ClimateGate busts things wide open

[vidmaster]

Obama started the separation of the children!!!!but no one seems to remember that- funny this selective memory Dems have

[Doodoo]

"In defending its “zero tolerance” border policy that has caused the separation of families, the Trump administration has argued that the Obama and Bush administrations did this too. That’s misleading. Experts say there were some separations under previous administrations, but no blanket policy to prosecute parents and, therefore, separate them from their children.
“Bush and Obama did not have policies that resulted in the mass separation of parents and children like we’re seeing under the current administration,” Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, told us."

Oh well seems Bush and Obama were guilty to an extent and Mr Obama DID NOT start this Mr B was the culprit

A Republican but who cares what group Mr T has it or had it as a policy

[jackspratt]

Obama started the separation of the children!!!!but no one seems to remember that- funny this selective memory Dems have

Probably because it ain't true, or at best, highly misleading.

Jeh Johnson, who served as homeland security secretary under Obama, said he did not separate children and parents despite the enormous surges of unaccompanied minors and families that came across the border in 2014 fleeing Central American violence.

"In three years on my watch, we probably deported or returned or repatriated about a million people to enforce border security. One of the things I could not do is separate a child from his or her mother, or literally pull a mother from his or her arms," Johnson said on MSNBC last week. “I just couldn’t do it.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immig ... es-n884856

(But I am not sure what this is doing on the ClimateGate thread)

[Lone Star]

"This idea [MMCC] is so weak it cannot be subjected to the normal, vigorous debate of free society."

[Udon Map]

"This idea [MMCC] is so weak it cannot be subjected to the normal, vigorous debate of free society."

Mark Steyn? Talk about someone who's about as far from objective as it gets....

[TJ]

"This idea [MMCC] is so weak it cannot be subjected to the normal, vigorous debate of free society."

Mark Steyn? Talk about someone who's about as far from objective as it gets....

Having listened to Mr. Steyn's speech, I would disagree. In my opinion it is Udon Map, who I assume has also listened to the words of Mr. Steyn, that sadly displays a lack of an objective perspective. I suggest that you listen to Mr. Steyn and come to your own conclusion.

[Lone Star]

.


Geologist Accuses Apple of Political Bias in Removing App Countering Climate Alarmism

Date: March 11, 2019

Political figures who support the so-called Green New Deal and other proposals to restrict carbon dioxide emissions are up against some “inconvenient facts” that Americans may access immediately through a smartphone application, a geologist and author says.

But there’s one big problem.

The app, called Inconvenient Facts, is available only to Android users through the Google Play Store. Since March 4, users of Apple’s iPhone no longer can access the app through the tech giant’s App Store.

Why is that?

Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist with more than three decades of experience, told The Daily Signal in an interview that he has his own opinion about what may have transpired inside Apple.

Wrightstone is the author of a book “Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know,” which served as the basis for the information available from the app.
He notes that former Vice President Al Gore, a leading proponent of the view that mankind’s activities propel dangerous climate change, is a board member of Apple.

“It’s very rare for an app to be approved and then taken down unless there is offensive material or some other extreme issue,” Wrightstone said of Apple’s action in a phone interview with The Daily Signal, adding:

We thought at first it may have been our fault. But I did a search on climate change and global warming in the Apple App Store and pulled up a whole bevy of pro-man-made global warming apps that are really bad. They are not formatted, they have incorrect spellings and no links.

But I suppose they have the political narrative right. Compared to these, our app is the gold standard. I made sure we had charts and links and references to the source for our data. This is all right in the palm of your hand.

A total of 60 facts in Wrightstone’s book are available through the Inconvenient Facts app to Android users. Complete with data, charts, and videos, they challenge the premise of alarmist theories about climate change that link man-made emissions to dangerous levels of global warming.

Gore’s ongoing campaign to convince the public that rising levels of carbon dioxide emissions could trigger catastrophic global warming was the subject of the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and the 2017 follow-up, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.”

Apple initially approved the Inconvenient Facts app for sale Feb. 3. Since that time, the app has been downloaded 13,000 times, according to figures Wrightstone provided.

He also points out that the app has earnedpositive reviews.

“A key takeaway here is that Apple has a monopoly over iPhone apps and the Apple App Store is the only place to get them,” Wrightstone said. “It appears that Apple has chosen to weaponize its control over purchasing apps to stifle science that doesn’t conform to its politically correct notions.”

The Daily Signal sought comment from Apple’s media relations office by phone and email, asking whether the company would address Wrightstone’s allegations of political bias. Apple had not responded by publication time.

The Daily Signal also sent inquiries to Delaware-based Carthage Group LLC, with which Gore is associated, and to the Climate Reality Project, which Gore founded, seeking his comment for this article. Neither organization had responded by publication time.

