APS and the Global Warming Scam


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 Here is a definite statement.  The climate sensitivity models  the IPCC  sponsors or sanctions  run too hot.  When a model does not predict the real world accurately  we say the model is wrong.  Not the IPCC.  They have two dozen models  (maybe more)  none of which are accurate and the take a weighted average  of their outputs.   I do not consider this science.  Maybe the climate mavens do. 

Qua ethics the IPCC may indeed be wrong. There may be two heads to cut off.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally I am not a fan of Youtube Thingies  but  when it comes to PBS  lectures on science subjects I am a fan.  Here is a Youtube Thingy that runs between 15 and 16 minutes and is a totally  first rate discussion of the physical drivers of our climate.  Pay heed and learn.  This is a good presentation.  Like they say on Game of Thrones:  Winter is Coming 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

He threw in Venus at the end. Obviously a hook for it came with no discussion.

--Brant

I think he might have been referring to the fearful predictions of the alarmists.  There is no scientific reason to think Earth is going to become like Venus any time in the next billion years.  Eventually the sun will heat up and will evaporate the oceans but that is a billion and a half years up the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote: I think he might have been referring to the fearful predictions of the alarmists. end quote

As an example of fearful predictions, the movie, “The Day After Tomorrow,” dramatically showed “man-made warming” miraculously brought on global cooling. But I don’t think the science behind that theory is tenable.   

Every time we “warm,” we thrive. Here are a few recent times that humans have thrived and declined:

The Roman Warming. (500 BC to 535 AD) That was good for humanity, Mother Earth. Was it good for you too? Then the Dark Ages. (535 to 900)  “Cold is bad for us.” Medieval Warming. (900 to 1300)  “Good!” The Little Ice Age. (1300 to 1850)  “Bad.” Modern Warming. (1850 to Present)  “Good for us!”

I am starting to lean towards the hypothesis that “human released” carbon dioxide can affect long term climate change to warm the earth. And as I have mentioned before, it is feasible scientifically and economically, to spread finely ground coal dust over ice sheets to hasten melting to keep glaciers at bay and to absorb more sunlight. (We could use a prop driven cargo plane rigged with dispensers which would be cheap, safe, and easy. How often would coal dust need to be dispensed? I don’t know.)

However, the time line in the video which I will re-watch for content, was thousands of years. So, what is currently occurring seems to be good for a long, long time without any other measures being done (like the coal dust.)

Nuclear weapons could be used for peaceful means like using them in the Great Rift of Africa to change the local climate by creating an inland sea.   

Humanity and Science must lose its climatic religiosity. We need to pass on our true scientific knowledge and theories to future generations, and I would be willing to spend tax dollars to see if we can hasten earth’s warming. Let’s experiment.

Peter  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Day After Tomorrow"  was pure Hollywood  nonsense.   Warming -can- cause freezing over an extended period.  If melting of the glaciers on Greenland reduced the salt concentration of the Atlantic Ocean, there thermohaline conveyor currents could shut down and heat would no long be transported from the tropics to  the Arctic.   Winters  would be colder in the north,  snow would stay on the ground longer.  This would increase the albedo of the Earth and cause the cooling of the North to speed up.  Over an extended period of time, the glaciers would start to reform  as unmelted snow  is compacted into ice.  The freezing of the Arctic Ocean into ice would eventually lead to an increase in the salt concentration which over an even long period of time would lead to the restablishment of the thermohaline conveyor which would start to warm up the North again.  This periodic process is why there is a sequence of glacial and interglacial periods especially in the North Polar regions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote: This periodic process is why there is a sequence of glacial and interglacial periods especially in the North Polar regions. end quote

So humans are not involved. Heretic! I am open to the suggestion that there are multiple reasons for climate, even the reason incorporating the level of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere.  I read "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science," by Australian geologist and climate expert, Ian Plimer. Briefly I will restate what he said. Cosmic rays striking the earth and descending to the lower atmosphere aid in water molecule formation which increases cloud formation. Cloud formation cools the earth. So the more cosmic rays striking the earth the cooler the planets, including the earth. We are shielded from cosmic rays by the sun. The cosmic ray count that hits the earth is lessened when the sun is more active so we then have fewer clouds and the earth warms.

