“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
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- BenV on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Greg in NZ on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- czechlist on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
“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)