“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
George Orwell, 1984
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Expert Arctic Forecasting
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Nobel Prize Winning Forecast
- Changing Climate
- Gen Z Math And Solutions
- Orwellian NASA Maps
- Faking US Temperature Data
Recent Comments
- oeman50 on Adult Content On X
- arn on Adult Content On X
- Bob G on Adult Content On X
- John B on Adult Content On X
- Bob G on Adult Content On X
- Bob G on Adult Content On X
- arn on Adult Content On X
- conrad ziefle on Adult Content On X
- conrad ziefle on Adult Content On X
- James on Faking US Temperature Data
“according to NASA and glaciologists”
is not a factcheck.
It is simply parroting BS
by NOT factchecking authorative sources but using them as unquestioned reference.
And neither NASA nor glaciologists are needed to factcheck something that can be observed easily.
A green house is not red just because “experts” claim it is red.
According to factcheckers there was yellow cake in Iraq and WMD’s.
While in fact not a single of those many wars enabled by “experts”
would have happened if Reuters would have done their journalistic job
of factchecking instead of going on with the narrative.
Quoting propagandists and other professional liars is no factcheck
but propaganda.
But Reuters have been accomplices of all those wars and lies – why should they ever change?
In all matters related to climate, facts are affirmed by ‘fact checkers’ declaring them false.
I’m glad you mentioned the mass balance issue. The fact that more mass of ice is formed on Greenland than melts or sublimates every year is an important and overlooked fact.
It means that one can say that “more ice is melting” from Greenland without actually lying. By omitting how much ice is formed and only saying ice loss is increasing, you give the false impression that the ice is going to disappear.
More ice deposited means the glaciers will generally flow faster and more melt will occur. But if you do not provide the context that considerably more ice is being formed than is melting, you are not being honest, and this fools most of the idiot public.
It’s like the following analogy: You have a village full of ignorant people who know nothing of hydraulics and head pressure. There is a tall water tank near the village. There is a small hole in the water tank. Unbeknownst to the villagers, because the tank overseers lie by omission, the tank is filling up, increasing the head pressure.
The villagers observe the strength of the stream from this small hole is increasing as is the volume of water coming out. And the villagers conclude the hole is getting bigger and they are going to run out of water… No the tank water level is rising which makes more pressure at the hole, so water flows out faster.
The overseers are lying by omission and the villagers are being duped. (actually in this analogy the overseers are also telling the villagers that they will run out of water and using the increasing flow as evidence of the lie)