Back to the idea about coal dust on the ice which I think was first proposed around 1969 in Analog Magazine by its editor John W. Campbell, if I remember correctly. What if someone, on go fund me or one of those sites collected money to outfit a plane to deliver the coal dust to both poles? Would treaties be broken if it were a private enterprise? Would the darkening of the ice have any immediate effect?  

Polar bears hunt and eat people so the hell with them. Leopards do too, and many of the heads of hominids fossils show leopard bite marks. Humanity would be better off if both species became extinct . . . just in case humanity is knocked off its feet by an asteroid or a nuclear war and we regress to frontier living.

Peter      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: This periodic process is why there is a sequence of glacial and interglacial periods especially in the North Polar regions. end quote

So humans are not involved. Heretic! I am open to the suggestion that there are multiple reasons for climate, even the reason incorporating the level of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere.  I read "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science," by Australian geologist and climate expert, Ian Plimer. Briefly I will restate what he said. Cosmic rays striking the earth and descending to the lower atmosphere aid in water molecule formation which increases cloud formation. Cloud formation cools the earth. So the more cosmic rays striking the earth the cooler the planets, including the earth. We are shielded from cosmic rays by the sun. The cosmic ray count that hits the earth is lessened when the sun is more active so we then have fewer clouds and the earth warms.

Back to the idea about coal dust on the ice which I think was first proposed around 1969 in Analog Magazine by its editor John W. Campbell, if I remember correctly. What if someone, on go fund me or one of those sites collected money to outfit a plane to deliver the coal dust to both poles? Would treaties be broken if it were a private enterprise? Would the darkening of the ice have any immediate effect?  

Polar bears hunt and eat people so the hell with them. Leopards do too, and many of the heads of hominids fossils show leopard bite marks. Humanity would be better off if both species became extinct . . . just in case humanity is knocked off its feet by an asteroid or a nuclear war and we regress to frontier living.

Peter      

Svensmark has been doing research on cosmic ray induced cloud formation hypothesis for over a decade.  There may well be something to it.  Read "The Cooling Stars" by Svensmark.  

Darkening the ice on land masses will contribute to the melting of glaciers and the raising of ocean level.  I am not in favor of planetary engineering fixes because we don't know enough to predict  all the  follow on effects.   That last thing we need is a -real- climate disaster brought on as a non-intended side effect of a planetary engineering scheme.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, an answer. Knock, knock, who’s there? Someone. Someone who? Someone who knows something. Thank you.

Ba’al wrote: Darkening the ice on land masses will contribute to the melting of glaciers and the raising of ocean level.  I am not in favor of planetary engineering fixes because we don't know enough to predict all the follow on effects. That last thing we need is a -real- climate disaster brought on as a non-intended side effect of a planetary engineering scheme. end quote

I live 14 feet above the highest recorded high tide mark so your conjectures make very humanitarian sense to me.

Agent Bob, your assignment if you choose to take it, is to determine the exact problems that would occur after ten years of darkening the ice with coal dust. We have a lot of coal dust. Enough to last for centuries. What does your research show the effects to be if “we don't know enough to predict all the follow on effects.”?

What if we dust the ice once every month or every five years, or ten, or twenty? What actions utilized to humanity‘s benefit would be a good “test”? if the experimental dusting lasted ten years what could we expect? If you or anyone else can come up with a good scientific reply you may be hired to head the department of . . .

Peter      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Peter said:

Finally, an answer. Knock, knock, who’s there? Someone. Someone who? Someone who knows something. Thank you.

Ba’al wrote: Darkening the ice on land masses will contribute to the melting of glaciers and the raising of ocean level.  I am not in favor of planetary engineering fixes because we don't know enough to predict all the follow on effects. That last thing we need is a -real- climate disaster brought on as a non-intended side effect of a planetary engineering scheme. end quote

I live 14 feet above the highest recorded high tide mark so your conjectures make very humanitarian sense to me.

