04 Jan 2020, 3:10 am
Quote:
How exactly am I trolling...
Oh dear, go away for a few days R&R and the place is overrun with climate denialists
Dear oh dear dumb and dumber
Oh dear, go away for a few days R&R and the place is overrun with climate denialists
Dear oh dear
dumb and dumberYeah it's a real mystery.
05 Jan 2020, 10:18 pm
06 Jan 2020, 1:20 am
06 Jan 2020, 3:03 am
06 Jan 2020, 3:22 am
06 Jan 2020, 4:04 am
06 Jan 2020, 1:56 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Look out for a "correction" to this sea-level data soon
TBH, I'm rather surprised it hasn't happened already.
Rewriting history via erasing inconvenient facts and replacing them with lies has always been a popular tactic amongst tyrants. (Here's looking at you NASA)
I suspect the only reason that it hasn't happened yet is that they haven't been able to come up with a semi-plausible sounding excuse for doing so.
06 Jan 2020, 1:58 pm
EzraS wrote:
Calling autistic people names like that should not be tollerated.
06 Jan 2020, 6:01 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Calling autistic people names like that should not be tollerated.
Indeed..awfully embarrassing when conservative climate skeptic ministers can't defend themselves against weather girls
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/t ... 06619843b4
06 Jan 2020, 9:27 pm
06 Jan 2020, 9:35 pm
Why would they fear open discussion and attempt to censor the concerns of skeptics if the issue of CAGW was truly a matter of science rather than politics as its promoters claim?
Censorship is a tool of political tyranny. It has no legitimate place in science.
Quote:
Solar industry lobby wants to punish climate emergency critics for sabotaging emergency measures
By Kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
German public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk on December 25, 2019:
Climate scientist Johan Rockström thinks the declaration of a climate emergency is justified.
Rockström (Potsdam Institute Director):
"The declaration of a “climate emergency” would make it possible to make really big decisions. …such as making things possible that are necessary but have not been considered realistic.“
This reminds in the diction of 24 March 1933, at that time the law was officially called: “Law to remedy the distress of the people and the Reich” and it served to abolish the Republic. Isn’t anyone suspicious?
What fits well here is an action of the solar industry lobby, which has made good business from the alleged climate catastrophe. Whoever criticizes the climate alarmism professionally is considered a troublemaker. So it fits in well with the picture that the Solarenergie Förderverein Deutschland e.V. (Solar Energy Association of Germany) is calling for the punishment of critics on its website. The address of the site is: http://sfv.de/artikel/verharmlosung_der ... raftat.htm. Here we read:
Wolf von Fabeck calls for punishment for those who trivialize the climate catastrophe:
"Trivializing the climate catastrophe endangers the survival of mankind – do we have to accept this?"
Why the trivializers cannot hide behind the fundamental right of freedom of expression
They even link to a PIK-alarm paper:
At the suggestion of the Fridays For Future demonstrators, Constance is now the first German city to declare a ‘climate emergency’ – a rather symbolic act – but one that shows what is needed. Mayor Burchardt explained that from now on all decisions to be taken by the city council must be assessed in terms of climate protection. At the same time, he called on the Federal Government to improve the legal framework for climate protection measures.
"It is essential to ward off the danger decisively and to the best of our knowledge and belief, not only in Constance, but everywhere in Germany (everyone should first of all put their own house in order), and finally worldwide. In the case of climate catastrophe, the best knowledge is provided by the natural sciences, and not by those who trivialize it. What the trivializers do can be described as sabotage, and sabotage of emergency measures should be punished.”
[…]
A strong democracy must not accept this development. What is missing here is the legal threat of punishment within the Criminal Code – as already mentioned in the summary:
‘Anyone who plays down or denies the climate catastrophe in a way that is likely to disrupt, disparage or completely prevent the defense of the climate catastrophe under the Paris Climate Convention and its follow-up agreements will be punished with a fine of up to 300 days wages. In case of recurrence, the penalty is imprisonment.’
Such a threat of punishment in no way undermines the fundamental right to freedom of opinion. Also the freedom of opinion has, as already mentioned in the introduction, legal limits (Article 5, Paragraph 2, first half sentence German Law). For example, according to Paragraphs 185 to 187 of the German Criminal Code, insult, libel and slander are also sanctioned, because otherwise peaceful coexistence is not possible.”
Emergency laws, sabotage, punishment. This seemingly undemocratic argumentation is not entirely new in Germany. The last time it was heard was 80 years ago.
Note: The German Solar Energy Lobby also remarks:
"Note: It is not the misled ones who should be punished, but the disinformers, the instigators, the authors and distributors of the fake news.”
By Kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
German public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk on December 25, 2019:
Climate scientist Johan Rockström thinks the declaration of a climate emergency is justified.
Rockström (Potsdam Institute Director):
"The declaration of a “climate emergency” would make it possible to make really big decisions. …such as making things possible that are necessary but have not been considered realistic.“
This reminds in the diction of 24 March 1933, at that time the law was officially called: “Law to remedy the distress of the people and the Reich” and it served to abolish the Republic. Isn’t anyone suspicious?
