via .ORGWorld News

via .ORGWorld News

@Indiana nailed her! LOL

It is amazing to me how the words of a programmed and rehearsed 16 year old child, filled with ignorance and hate, understanding nothing, can give a speech at the U.N. and captivate the world. The only thing that could make it worse is if her name was Sophia.

Yes, I learnt about her speech when people were relating her to Lisa Simpson

Every climate scientists realizes this. And everyone should know it. The scientists are looking at what accounts for the excess CO2. It would be like putting half a cup of ice in a glass and getting a full cup of water when it melts. Everyone should understand why you might get nearly half a cup.

Whether we are for climate change, formerly known as "Global warming" (hahahaha!) or are against climate change, the climate is going to change. It's being doing that since the Earth developed an atmosphere, several BILLION years ago. I, for one, am glad that we are not in an ice age, where glaciers covered half of North America, about 10,000 years ago. By the way ... you do realize that all wood is made from the carbon in the atmosphere, and not the dirt . Photosynthesis busts apart CO2, and the tree keeps the carbon to make wood, and throws the oxygen away. The pure, clean oxygen we breathe, is actually tree poop. and CO2 ... is just more plant food.

We should be careful not to mistake the activists, politicians, and doomsdayers with the consensus of scientists. Of course, there will always be some scientists who stand to gain notoriety and/or money from doomsday books or by making claims that support oil companies, fracking companies, or their favorite political parties. When climate change has become so politicized there will some fraud on both sides, although the steady money to follow is coming from corporations and governments who fund research at many of the universities. The tweet from "News Breaking LIVE" has been taken from a Bloomberg article. It's informative to see the whole article here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/trump-s-interior-department-says-there-is-not-a-climate-crisis The whole story is actually a perfect illustration of how one might "follow the money" to get to the truth of the matter in this instance. Here are the opening paragraphs of the actual article: The Trump administration brushed aside concerns about climate change as it sought to justify plans for oil drilling in the Arctic refuge, even going so far as to suggest that a little extra warmth would do the planet good. “There is not a climate crisis,” the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management asserted in its environmental analysis of the coming sale of drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s Coastal Plain released earlier this month. Congress mandated the sales two years ago as part of the tax overhaul but a thorough environmental assessment is a legal requirement for holding the auctions. In other words, the only way the BLM can make any money on the land auctions to get money from drilling companies who want to drill in the Arctic is to also produce a study that says it will not hurt the environment. Did anyone really think that the BLM was going to come up with any other conclusion? If they did, they would lose many millions of dollars. The United States Department of Defense ran a thorough study that claimed just the opposite. But then again, the Dept of Defense is probably anticipating the need for money too, as they watch climate change result in various national fights over clean water, arable land, refugees issues from droughts or devastating storms, fights over fishing rights as fish keep diminishing, the opening up of "new" lands (like Greenland) for mining/drilling. Opening up of a northwest passage for shipping lanes. &c.

Submitted for your inspection, when you see that signpost up ahead ....

via .ORGWorld News

And we were worried about the Amazon forest? Although I read another story recently about Cambodia being stripped of trees. I guess they compensate for all the SUV's in the USA. Yeah for India.... saving the world.

via .ORGWorld News

Yep. I've heard this and was not surprised. It's been on those "TED Radio Hour" type of public radio shows. The next episode I listened to was about how a few widely published sommeliers agreed to a blind test comparing some of their highest rated wines with a few cheap $10 bottles thrown into the mix. I think the tests were set up with three bottles at a time, two highly rated and one cheap wine. The results actually showed that these nationally known experts would often confuse the $10 bottle with $200 bottles. Again, not surprising. Self-made expertise is often not science. I think the climate change situation is more like those old pictures of military "experts" sending improperly protected military personnel into nuclear testing sites soon after a blast to take measurements. It took a while for data to become overwhelming enough to shame the experts. Similarly, we still have people denying the cancerous effects of cigarettes, and part of the reason was that real doctors were once employed by tobacco companies as experts to make statements to this effect. So I'm also not surprised that big oil companies have been caught paying scientists to promote anti-global-warming papers over the years. But I'm also not surprised that a small percentage of climate scientists fake their data in order to gain credit for work they didn't really do. Even though this happens, it does not discount the actual work of the majority of scientists who did not fake their data. This "experts" argument can cut both ways, of course, but if you listen closely (even to the weatherman's video) you can see that there really is no money to follow in predicting doom and gloom. At best the claim is who can make "future" money off carbon taxes, and there surely will be some abuse and mishandling wherever money is involved. But so far the "follow the money" argument argues much more strongly for fraud on the part of the "experts" who deny climate change.

