Ice Melt

Chris616 · Aug 30, 2019

Snobdds said:
Media Ignores Climate Alarmist痴 Court Loss It Doesn稚 Fit The Warmist Agenda Issues & Insights

Another claim from the Climate change community that was wrong...

The sensationalist title of the article suggests that some factual information about climate change was proven wrong and the mainstream media ignored it, but that wasn't what the case was about. It was an eight year old libel case which the judge terminated (for delay) based on a request from the 80 year old defendant. As someone commented at the bottom of the webpage, "It's hardly news when a libel case fails."

It won't be news to Snobdds, but the defendant in the case was Dr. Tim Ball, founding member and former chairman of Principia Scientific International. Look back at post #28 for what "deezler" had to say about that organization.

Chris

rekees4300 · Aug 31, 2019

Egon said:
Good comments.

Bear in mind the climate situation reacts to physical inputs with hard data, it don't care if anyone's been lying to you or changing soft data. It just reacts to whatever the current physical situation is! Climate don't care what you think.

But there is solid truth that the Elvers are returning much earlier than they used to.

:thumbsup: You hit the nail on the head. Ice doesn't care about silly human games. It is what it is (>32F degrees = melt).

2LaneCruzer · Aug 31, 2019

JasperFrank said:
SNG S7:E9, "Force of Nature," first aired in 1993.. Warp Factor limited to 5. No wonder they had to cancel the show.

"The Outer Limits" Inconstant Moon (TV Episode 1996)

Egon · Aug 31, 2019

rekees4300 said:
:thumbsup: You hit the nail on the head. Ice doesn't care about silly human games. It is what it is (>32F degrees = melt).

Plus/minus for atmospheric pressure. We would not want to be accused of Data Fudge.

Chris616 · Aug 31, 2019

Snobdds said:
Media Ignores Climate Alarmistç—´ Court Loss It Doesnç¨š Fit The Warmist Agenda Issues & Insights

Another claim from the Climate change community that was wrong...

Once they can produce repeatable data that proves correct , I will give them an honest listen.

Chris Lowe said:
The sensationalist title of the article suggests that some factual information about climate change was proven wrong and the mainstream media ignored it, but that wasn't what the case was about. It was an eight year old libel case which the judge terminated (for delay) based on a request from the 80 year old defendant. As someone commented at the bottom of the webpage, "It's hardly news when a libel case fails."

It won't be news to Snobdds, but the defendant in the case was Dr. Tim Ball, founding member and former chairman of Principia Scientific International. Look back at post #28 for what "deezler" had to say about that organization.

Chris

Dr. Ball was also sued for defamation by another climate scientist over an article that he wrote. The BC Supreme Court ruled in Dr. Ball's favor last year. I've posted a couple of links to "climate change denier" websites down below. Here's a quote from one of them that sums up the message that they would like their readers to get as a result of the judgement:

"Climate skeptics are hailing the verdict as a key victory over extremists promoting human-caused global warming. Not a peep from the mainstream media!"

But here's part of why the court ruled that the plaintiff, Dr. Weaver, was not defamed (excerpted from the links below). The red highlighting is by me.

"First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball's theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball's views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory."

So the climate change denier websites claim the dismissal of the defamation lawsuit as a victory upholding their view of climate change science. But the reality is that the court essentially says that the article written by Dr. Ball can't be defamatory because people wouldn't take it seriously.

It's so important to critically evaluate the credibility of where we get our information.

Chris

Supporters of Dr. Ball:
Breaking: Climatologist Dr Tim Ball Wins Epic Libel Court Battle | PSI Intl
Tim Ball's Victory in the First Climate Lawsuit Judgment The Backstory | Watts Up With That?

The facts from the BC Supreme Court (summary and full judgement):
Weaver v Ball 218 BCSC 25 - Ad IDEM / CMLA
http://www.adidem.org/images/4/4c/Weaver_v._Ball_2018_BCSC_205.pdf

rekees4300 · Aug 31, 2019

Egon said:
Plus/minus for atmospheric pressure. We would not want to be accused of Data Fudge.

Heaven forbid if the data is "fudged", that would mean the pictures of Greenland melting are fake. :laughing: Wait for it ... I should have said data are (plural). Therefore this post is fudged. :duh:

/pine · Aug 31, 2019

CalG said:
That's because the AGW "believers" have taken up all the moral high ground and have found a way for themselves to be better than "those others". Be careful not to fall off your lofty position.

It's not a matter of belief, It's all about What are YOU doing about what you hold as valuable?

If it's telling others how to live, or how to think, You have no future. Regardless of the water level of temperature.

Live simply, that others may simply live.

yuck, yuck, yuck...moral high ground?...What an effing joke...quit kidding yourself...oh I forgot...that's what has gotten your ilk so confused to start with...!