What fits well here is an action of the solar industry lobby, which has made good business from the alleged climate catastrophe. Whoever criticizes the climate alarmism professionally is considered a troublemaker. So it fits in well with the picture that the Solarenergie Förderverein Deutschland e.V. (Solar Energy Association of Germany) is calling for the punishment of critics on its website. The address of the site is: http://sfv.de/artikel/verharmlosung_der ... raftat.htm. Here we read:
Wolf von Fabeck calls for punishment for those who trivialize the climate catastrophe:
"Trivializing the climate catastrophe endangers the survival of mankind – do we have to accept this?"
Why the trivializers cannot hide behind the fundamental right of freedom of expression
They even link to a PIK-alarm paper:
At the suggestion of the Fridays For Future demonstrators, Constance is now the first German city to declare a ‘climate emergency’ – a rather symbolic act – but one that shows what is needed. Mayor Burchardt explained that from now on all decisions to be taken by the city council must be assessed in terms of climate protection. At the same time, he called on the Federal Government to improve the legal framework for climate protection measures.
"It is essential to ward off the danger decisively and to the best of our knowledge and belief, not only in Constance, but everywhere in Germany (everyone should first of all put their own house in order), and finally worldwide. In the case of climate catastrophe, the best knowledge is provided by the natural sciences, and not by those who trivialize it. What the trivializers do can be described as sabotage, and sabotage of emergency measures should be punished.”
[…]
A strong democracy must not accept this development. What is missing here is the legal threat of punishment within the Criminal Code – as already mentioned in the summary:
‘Anyone who plays down or denies the climate catastrophe in a way that is likely to disrupt, disparage or completely prevent the defense of the climate catastrophe under the Paris Climate Convention and its follow-up agreements will be punished with a fine of up to 300 days wages. In case of recurrence, the penalty is imprisonment.’
Such a threat of punishment in no way undermines the fundamental right to freedom of opinion. Also the freedom of opinion has, as already mentioned in the introduction, legal limits (Article 5, Paragraph 2, first half sentence German Law). For example, according to Paragraphs 185 to 187 of the German Criminal Code, insult, libel and slander are also sanctioned, because otherwise peaceful coexistence is not possible.”
Emergency laws, sabotage, punishment. This seemingly undemocratic argumentation is not entirely new in Germany. The last time it was heard was 80 years ago.
Note: The German Solar Energy Lobby also remarks:
"Note: It is not the misled ones who should be punished, but the disinformers, the instigators, the authors and distributors of the fake news.”
06 Jan 2020, 11:58 pm
07 Jan 2020, 1:55 am
07 Jan 2020, 2:17 am
climate tale falks (falcon, hawk)
07 Jan 2020, 2:19 am
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
SoloSailor wrote:
Testing the hypothesis that variations in atmospheric water vapour are
the main cause of fluctuations in global temperature
Kennedy/Hodzic
University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
the main cause of fluctuations in global temperature
Kennedy/Hodzic
University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Quote:
"The apparently linear relationship between the water content of the atmosphere is direct verification of the greenhouse warming effect of this greenhouse gas. By contrast, other than by correlation, there is no such direct verification possible for the greenhouse effect of CO2."
Sorry Ivan Kennedy retired from academia in 2013 so is no longer tenured at the university of Sydney when he wrote this paper (which comes across as a pet project without much merit). His research on water vapour contributing to temperature variation also does not exclude the role of CO2 so the jury is well and truly out with his research
"The jury is well and truly out with his research"...And yet haven't we been told that the science is settled?
Not sure how there isn't a definitive answer regarding his research then...Or maybe, just possible, the science isn't settled?
The basis of the argument is flawed because you first need CO2 in the air to increase water vapour
https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapo ... se-gas.htm
It's like trying to say murderers don't kill people, bullets are responsible so lets release them all from jail
07 Jan 2020, 2:39 am
SoloSailor wrote:
Why would they fear open discussion and attempt to censor the concerns of skeptics if the issue of CAGW was truly a matter of science rather than politics as its promoters claim?
Censorship is a tool of political tyranny. It has no legitimate place in science.
Censorship is a tool of political tyranny. It has no legitimate place in science.
Quote:
Solar industry lobby wants to punish climate emergency critics for sabotaging emergency measures
By Kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
German public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk on December 25, 2019:
Climate scientist Johan Rockström thinks the declaration of a climate emergency is justified.
Rockström (Potsdam Institute Director):
"The declaration of a “climate emergency” would make it possible to make really big decisions. …such as making things possible that are necessary but have not been considered realistic.“
This reminds in the diction of 24 March 1933, at that time the law was officially called: “Law to remedy the distress of the people and the Reich” and it served to abolish the Republic. Isn’t anyone suspicious?
What fits well here is an action of the solar industry lobby, which has made good business from the alleged climate catastrophe. Whoever criticizes the climate alarmism professionally is considered a troublemaker. So it fits in well with the picture that the Solarenergie Förderverein Deutschland e.V. (Solar Energy Association of Germany) is calling for the punishment of critics on its website. The address of the site is: http://sfv.de/artikel/verharmlosung_der ... raftat.htm. Here we read:
Wolf von Fabeck calls for punishment for those who trivialize the climate catastrophe:
"Trivializing the climate catastrophe endangers the survival of mankind – do we have to accept this?"
