Climate Change

[Nom De Plume]

Martin Armstrong Warns New Discoveries Undermine Global Warming Narrative

Nobody wants to listen to the evidence against Global Warming because the government doesn’t hand out money for research that fails to justify new taxes. Real scientists have just discovered a massive previously unknown source of nitrogen that could turn the Global Warming nonsense on its head.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09- ... -narrative

[Nom De Plume]

Sample of the various climate changing patents

0462795 – July 16, 1891 – Method Of Producing Rain-Fall
1338343 – April 27, 1920 – Process And Apparatus For The Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists
1665267 – April 10, 1928 – Process of Producing Artificial Fogs
1892132 – December 27, 1932 – Atomizing Attachment For Airplane Engine Exhausts
2097581 – November 2, 1937 – Electric Stream Generator – Referenced in 3990987
2476171 – July 18, 1945 – Smoke Screen Generator
2550324 – April 24, 1951 – Process For Controlling Weather
2582678 – June 15, 1952 – Material Disseminating Apparatus For Airplanes
2721495 – October 25, 1955 – Method And Apparatus For Detecting Minute Crystal Forming Particles Suspended in a Gaseous Atmosphere
2730402 – January 10, 1956 – Controllable Dispersal Device
2881335 – April 7, 1959 – Generation of Electrical Fields
2908442 – October 13, 1959 – Method For Dispersing Natural Atmospheric Fogs And Clouds
2963975 – December 13, 1960 – Cloud Seeding Carbon Dioxide Bullet
3126155 – March 24, 1964 – Silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Generator
3601312 – August 24, 1971 – Methods of Increasing The Likelihood oF Precipitation By The Artificial Introduction Of Sea Water Vapor Into The Atmosphere Winward Of An Air Lift Region
3613992 – October 19, 1971 – Weather Modification Method

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/lin ... g-patents/

[Black Orchid]

Dr Peter Ridd Wins $1.2 Million In Damages For Unlawful Sacking By JCU For Questioning Climate Science'

The Institute of Public Affairs has welcomed the decision of the Federal Circuit Court in relation to Dr Peter Ridd’s case against James Cook University.

Today, it was announced in the Federal Circuit Court that Dr Ridd will receive $1,219,214.47 in damages following the Court’s decision in April that Dr Ridd was unlawfully sacked.

Damages awarded $1.2 million is comprised of approximately $167,000 for past wages and superannuation lost, $835,000 for future wages and superannuation lost, $90,000 for general damages and $125,000 as pecuniary penalty.

“The sum awarded reflects the appalling nature of JCU’s treatment of Dr Ridd and vindicates Peter Ridd’s fight for academic freedom, free speech and integrity of climate science and peer review,” said Gideon Rozner, Director of Policy at the IPA.

“James Cook University must now rethink its stated plans to prolong this ugly dispute by appealing the decision. Dr Ridd won this case on all 17 counts. It is time for JCU to accept the decision and move on.”

“The very fact that an Australian university is willing to force the weight of an entire administration backed by taxpayer funds to stifle an academic’s freedom of speech sends a massive chilling effect to any academic engaging in public debate in Australia.”

“James Cook University’s shameful actions prove without doubt there is a crisis of free speech at Australian Universities.

https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/med ... te-science

[Bogan]

And a crisis of credibility among "scientists" who promote HIGW. Thank you for your submission, Black Orchid. That one goes into my files. I think I will start a new one called "The Corruption of Science."

[billy the kid]

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/climat ... g-children

Being a parent, I feel bloody sorry for the kids of today...they are being exploited to the max by their teachers
and parents because of the climate change issue....
When my kids were little, and there was an issue over which they had no control I would tell them simply to enjoy being
10...or 12...or whatever age they were...
Nowadays in Australia we are seeing children taking time off school to protest against the lack of climate change
action....
This is really sad....when I see little kiddies protesting in the streets, surrounded by adult teachers and parents
all I see is the total exploitation of children....
This is child abuse to the max....it is wrong..very wrong...….
AND on another thread Ive already talked about the fiasco of police seizing loose change from your vehicle
because legislation provides that it is a distraction and could cause an accident.....
The whole world is going down the gurglar…...

[Black Orchid]

I saw a couple of those kids on the news last night. What arrogant and aggressive little twats they were too!

[billy the kid]

Wound up by their parents and teachers...so sad....

[brian ross]

And a crisis of credibility among "scientists" who promote HIGW. Thank you for your submission, Black Orchid. That one goes into my files. I think I will start a new one called "The Corruption of Science."

What a shame, Bogan, hey?

Dr Ridd's views on the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef were not on trial in this case.

The decision was confined to his industrial rights and the judge made no comment on the validity of his climate views.

[Source]

I'd take anything the Institute of Public Affairs says with a large handful of salt...

[Bogan]

Brian, first it was a story told by the ABC, which should have got your bias and leftist disinformation antennae up.

Peter Ridd was sacked for having an opinion that "poor water quality and climate change aren't significant threats to the future of the reef", and that "scientific organizations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the ARC Centre for Coral Reef Studies can no longer be trusted".

That sure sounds like he is saying that whatever the marine scientists are saying about climate change affecting the GB reef, it is dishonest, untrustworthy crap. And they sacked him for saying it.

The ABC article included a misdirection worthy of Brian Ross. That "However, Dr Ridd's views on the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef were not on trial in this case."

I know his bloody views about HIGW affecting the GB reef were not on trial. What was on trial was that he gave a scientific opinion about global warming affecting the GB reef, that was not the official party line, and he was sacked for it.

This is a huge embarrassment to the Alarmists and so they have gone into defense mode spinning up an aspect to hide the truth from fools like you who can not read between the deliberate disinformation. It was clever enough to fool you, because you want to be fooled. But not enough to fool me.

[brian ross]

Still unable to face reality, hey, Bogan:

Dr Ridd's views on the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef were not on trial in this case.

The decision was confined to his industrial rights and the judge made no comment on the validity of his climate views.

[Source]

Dr. Ridd was sacked not for his opinion but because he apparently broke the University Rules on speaking out. That was found to be unlawful. His Climate Change denials were not, as the ABC noted, on trial. Tsk, tsk.