Agent Bob, your assignment if you choose to take it, is to determine the exact problems that would occur after ten years of darkening the ice with coal dust. We have a lot of coal dust. Enough to last for centuries. What does your research show the effects to be if “we don't know enough to predict all the follow on effects.”?

What if we dust the ice once every month or every five years, or ten, or twenty? What actions utilized to humanity‘s benefit would be a good “test”? if the experimental dusting lasted ten years what could we expect? If you or anyone else can come up with a good scientific reply you may be hired to head the department of . . .

Peter      

These particular technical problems are beyond my pay grade.  I can see general thinks, like darkening the glacier  would promote their melting and thereby increase sea level.  How fast?  I do not know.  There are a lot of other factors like cloud cover, solar irradiance etc.  This problem is for Real Scientists, not just hobbyists and bleacher bums like me. The Real Players are down on the field doing their thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 17, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Question: Have you heard of what's called "the hiatus"?  I searched your [Bob's] posts for the term and found not one reference.

No answer (the typical).

"The hiatus" refers to a stretch of 18-plus years following 1998 in which the previous late-20th-century reported warming ceased and there might have been average cooling.  Relating "the hiatus" to your "definite statement" - here - that "The climate sensitivity models  the IPCC  sponsors or sanctions  run too hot," it isn't just that the models overestimated warming.  It's that the estimations were made in terms of a particular theoretical framework in which the hiatus blows an irreparable hole.  Hence a state of panic on the part of alarmist theoreticians who know that a hiatus should not have happened according to their account of temperature dynamics.

Back in February, on this thread, Michael posted a Rush Limbaugh transcript in which Limbaugh raised a suggestion I didn't manage to get around to addressing about the alarmists' panic over the pause.

Quote

Rush Limbaugh said - fuller text here:

"[...] to show you how inept they are, we supposedly have had a pause — this is how stupid they are, folks. Listen to me, look at me. We supposedly had a pause for 15 [18+] years. During those 15 [18+] years, why didn’t they say, 'See? Our research is working. See? Our suggestions are working. Our reduction of CO2, our elimination of SUVs, our increased usage of the electric car, whatever, is working, we need to do more of this.'

Why did they greet the pause as a problem, instead of looking at it, 'Wow, we can say we’re succeeding, we can say that we’re on the right track, we need to double down on the kind of restrictions we’ve already –' They’re so stupid politically they didn’t even realize an opportunity to claim success and credit. They saw a pause as panic city. I’m telling you, folks, this is the biggest bunch of fraud, one of the biggest hoaxes that has been perpetrated on a free people in I don’t know when.

The alarmists couldn't have done as Limbaugh suggests.  The reduction in human-produced CO2 emissions hadn't been nearly enough to produce more than a slight slowdown of warming according to the alarmist theories of atmospheric temperature dynamics. They understood, as apparently Limbaugh doesn't, that the pause ("the hiatus") was devastating for their theories, so they had to scrabble either for theory-patches (band-aid improvisations of some factor or factors "masking" or "delaying" the prognosticated warming) or for a way of eliminating the hiatus as measurement artifact.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 21, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Brant Gaede said:

You would want to darken the ice if the glaciers were advancing to negate the earth cooling effect of sun rays reflected back into space, not when they are receding.

--Brant

speaking as a layman

Correct.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

No answer (the typical).

"The hiatus" refers to a stretch of 18-plus years following 1998 in which the previous late-20th-century reported warming ceased and there might have been average cooling.  Relating "the hiatus" to your "definite statement" - here - that "The climate sensitivity models  the IPCC  sponsors or sanctions  run too hot," it isn't just that the models overestimated warming.  It's that the estimations were made in terms of a particular theoretical framework in which the hiatus blows an irreparable hole.  Hence a state of panic on the part of alarmist theoreticians who know that a hiatus should not have happened according to their account of temperature dynamics.

Back in February, on this thread, Michael posted a Rush Limbaugh transcript in which Limbaugh raised a suggestion I didn't manage to get around to addressing about the alarmists' panic over the pause.