Why the trivializers cannot hide behind the fundamental right of freedom of expression
They even link to a PIK-alarm paper:
At the suggestion of the Fridays For Future demonstrators, Constance is now the first German city to declare a ‘climate emergency’ – a rather symbolic act – but one that shows what is needed. Mayor Burchardt explained that from now on all decisions to be taken by the city council must be assessed in terms of climate protection. At the same time, he called on the Federal Government to improve the legal framework for climate protection measures.
"It is essential to ward off the danger decisively and to the best of our knowledge and belief, not only in Constance, but everywhere in Germany (everyone should first of all put their own house in order), and finally worldwide. In the case of climate catastrophe, the best knowledge is provided by the natural sciences, and not by those who trivialize it. What the trivializers do can be described as sabotage, and sabotage of emergency measures should be punished.”
[…]
A strong democracy must not accept this development. What is missing here is the legal threat of punishment within the Criminal Code – as already mentioned in the summary:
‘Anyone who plays down or denies the climate catastrophe in a way that is likely to disrupt, disparage or completely prevent the defense of the climate catastrophe under the Paris Climate Convention and its follow-up agreements will be punished with a fine of up to 300 days wages. In case of recurrence, the penalty is imprisonment.’
Such a threat of punishment in no way undermines the fundamental right to freedom of opinion. Also the freedom of opinion has, as already mentioned in the introduction, legal limits (Article 5, Paragraph 2, first half sentence German Law). For example, according to Paragraphs 185 to 187 of the German Criminal Code, insult, libel and slander are also sanctioned, because otherwise peaceful coexistence is not possible.”
Emergency laws, sabotage, punishment. This seemingly undemocratic argumentation is not entirely new in Germany. The last time it was heard was 80 years ago.
Note: The German Solar Energy Lobby also remarks:
"Note: It is not the misled ones who should be punished, but the disinformers, the instigators, the authors and distributors of the fake news.”
By Kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
German public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk on December 25, 2019:
Climate scientist Johan Rockström thinks the declaration of a climate emergency is justified.
Rockström (Potsdam Institute Director):
"The declaration of a “climate emergency” would make it possible to make really big decisions. …such as making things possible that are necessary but have not been considered realistic.“
This reminds in the diction of 24 March 1933, at that time the law was officially called: “Law to remedy the distress of the people and the Reich” and it served to abolish the Republic. Isn’t anyone suspicious?
What fits well here is an action of the solar industry lobby, which has made good business from the alleged climate catastrophe. Whoever criticizes the climate alarmism professionally is considered a troublemaker. So it fits in well with the picture that the Solarenergie Förderverein Deutschland e.V. (Solar Energy Association of Germany) is calling for the punishment of critics on its website. The address of the site is: http://sfv.de/artikel/verharmlosung_der ... raftat.htm. Here we read:
Wolf von Fabeck calls for punishment for those who trivialize the climate catastrophe:
"Trivializing the climate catastrophe endangers the survival of mankind – do we have to accept this?"
Why the trivializers cannot hide behind the fundamental right of freedom of expression
They even link to a PIK-alarm paper:
At the suggestion of the Fridays For Future demonstrators, Constance is now the first German city to declare a ‘climate emergency’ – a rather symbolic act – but one that shows what is needed. Mayor Burchardt explained that from now on all decisions to be taken by the city council must be assessed in terms of climate protection. At the same time, he called on the Federal Government to improve the legal framework for climate protection measures.
"It is essential to ward off the danger decisively and to the best of our knowledge and belief, not only in Constance, but everywhere in Germany (everyone should first of all put their own house in order), and finally worldwide. In the case of climate catastrophe, the best knowledge is provided by the natural sciences, and not by those who trivialize it. What the trivializers do can be described as sabotage, and sabotage of emergency measures should be punished.”
[…]
A strong democracy must not accept this development. What is missing here is the legal threat of punishment within the Criminal Code – as already mentioned in the summary:
‘Anyone who plays down or denies the climate catastrophe in a way that is likely to disrupt, disparage or completely prevent the defense of the climate catastrophe under the Paris Climate Convention and its follow-up agreements will be punished with a fine of up to 300 days wages. In case of recurrence, the penalty is imprisonment.’
Such a threat of punishment in no way undermines the fundamental right to freedom of opinion. Also the freedom of opinion has, as already mentioned in the introduction, legal limits (Article 5, Paragraph 2, first half sentence German Law). For example, according to Paragraphs 185 to 187 of the German Criminal Code, insult, libel and slander are also sanctioned, because otherwise peaceful coexistence is not possible.”
Emergency laws, sabotage, punishment. This seemingly undemocratic argumentation is not entirely new in Germany. The last time it was heard was 80 years ago.
Note: The German Solar Energy Lobby also remarks:
"Note: It is not the misled ones who should be punished, but the disinformers, the instigators, the authors and distributors of the fake news.”
Germany has become an embarrassment to intellectualism.
"The Turtle" might be part of the problem, but don't quote me on that.