You did more than I. I knew nothing of this. He is not really a self-promoter. I have exchanged A few comments with him via Twitter, but when I asked if he had been forced from his job for his views, he stayed silent. He mostly hangs out with other local weather people. It turns out that we have a Cornell connection, because my grandpa and great grandpa went there, and that is also his alma mater. I’ve run some old photos by him & he likes that. He has confirmed that an absurd tangle of roads at the west end of Ithaca is indeed known as “the octopus,” less so now as some have been straightened out, but it is still a mess and terrain dictates it will never be straightened out completely. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/10/in-search-of-the-ithaca-octopus.html There is a climate zealot on Twitter called @JWspry (no, not one of our JWs—I don’t think) who makes Kevin look like very small potatoes indeed. When i ran my former post past him, “Weather on Steroids,” he said it that the perception was mostly due to what was reported and what was not. Emphasize something disproportionately and you plant inaccurate ideas into people. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2012/02/weather-on-steroids.html This is more easily illustrated for me with the spate of white on black police shootings, and media nearly conveyed the idea that the very purpose of police was to shoot black people. However, a study of the Philadelphia police force during the Obama administration, concluded that there was no overall racial component—every race shot every other race, and their own—and to the extent there was, it was actually a little more likely that black officers would experience “threat misperception” and shoot black suspects than did white officers. Is a similar biased agenda at work in climate reporting? I would have guessed yes, however you have made me regress to a dunno.

In our generation, I think that most former "global warming" deniers have already begun accepting global warming as a fact, and have repositioned themselves as only denying that it's man-made. I think that some have held onto that original position, because one of the reasons for the original position was political: not wanting to see taxpayers overburdened, enormous national debt , not wanting China to be able to rise to the world's most powerful economy, etc. And Exxon confuses them by saying we should all be ready to pay up anyway, because it's happening, no matter whose fault it is. I know this isn't a JW portion of the forum, but Sunday afternoon, most of our service group was already using the door-to-door sermon about whether people might be blaming God, with all the bad things happening in the world, such as all these recent gun killings we're seeing on TV. (Then reading Job 34:10-12.) One householder held that both of these mass shootings were going to be proven to be hoaxes. What do you do with a person like that? (The obvious answer is that we these same people will never deny that there have been thousands of acts of gun violence in Chicago, for example. This agreement will get us to nearly the same place about desiring change in the world.) I just watched Kevin Williams do his 2010 Tea Party speech, claiming no statistical global warming since 1995, and that in the 135-year thermometer history, that 1930's was the hottest decade. He gets expected applause over his claims that there is no warming, sea levels are barely rising, that hurricanes are not strengthening, and that global ice masses are actually starting to increase. Turns out he is absolutely wrong on all counts. This particular weatherman (meteorologist not climatologist) does NOT present data, he just makes false, agenda-driven claims like any politician: In fact if you do a search on the heat waves of the 1930's, you'll find that this particular issue is some of the first major evidence of man-made global warming. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-trace-climate-heat-link-to-1930s-20115