The alarmists couldn't have done as Limbaugh suggests.  The reduction in human-produced CO2 emissions hadn't been nearly enough to produce more than a slight slowdown of warming according to the alarmist theories of atmospheric temperature dynamics. They understood, as apparently Limbaugh doesn't, that the pause ("the hiatus") was devastating for their theories, so they had to scrabble either for theory-patches (band-aid improvisations of some factor or factors "masking" or "delaying" the prognosticated warming) or for a way of eliminating the hiatus as measurement artifact.

Ellen

Back in the Old Days,  when a theory or model  failed to predict reality,  they discarded the theory or model and built a new one.  That is how relativity theory and quantum theory  was booted up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The alarmists couldn't have done as Limbaugh suggests.  The reduction in human-produced CO2 emissions hadn't been nearly enough to produce more than a slight slowdown of warming according to the alarmist theories of atmospheric temperature dynamics. They understood, as apparently Limbaugh doesn't, that the pause ("the hiatus") was devastating for their theories...

Ellen,

I would not jump to the conclusion that Rush doesn't understand that the hiatus makes hash out of the alarmists' theory. Explaining science was not the point of his message.

In other words, he is not talking about scientific proof to a scientist. His realm is persuasion. He is talking about how the alarmists could have used the word "proof" in a message to fool laypeople. He said the alarmists missed a huge propaganda opportunity and he presented the rationalization they could have used to make it sound plausible to laypeople. 

Persuasion only deals with truth or falsehood as a support tactic, not as essence. If a persuasion message deals with truth, but does not persuade people, it is lousy persuasion for immediate political goals. And immediate political goals is precisely where the alarmists use it. The climate scientists among the alarmists may not understand this too well, but I assure you the behavioral scientists among them do.

The alarmists want--as main priority--to pass laws to give them gobs of money and power over the entire earth if they can pull it off. Their priority is not to fix manmade climate change (if that even exists). That is window dressing to hide the beast within.

Don't put anything past them. If they had thought of this angle and a Podesta had gotten ahold of it, they would have released someone like Bill Nye the Science Guy (and similar) on the mainstream to make the claim Rush said they missed. It would have had enormous propaganda value, even if the climate scientists said that was not the case. They would have parsed the wording to death in public message after public message--all with the covert behavioral science triggers embedded in the propaganda.

(Covert persuasion does not work like an on-off switch where you do ONE thing and you're done. It works more like piling a lot of small things on a shelf until the shelf collapses under the weight.)

Scientists are not the only ones who vote. Lots and lots and lots of laypeople ripe for being fooled vote, too. And new laws need some semblance of the governed to get enacted and stay that way. 

Here is a parallel example of what I am talking about: the entire narrative that President Trump was in collusion with the Russians to rig the election against Hillary Clinton. There is not a shred of truth in it, but that didn't stop it from being propaganda that is excellent enough to keep the mainstream pundits and establishment politicians talking about it for months as if it were true.

That is the realm where Rush fights. So his main purpose in this case--I believe--is to show that the alarmists are stupid in addition to being evil. On one deep level, it is to discredit the narrative that eggheads are inherently superior to the rest of the human race so we should all let them lord over us. Whether the climate scientific idea in the topic is true or not is beside the point in that realm. It just needs to look good to laypeople to be useful. (Think polar bears for Al Gore. :)

I am sure Rush understands all of this. On science matters, though, believe it or not, he's got a technical side he enjoys a lot. Especially computer science. He keeps it hidden except for random comments because his persona is blue collar, not Ivy League intellectual.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no clear idea to what extent  human CO2 loading of the atmosphere has contributed to the current warm spell.  The eco-crazies are telling us The Day of Judgement is at hand and we are on the verge of a runaway greenhouse effect (like the planet Venus).  The more sophisticated of the AGW crew do not say outright such things.  The hint at it.   Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson have done this to some extent.  They refer to the anthropocene era,  the era of manmade warming.  They only hint at  runaway greenhouse effect but they don't say it outright.  When the late Carl Sagan was alive and broadcasting his version of Cosmos (N. DeGrasse Tyson has his own reboot of Cosmos)  Carl would talk about the pale blue dot (that is to say Earth)  and say very gloomy things about Venus.  He hinted at a fatal outcome  billyuns and billyuns of times.  We were told how AGW would bring on more and worse hurricanes  and they trumpeted Hurricane Katrina as the result of AGW.  In fact hurricane activity since Katrina has been relatively mild compared to the historical record.  