Jstpssng · Aug 31, 2019

I'm not weighing in on where I stand on the GW question, but this is a timely article.
Builders are using hemp instead of concrete to reduce pollution
Rather than just talking, some people really are making changes they feel need to be done.

Diggin It · Aug 31, 2019

I'm hoping I won't need any ice melt this winter.

rekees4300 · Sep 4, 2019

Here's an updated article about Greenland's ice melt. Almost 4 trillion tons of ice has been lost since 2002!

Climate change: Greenland's ice faces melting 'death sentence' - BBC News

buckeyefarmer · Sep 4, 2019

rekees4300 said:
Here's an updated article about Greenland's ice melt. Almost 4 trillion tons of ice has been lost since 2002!

Climate change: Greenland's ice faces melting 'death sentence' - BBC News

Not our fault....

Chris616 · Sep 5, 2019

Changing perceptions takes time when there is money lobbying against the change:

"Lung cancer was once a very rare disease, so rare that doctors took special notice when confronted with a case, thinking it a once-in-a-lifetime oddity. Mechanisation and mass marketing towards the end of the 19th century popularised the cigarette habit, however, causing a global lung cancer epidemic. Cigarettes were recognised as the cause of the epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s, with the confluence of studies from epidemiology, animal experiments, cellular pathology and chemical analytics. Cigarette manufacturers disputed this evidence, as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to salvage cigarette sales. Propagandising the public proved successful, judging from secret tobacco industry measurements of the impact of denialist propaganda. As late as 1960 only one-third of all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established."

From:
The history of the discovery of the cigarette-lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. - PubMed - NCBI

Chris

2LaneCruzer · Sep 5, 2019

Chris Lowe said:
Changing perceptions takes time when there is money lobbying against the change:

"Lung cancer was once a very rare disease, so rare that doctors took special notice when confronted with a case, thinking it a once-in-a-lifetime oddity. Mechanisation and mass marketing towards the end of the 19th century popularised the cigarette habit, however, causing a global lung cancer epidemic. Cigarettes were recognised as the cause of the epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s, with the confluence of studies from epidemiology, animal experiments, cellular pathology and chemical analytics. Cigarette manufacturers disputed this evidence, as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to salvage cigarette sales. Propagandising the public proved successful, judging from secret tobacco industry measurements of the impact of denialist propaganda. As late as 1960 only one-third of all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established."

From:
The history of the discovery of the cigarette-lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. - PubMed - NCBI

Chris

I had a friend who had some old dental journals from the 1920's. I read one article by a dentist who pointed out the correlation between tobacco and oral cancer, and frankly stated that cancer was a cause. This article was written in 1929.

lilranch2001 · Sep 5, 2019

What I find very interesting is that all the GW, GC, fans are still burning fossil fuels, driving cars, eating steak, running AC in their houses all summer.

It just seems to me if they were the true believers they seem to claim to be, they would be digging caves in their back yards and living in them.....

Heck most of the high and mighty fly in private jets to all their highly important climate meetings......

Something just smells fishy to me.... and its not the fish kill that some corporate polluter has caused!

rekees4300 · Sep 6, 2019

lilranch2001 said:
What I find very interesting is that all the GW, GC, fans are still burning fossil fuels, driving cars, eating steak, running AC in their houses all summer.

It just seems to me if they were the true believers they seem to claim to be, they would be digging caves in their back yards and living in them.....

Heck most of the high and mighty fly in private jets to all their highly important climate meetings......

Something just smells fishy to me.... and its not the fish kill that some corporate polluter has caused!

Climate Change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Until India & China get on-board, anything all USA "fans" do won't make a significant difference. USA only contributes 15% of CO2.

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

lilranch2001 · Sep 6, 2019

so basically you are saying as a fan.....
You can do nothing about the issue other than give lip service to it!

rekees4300 · Sep 6, 2019

lilranch2001 said:
so basically you are saying as a fan.....
You can do nothing about the issue other than give lip service to it!

Yes, the reality is Americans can do nothing SIGNIFICANT so why should we sacrifice while the rest of the world continues to emit 85% of the CO2? :confused3:

lilranch2001 · Sep 6, 2019

So why even waste expelling more carbon by talking about it?
I love looking inside a libs mind!

CalG · Sep 6, 2019

the posts after #135 sum up the situation.

One group wants to tell another group how to live their lives, but are not willing to make any changes themselves.

Hippocratic! And very hard to stomach. 'Bunch of frick'in flakes!

LouNY · Sep 6, 2019

CalG said:
the posts after #135 sum up the situation.

One group wants to tell another group how to live their lives, but are not willing to make any changes themselves.

Hippocratic! And very hard to stomach. 'Bunch of frick'in flakes!

Yes it sure does.