This is very true. As JTR often says: "Follow the Money." In spite of the past controversy, ExxonMobil now runs a Climate Change page on their site that admits: "We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us — business, governments and consumers — to make meaningful progress." The following is the first page that is returned when I Googled "Exxon Mobil Climate Science Special Report." ExxonMobil climate change controversy - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy The ExxonMobil climate change controversy concerns ExxonMobil's activities related to climate ... In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon James Black reported to company's executives that ...... What links here · Related changes · Upload file · Special pages · Permanent link · Page information · Wikidata item · Cite this page ... Exxon Continued Paying Millions To Climate-Change Deniers Under ... https://www.huffpost.com/.../tillerson-exxon-climate-donations_n_5873a3f4e4b043ad... Jan 9, 2017 - Exxon Continued Paying Millions To Climate-Change Deniers ... President-elect Donald Trump has nominated outgoing Exxon Mobil ... In October, reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles .... Special Projects. Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific ... https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-... Oct 26, 2015 - Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it ... This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world's .... and work with everyone else to cut out emissions and pay for some of the cost ... independence in reporting developments in science to our readers. ExxonMobil and Climate Change: A Story of Denial, Delay, and ... www.climatesciencewatch.org/.../exxonmobil-and-climate-change-a-story-of-denial-d... May 25, 2016 - Each of three working groups issued its own voluminous report: I) The ..... 2005: Given the rich variety of attention paid to climate change over the .... One might argue that ExxonMobil's specific mention of hurricanes as a risk ... Climate change | ExxonMobil https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy...environment/environmental.../climate-cha... We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it's going to take all of ... have placed “pay to play” news stories, released flawed academic reports and ... Understanding the #ExxonKnew controversy | ExxonMobil https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/...environment/environmental.../climate-change/un... Jun 14, 2019 - The investigation was widely founded on claims that scientists and researchers ... claim their effort is based on investigative reporting by InsideClimate News (ICN) and the ... those stories were bought and paid for by many of the organizations listed above. ExxonMobil's continuous action on climate change. Why is ExxonMobil Still Funding Climate Science Denier Groups ... https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott.../exxonmobil-still-funding-climate-science-denier-grou... Aug 31, 2018 - Why is ExxonMobil Still Funding Climate Science Denier Groups? ... a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists revealed that it had spent at ... Yes, ExxonMobil and Chevron are Still Distorting Climate Science ... https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/exxonmobil-chevron-distort-climate-science Oct 23, 2018 - Yes, ExxonMobil and Chevron are Still Distorting Climate Science ... *(Earlier this month, this group released a special report detailing the impacts .... writing reports about it to company executives, the company was paying for ... Inside an investigation into Exxon Mobil's climate change - The Verge https://www.theverge.com/.../exxon-mobil-knew-climate-change-misinformation-harv... Aug 23, 2017 - For decades, the oil and gas company Exxon Mobil has waged a ... How Exxon sowed doubt about climate change, according to an author of a new study ... But Exxon's communications with the public through paid editorials, ... doubt about the reality of global warming,” Inside Climate News reported. ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/.../exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-den... Jul 15, 2015 - Alec has for decades worked to block action on climate change, by drafting ... Keil did not respond to specific questions about Exxon's financial ...

Also confusion and willful misinformation pushes those who dwell on anything false and or untruth to reap profits. In a sense, some profit off of fear of the world somehow ending by means of climate change.

I have not found it to be this way. (See previous comment) Moreover, it is exactly the type of sweeping statement that argues that the prime reason such climate change science people do not exist to you is that you do not frequent where they hang out. It is seen in many venues. The majority team gets hold of the playing field and seeks to ban the minority team—even declaring that they are not really atheletes.

You know, I actually did see that point when I looked it up, and deliberately overrode it for the sake of more easy understanding. I know that this is not your mission, but you can credit yourself with causing me to back down from my 80% probability rating that global warming is a hoax. It is now more like 50-50. Whenever I follow the mainstream, I also follow that which would be its opposite. In the case of climate change, there are many in the opposite camp and they are often very well informed persons who present data persuasively. The long-term respected, even loved, TV weatherman in my area (who has been replaced for the last few years, so that he is now independent) is among them—I mean, it is not that the other side is all dodos, as they are typically presented. This man is a lifelong student of climatology. And you have caused me to look at matters anew. It is a significant achievement, for I, too, am as stubborn as the day is long. I even think you capable of convincing me completely, were I too devote more energy to the problem. But of course, I cannot. I must devote my energy to kicking in the teeth (verbally) of those who would malign sacred things, trusting that my absence from the climate change field will not alter the game.