Here is the interesting thing.  If humans switched over to non CO2 technology to produce electrical power and we did away with ICE transportation modes it would take 50 to 100 years to bring the CO2 level down to the 1950 level.  Why?  Because in the 70 years since a lot of deforesting has happened particularly in Brazil and China. The Boys from Brazil are busy hacking away at the Amazon Rain Forest and China has follow policies that have turned thousands of square miles of  agricultural and forest land into desert.  So the CO2 went up and the trees came down.  Even so the alarmists and eco-crazies tell us that as soon as we generate electricity with solar and wind power and as soon as ICE cars and trucks are replaced by electric vehicles the world will be a lovely place. Meanwhile the eco-crazies  oppose nuclear fission generation of electricity which produces not a molecule of CO2  and which can generate electricity at night and when the wind does not blow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may have been in Switzerland that they just laid white blankets over a retreating glacier to keep it solid. I am not sure why, but I suppose it could have something to do with tourism.  
Peter     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 25, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[Rush] is talking about how the alarmists could have used the word "proof" in a message to fool laypeople. He said the alarmists missed a huge propaganda opportunity and he presented the rationalization they could have used to make it sound plausible to laypeople. 

[....]

The alarmists want--as main priority--to pass laws to give them gobs of money and power over the entire earth if they can pull it off. Their priority is not to fix manmade climate change (if that even exists). That is window dressing to hide the beast within.

Don't put anything past them. If they had thought of this angle and a Podesta had gotten ahold of it, they would have released someone like Bill Nye the Science Guy (and similar) on the mainstream to make the claim Rush said they missed. It would have had enormous propaganda value, even if the climate scientists said that was not the case. They would have parsed the wording to death in public message after public message--all with the covert behavioral science triggers embedded in the propaganda.

[....]

The suggestion would have been very bad propagandawise, in effect an admission that the rationale for alarm was over.  If all we need do is keep doing what we are doing (as per Rush's suggestion for what the alarmists could have said), then there'd be no need for further "laws to give [the alarmists] gobs of money and power over the entire earth if they can pull it off."  Emergency over,  Not good if what you want is to keep a belief in emergency going.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2017 at 10:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

That is the realm where Rush fights. So his main purpose in this case--I believe--is to show that the alarmists are stupid in addition to being evil. On one deep level, it is to discredit the narrative that eggheads are inherently superior to the rest of the human race so we should all let them lord over us. Whether the climate scientific idea in the topic is true or not is beside the point in that realm. It just needs to look good to laypeople to be useful. (Think polar bears for Al Gore. :)

The main thing is the alarmists are -wrong-.  Their models have been empirically falsified.  If there were Real Science going on the models would be replaced by models which predict better.  But this requires coming to grips with the full thermodynamic complexity of the earth  weather-climate system.  This is very difficult. The underlying systems  are  non-linear and  very sensitive to boundary and initial conditions.  Look up chaotic dynamics.

I will say this:  calling the current warming trend  a scam,  a fraud is not productive.  The world has been warming up since the coldest years of the Little Ice Age.  That is how Ice Ages and Cold Snaps end.  Things warm up. The regression of major glaciers is obvious.  Just look at shots of the glaciers taken at high altitude over the years.  Sure enough, the glaciers are retreating  as they have since the end of the Little Ice Age. Does this mean the Earth is going to become Venus?   Most likely not.   Glaciers have retreated in the past.  They also have advanced in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The suggestion would have been very bad propagandawise...

Ellen,

Rationally you are right, but propaganda does not work rationally except at the surface (and very superficially at that). Neither does it work on one level only. It's a drip, drip, drip process. One gotcha or even one contradiction does not undo it. So effectively (but respectfully :) ), I disagree with you here. 

