are no good because your satellite is not working properly, OR you are fudging the figures, OR you've made a mistake in your calculations. No they say there's another explanation for the missing predicted warming. Something just doesn't add up! The whole thing has never added up to my mind anyway!

So what does that say about their initial model? The predicted increase didn't take place, Oh yes, so the reason for it is must be because of the aerosols and the thermal inertia. So in effect their own model, their own lack of detail in their own model discredits them!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

We envisage a world in which there is universal respect for human rights; in which poverty has been eliminated; in which people are free from fear and oppression and are able to fulfil their true potential.

This Mandela quote is a great ideal. However, at the risk of crossing up this thread with another oldie but goodie on atheism, the ONLY way I see to do that is to finally get people to stop depending on religious beliefs. Forget about the "sky daddy" completely and live a secular life.

It is often religion that causes fear and oppression (witness the "hellfire and brimstone and eternal torment" admonitions). It is ALSO religion that tends to try to offset a thorough education. To the point, for example, that many extreme Islamic groups try to keep females uneducated and unfit for anything except motherhood and laundry and sex. Many extreme Christian groups will set up religion-based schools of their own and if they can't do that, will home-school their kids rather than expose them to the heretical ideas they would get in public schools. And as far as universal respect for all human beings, don't look to religion for that one. They will persecute ANYONE who is not of their faith and idealistic image.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Wow, I thought I was random.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Actually, it leads back to topic since we have found that for some people, AGW is almost like a cult / religion that does not treat "heretics" kindly.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Steven F. Hayward has Some interesting observations on climate change here:-

It appears that some of the climate model documentation describing the climate change models actually says that the models are just that! "INACCURATE" Models!
https://youtu.be/RZlICdawHRA?t=733


Steven F. Hayward describes his research the origin of the statement that 97% of scientists believe in climate change, and comes up with completely different and accurate figures of about 30%
https://youtu.be/RZlICdawHRA?t=970

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Here's another different viewpoint regarding AGW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSV21pPeF3g

This person points out that historically, civilization thrives when things get warm. All the talk about climate disaster ignores that (a) the climate models drastically overpredict the effect and (b) warmth is good because of its beneficial effects on plant life, agriculture, and (c) the warmth causes an overall reduction of forest fires. You've got to watch the article to understand point (c).

 

[AccessBlaster]

According to the spokes-holes we only have 11 years 9 months to solve this. But the New Green Deal will take many decades to implement. I need my participation trophy now, just in case we don't make it.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

we only have 11 years 9 months to solve this. But the New Green Deal will take many decades to implement.

Well, if you look at the UK debacle with brexit, what 2 years so far? And they haven't got anywhere? And this is just a cut and dried basic vote specifying that we leave the EU. In this seemingly simple political move there are many factions with many agendas and the whole thing has been scuppered! So what do you think is going to happen with attempts to reduce the carbon emissions of 200 odd countries?

To my way of thinking the most beneficial strategy would be for all of the first world governments to invest in, to reward, to offer incentives for the take up of solar power and solar storage. Solar is no longer a pipe dream, many successful solar power installations are already up and running. The next stage is to leverage the already developed technology, improve it, and make it widely available. Solar will be taken up by most countries, because it's already cheaper than most other sources of power.

 

[AccessBlaster]

So what do you think is going to happen with attempts to reduce the carbon emissions of 200 odd countries?

Well any country going through their "industrial revolution" are less likely to sign on. And then there's China.

... many successful solar power installations are already up and running.

True, but it takes energy to make solar batteries. In fact the bi-product of making batteries is in itself harmful to the planet.

Not to mention every square foot of the UK would have to have a solar cell or windmill.

The dependence on fossil fuels will be with us well into foreseeable future. And not just because its profitable, its also practical. If fossil fuel wasn't a thing, we would have invented it. It literally powers everything from airplanes, ships and trucks. Basically everything you touch all day everyday relied on fossil fuel.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Those who cannot understand my position need to see this news article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av_DAeTP6r4

It is things like THIS that make me a skeptic. If you look at this kind of report, which is becoming more and more commonplace each month, you realize there is grounds for doubt. I leave to you to view the video. I will not parrot the findings. The video says it all. It speaks for itself.

 

[Galaxiom]

Those who cannot understand my position need to see this news article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av_DAeTP6r4

It is things like THIS that make me a skeptic. If you look at this kind of report, which is becoming more and more commonplace each month, you realize there is grounds for doubt. I leave to you to view the video. I will not parrot the findings. The video says it all. It speaks for itself.

Everything you post simply reconfirms your susceptibility to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

You are a skeptic because you are a skeptic. Your desire to fulfil your confirmation bias causes you search out rubbish misinformation and post it without any attempt at evaluating its numerous false claims.

However I no longer bother trying to sway your religious views as it is pointless. Instead I simply wish a pox on your existence on behalf of my grandchildren.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Of course, there is a fly in this ointment. The Dunning-Kruger effect is symmetrical. There is NO blade that won't cut both ways, G.

Further, of COURSE you will dismiss my posts since if the effect's symmetry is considered, YOU won't accept information that conflicts with YOUR opinions.

As to wishing ill to anyone, I do not. Believe it or not, I am concerned about your grandchildren and mine - but not in the direction YOU wanted.

What I fear is that if we are blinded by AGW propaganda we will not take proper steps to assure that we have enough energy to survive the next REAL climate disaster - the coming sunspot minimum that will lead to another mini ice age with its concomitant famines and frigidly harsh weather.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

>>>take proper steps to assure that we have enough energy to survive the next REAL climate disaster - the coming sunspot minimum that will lead to another mini ice age with its concomitant famines and frigidly harsh weather.<<<

The steps might be to increase CO2 !!!