Users who tap on the Inconvenient Facts app have access to images and data that run counter to much of what was presented in Gore’s documentary films. Some examples:

—Inconvenient Fact No. 53: “There are more polar bears now than we’ve had for 50 years.”

—Inconvenient Fact No. 10 cites a “Recent Inconvenient Pause of 18 years in warming, despite rise in CO2.”

—Inconvenient Fact No. 12: “Modern warming began long before SUVs or coal-fired plants.”

— Inconvenient Fact No. 21: “The current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented.”

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a Christian public policy group that favors free market approaches to environmental policy, published a commentary Friday that is critical of Apple. It concludes that the company’s decision to reject the Inconvenient Facts app “smacks of censorship.”

The study of geology provides important insights into the study of climate change because it considers short-term trends within the larger context of Earth’s history, Wrightstone told The Daily Signal.

“Geologists are probably the most skeptical of all the sciences concerning a man-made link to temperature changes,” the geologist said, adding of carbon dioxide:

Just to be clear, I don’t, and my colleagues don’t, dispute that CO2 is increasing, and I agree that it has to have some slight warming effect on the atmosphere. But I argue that it’s modest and overwhelmed by the same natural forces that have been driving temperatures since the dawn of time. …
Looking out across Earth’s history, CO2 levels are extremely low. I always argue we are actually CO2 impoverished.

Information about Wrightstone’s book and the Inconvenient Facts app may be found here as well as on  YouTube  and  Facebook.

Silencing opposing views. It's what LIBs and believers try to do.

[Udon Map]

"This idea [MMCC] is so weak it cannot be subjected to the normal, vigorous debate of free society."

Mark Steyn? Talk about someone who's about as far from objective as it gets....

Having listened to Mr. Steyn's speech, I would disagree. In my opinion it is Udon Map, who I assume has also listened to the words of Mr. Steyn, that sadly displays a lack of an objective perspective. I suggest that you listen to Mr. Steyn and come to your own conclusion.

Lack of objectivity? Yes, I do believe that much (but not all) climate change is attributable to human causes, and I do believe that it's important to reduce that. Been to Chiang Mai recently? The AQI is well into the 200s due to the annual crop burning.

But my beliefs are what they are. Show me evidence that I'm wrong and my beliefs will change.

And Mr. Steyn? Where do I start? There's the "Mark Steyn 2019 Conservative Cruise" on the ss Volendam. He's a regular on Rush Limbaugh and Fox. Other bona fides? Hillsdale College. National Review. Daily Telegraph. Ricochet.com. Institute of Public Affairs (in Australia). He may well be right about climate change. But to say that he's objective is a bit of a stretch, I think. He's predictably on the right. That doesn't mean that he's wrong, just that he's predictably conservative.

[Barney]

https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustral ... 529050486/

Something here for thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[papafarang]

what I find funny is there seems to be no doubt about raised Co2 and our planets climate is changing . but to me everyone is having the wrong arguments.

We can also look back at specific snapshots in time to see how Earth responds to past CO2 spikes. For instance, in a period of extreme warming during Earth’s Cenozoic era about 55.9 million years ago, enough carbon was released to about double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The consequentially hot conditions wreaked havoc, causing massive migrations and extinctions; pretty much everything that lived either moved or went extinct. Plants wilted. Oceans acidified and heated up to the temperature of bathtubs.

ok not really relevant.....except the bit about nearly everything extinct. it's been pointed out mini ice ages in the past, and hotter periods. so the simple question is how well did humans do in those conditions ? oh ..we didn't .some one give me two answers, come the next hot period or the next mini ice age ? only 10000 years ago there were about 5 million of us, now 7 billion, so when the poop hits the fan . one. where are we all going to move too ,and two what are we going to eat ….soylent green ?

[TJ]

So sad. Papafarang has fallen for some of the warmer's propaganda in this new fantasy about CO2 causing the mass extinction. Just yesterday I read an article that said that research had shown that the dinosaurs and life in general were thriving up to when an impacting comet or asteroid plunged into the Earth off the South America coast. It is speculated that the shock of that impact may have caused intense volcanic activity. The vast lava field in India which was created by a millions years of volcanic eruption has been dated to have begun within 50,000 years of that impact. The poisonous fumes generated during those million years may have had a sickening effect on the planet's atmosphere and been part of the massive extinction process. If interested read: https://earthsky.org/earth/dinosaurs-th ... oid-impact

[papafarang]