Our brains are very good at compartmentalizing a lot of contradictory claims and emotions. If they weren't, communism would never have stood a chance, especially with all those mass murders. (Think Orwell and Newspeak. :) )

The fear neural networks are not persuaded by reason. And the trust networks do not necessarily calm the fear networks. It's perfectly possible for one message like alarmism to trigger the fear neurochemical cocktail and another contradictory message (See? It's working! We're right!) to trigger the oxytocin of trust and both work on the same person at the same time.

How does this sound? "We've proven we can make a difference, but that's only a smidgen. Give us more money and power to get this important job done right before the greedy oil companies and consumer capitalism destroy the planet for once and for all. Think of your children." That sounds like perfect propaganda to me to the right audience.

Also, fear and hope running side-by-side is the emotional essence of most major hollywood blockbusters. Propaganda ditto, except there is usually an addition of a strong dose of hatred and scapegoating in propaganda.

In other words, propaganda doesn't have to make much sense to be good propaganda. All it has to do is appeal to the lower brain enough to elicit strong "we are all in this together" and "a disaster is coming unless we stop it" and "all hail our fearless leaders" and "we would be fine if not for THEM" emotions (and similar). Those affected will rationalize the rest when they feel the need to.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The main thing is the alarmists are -wrong-.  Their models have been empirically falsified.  If there were Real Science going on the models would be replaced by models which predict better.  But this requires coming to grips with the full thermodynamic complexity of the earth  weather-climate system.  This is very difficult.

Bob,

My point is that none of this makes a damn bit of difference to average voters.

Average voters will believe who they trust or who the group(s) they identify with trusts, not who is right. And you don't fight that fight with logic and falsifiability. You fight it with covert manipulation--at least enough covert manipulation to neutralize the covert manipulation the other side uses. 

That is the fight science-oriented people (except behavior scientists) don't understand and, by extension, don't believe is necessary.

But only after that fight has been won will people look at the facts with reason and dispassionate logic.

What's more, there is a rapidly growing body of scientific evidence that supports this, with lots of testing at both neuroscience and modern psychology levels.

It's an extremely rare person who is persuaded by facts alone. And this rare person is most definitely not the average voter. Don't forget, average voters, not rare people, are the ones who bestow gobs of money and power on the manipulators.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

My point is that none of this makes a damn bit of difference to average voters.

Average voters will believe who they trust or who the group(s) they identify with trusts, not who is right. And you don't fight that fight with logic and falsifiability. You fight it with covert manipulation--at least enough covert manipulation to neutralize the covert manipulation the other side uses. 

That is the fight science-oriented people (except behavior scientists) don't understand and, by extension, don't believe is necessary.

But only after that fight has been won will people look at the facts with reason and dispassionate logic.

What's more, there is a rapidly growing body of scientific evidence that supports this, with lots of testing at both neuroscience and modern psychology levels.

It's an extremely rare person who is persuaded by facts alone. And this rare person is most definitely not the average voter. Don't forget, average voters, not rare people, are the ones who bestow gobs of money and power on the manipulators.

Michael

That is not where I locate myself.  I work  with empirically verified  hypothesis and rigorous mathematical analysis.  That is my location.  I leave you to your location..   If I cannot convince someone with good empirical evidence and logic I am no longer interested in convincing that person on anything.  I will leave it to others to trick such a dunce. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On The Net I saw an article that predicted most cold climate species would prosper if the ice retreated significantly but not entirely. There is a spot on the Antarctic Continent that is clear of ice and 95 percent of the indigenous species live there.

On the political/scientific front President Trump is THE MAN OF SCIENCE. He will act on the best science available and listen to his scientific advisors. The voters made a monumentally great choice and America is the better for it, for generations to come. The Prez is enjoying a good climate day at his personal golf course. Wasn’t that slam down of a CNN reporter at a wrestling match funny?  

Those True Believing clowns like Al Gore lie in their teeth and like every cult leader, they would gladly destroy their enemies and their followers, to further “the cause.”

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big, big deal is coming.

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann

From the article:

Quote

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

This is where arrogance, deceit and contempt of "little people" lands you. For some reason, Mann thinks after trying to game the courts, that he will have privilege enough to make things stop and go away.

Why does he believe that? Well, it's obvious. To him, he's more awesome than the mere rabble that runs the courts. It's settled science.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now