So sad. Papafarang has fallen for some of the warmer's propaganda in this new fantasy about CO2 causing the mass extinction. Just yesterday I read an article that said that research had shown that the dinosaurs and life in general were thriving up to when an impacting comet or asteroid plunged into the Earth off the South America coast. It is speculated that the shock of that impact may have caused intense volcanic activity. The vast lava field in India which was created by a millions years of volcanic eruption has been dated to have begun within 50,000 years of that impact. The poisonous fumes generated during those million years may have had a sickening effect on the planet's atmosphere and been part of the massive extinction process. If interested read: https://earthsky.org/earth/dinosaurs-th ... oid-impact

"so sad " I just asked a question about when our planet overheats or freezes how will humans cope, and you start about dinosaurs and asteroids, yes great ,all very good, but when dino's ran around the planet was void of humans. part of our evolution is because climate is favorable for humans to evolve . why do people go on about "before it was ok" no it wasn't , or we would have been here for 100 millions of years ago ."Papafarang has fallen for some of the warmer's propaganda" , get real . the climate will change without doubt, I will give you a clue . Bring French runner beans to Thailand and see how well you get them to grow, and frigging bananas don't do too well in Britain either, and that is down to climate, if climate changes then plants change. someone else that wants to go on the ... it is, it isn't argument.
it's like watching a sinking ship, and some people want to discuss why it is sinking , what's causing it to sink, and i'm saying should we be heading to the life boats , and bully for the dinosaurs .they lasted 100's of millions of years and what killed them off ...errrrr . oh yeh the climate become unfavorable for them

[Lone Star]

Good News for climate change

Alarmism and Extremism seems to be bad messaging for believers.

[ezrider]

https://www.airvisual.com/thailand/chan ... udon-thani

Air Quality Udon today 199. BKK 66. Been here 14 yrs. never seen it close to this bad.

[Lone Star]

There is one salient, recurring fact that believers cannot escape. Their message sucks. They don't win many converts for the same recurring reasons.

It is extremely unusual for people to refuse to swallow so much information from so many government and international agencies about one topic and with all of the alarmism and scare tactics. Why is that? I doubt that it can be based solely on distrust-of-government-no-matter-what because so much of the world's population looks to government to solve everything for them.

It can only be for a couple of reasons:

1. All of the stumbles and pitfalls of scientist believers with their data gaffes have caused the data to be unbelieveable.

2. The believers don't explain it well enough or provide enough information with specific details to convince the average person with critical thinking skills. I suspect it's because they don't want to explain it well and get down to the nuts and bolts.

Over the years -- actually decades -- it appears that the constant bombardment by believers -- with their predictions and their attacks on skeptics -- has actually caused more people to reject the alarmism. That has probably resulted from so many dire predictions that have never come and the date has just passed and gone.

Climate change is far down the list of concerns for Americans. However, globalist countries -- where there are many censorship restrictions on speech and even criminal penalties for dissenting free speech -- still view climate change with great alarm. The censors in other countries might have much to do with it because they seek to silence the other side. If the explanations about climate change in these other countries were different and better than the incessant drumbeat that we hear all the time, we would have all seen/read/heard them and possibly be convinced.

[Udon Map]

There is one salient, recurring fact that believers cannot escape. Their message sucks. They don't win many converts for the same recurring reasons.

Without necessarily disagreeing with anything you said, we're all talking about the wrong thing. We're talking about scientists lying, people being turned by constant haranguing, skeptics laughing at believers when they find intentional concealment, etc. These are all process issues. Why aren't we talking about the actual science, -- you know, objective data that supports or refutes either position? It's only by looking at the data and facts that we have any hope of ever reaching any type of consensus.

[Lone Star]

. . .

We're talking about scientists lying

. . .

Why aren't we talking about the actual science

. . .

That's why.

It always takes time for credibility to be restored -- if ever. And then the next data manipulation occurs and is exposed.

The discussion has evolved to 'how' and other tangents mainly for that reason.

[Udon Map]

It always takes time for credibility to be restored -- if ever. And then the next data manipulation occurs and is exposed.

I don't agree. It's not about credibility. The science is the science.

[Lone Star]

It always takes time for credibility to be restored -- if ever. And then the next data manipulation occurs and is exposed.

I don't agree. It's not about credibility. The science is the science.

The climate is the climate. It has credibility.

The environment is the environment. It has credibility.

The atmosphere is the atmosphere. It has credibility.

The Earth is Earth. It has credibility.

The ones who provide the data on it all and try to explain it are the ones who need the credibility. The believers have lost credibility. If that were not true, their message would be crystal clear, specific, detailed and easily explained.

[Udon Map]

The ones who provide the data on it all and try to explain it are the ones who need the credibility. The believers have lost credibility. If that were not true, their message would be crystal clear, specific, detailed and easily explained.

Exactly my point. Ignore the past, get equal numbers of people with each points of view on the committee and let them figure it out. Put only skeptics on the committee, and you and I both know what the answer's going to be. No point in wasting the time or money on the committee, in that case.