The First Time In Us History That Kids Are Testifying In Court About The Effects Of Climate Change On Their Wellbeing.

[EarlyActs]

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1754857297124188244?s=20

 

[EarlyActs]

x.com

x.com

Three peer-reviewed papers…

 

[Frank Robert]

x.com

x.com

Three peer-reviewed papers…

It appears climate denialism has shifted from outright rejection of global warming to casting doubt on the efficacy of proposed solutions, the credibility of activists, and the integrity of scientists. This change is reflected in online discourse, with a study indicating that "New Denial" content now represents 70% of climate denial claims on YouTube, a significant increase from 35% six years prior.

The earlier stance of climate deniers, which involved denying the warming of the planet—a fact that has become increasingly difficult to dispute—has transitioned to questioning the validity of climate solutions and the motivations of those advocating for them.

Will this evolution help denialists to maintain relevance and impede progress on climate action by eroding public trust in climate science and its proponents? Perhaps, but rejecting climate science in favor of make-believe is a hard sell. Fortunately, this transformation in the nature of climate denialism presents a renewed obstacle for those working to garner public support for sound science measures to address climate change. Fortunately, scientists are up to task.

 

[EarlyActs]

The orbit of the earth is not perfect

x.com

x.com

 

[EarlyActs]

The history of CO2

x.com

x.com

 

[Frank Robert]

The orbit of the earth is not perfect

x.com

x.com

What's your point?

It is well know the Earth's relationship with the sun, including the Earth-Sun distance and the Milankovitch cycles, has a significant impact on the planet's climate. The Earth's orbit varies between nearly circular and mildly elliptical, leading to changes in the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which affects the amount of solar radiation received at different times of the year. This variation in solar radiation influences the climate, impacting weather patterns globally. The Earth's closest approach to the sun, known as perihelion, results in about 7% more intense sunlight than at its farthest approach, aphelion1

The Milankovitch cycles, which involve changes in the Earth's orbital eccentricity, obliquity, and precession, have been linked to long-term climate effects, including the timing of ice ages1

While the Earth's distance from the sun has a significant influence on the planet's climate, it is important pay attention to that factors, such as human carbon emissions, also play a substantial role in shaping the Earth's climate.

 

[Frank Robert]

The history of CO2

x.com

x.com

While it's true that variations in Earth's orbit and distance from the Sun—known as Milankovitch cycles—play a role in long-term climate patterns, including ice ages, these cycles occur over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. They cannot account for the rapid warming observed over the past few decades.

• Milankovitch Cycles: These cycles include changes in Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, and they do influence Earth's climate over long timescales. However, the current phase of these cycles would not lead to the rapid warming we are observing today
  https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
• Solar Activity: Studies have shown that there has been no significant upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth that could explain the recent warming. In fact, if solar activity were responsible, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, but we observe cooling in the upper atmosphere, consistent with greenhouse gas-induced warming.

The recent US fourth national climate assessment found that human emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950. Addressing climate change effectively requires acknowledging the role of human activities and taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is NO alternative to maintaining a world that we now know.

 

[EarlyActs]

Looking back at this thread, I see that the speaking-past or -over started when the accounts of Taku, Havasu and the Little Ice Age were never addressed. Far more impact, yet far more denial on your part.

And be sure to check the Plymouth Rock sketch from the 1600s. High tide is the same mark today.

If you are going to mention upper atmosphere, where are your docs about Chemtrails?

I see you avoided ‘studies-have-shownism’; just as well , as I disregard anything that tries that trick. Common sense only.

Looking at the title, please explain the premise again—that simply bc kids are ‘testifying’ (the arch-oxymoron), something is true? I’m a substitute teacher in middle and high levels; they are told what to believe, for ex, that other genders than XX and XY occur at conception; gender care groups are pushed on them from middle school on. The hosts of such groups believe they are science-based. I would say it would be 2 decades before I would think of asking them what they believe, bc people have to work out the backtracking of thought on their own.

 

[Frank Robert]

Looking back at this thread, I see that the speaking-past or -over started when the accounts of Taku, Havasu and the Little Ice Age were never addressed. Far more impact, yet far more denial on your part.

Not sure what your lecture is about. The OP is about 16 young Montana residents who are suing the state of Montana, alleging that it is violating their constitutional rights by failing to take action on climate change. The significance of kids testifying in a climate lawsuit lies in their unique perspective as the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Let's give credit where credit is due. This trial is historic in that it is the first U.S. climate lawsuit led by young people to go to trial and the first grounded in constitutional claims.

And be sure to check the Plymouth Rock sketch from the 1600s. High tide is the same mark today.

If you are going to mention upper atmosphere, where are your docs about Chemtrails?

I see you avoided ‘studies-have-shownism’; just as well , as I disregard anything that tries that trick. Common sense only.

Looking at the title, please explain the premise again—that simply bc kids are ‘testifying’ (the arch-oxymoron), something is true? I’m a substitute teacher in middle and high levels; they are told what to believe, for ex, that other genders than XX and XY occur at conception; gender care groups are pushed on them from middle school on. The hosts of such groups believe they are science-based. I would say it would be 2 decades before I would think of asking them what they believe, bc people have to work out the backtracking of thought on their own.

What you are experiencing as substitute teacher sounds dreadful. I do a fair amount of guest lecturing in schools on addictions which at times runs into mental health issues, LGBT, gender dysphoria, etc. Unfortunately, in Florida schools such topics are taboo and the most we are allowed to advise is to seek help from a licensed provider.

 

[EarlyActs]

Dr Happer, Princeton physicist: The earth is starving for CO2.

x.com

x.com

 

[EarlyActs]

So, scientists may be wrong but are above criticism, and free speech is out:

https://x.com/Cliffmac555/status/1756134492417450435?s=20

Common sense tells us that ideas must freely compete.

 

[Frank Robert]

Dr Happer, Princeton physicist: The earth is starving for CO2.

x.com

x.com

I don't like watching videos recommended on X which usually unreliable , so I looked up Dr Happer and found the whole list of his opinions.

Some viewers ,might also like:
Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science

Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal​

Favourite climate myths by William Happer
Below are many of the climate myths used by William Happerd.

Climate myths by Happer	What the Science Says	Usage
"Hockey stick is broken"	Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.	1
"Medieval Warm Period was warmer"	Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.	1
"CO2 lags temperature"	CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.	1
"Models are unreliable"	Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.	1
"CO2 limits will harm the economy"	The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.	1
"It's not bad"	Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.	1
"Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming"	There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.	1
"Greenland was green"	Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.	1
"We're coming out of the Little Ice Age"	Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming.	1
"CO2 was higher in the past"	Climate has changed along with CO2 levels through geological time.	1
"CO2 is not a pollutant"	Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant	1
"Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming"	Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.	1
"Climate sensitivity is low"	Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.	1
"CO2 is plant food"	The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors	1
"CO2 is just a trace gas"	Many substances are dangerous even in trace amounts; what really matters is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.	1
"Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy"	A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.	1
"Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected"	This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.	1
"Ocean acidification isn't serious"	Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.	1
"Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup"	By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.	1
"IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period"	The IPCC simply updated their temperature history graphs to show the best data available at the time.	1
"It's not urgent"	A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.	1
"Clouds provide negative feedback"	Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.	1
"Renewable energy investment kills jobs"	Investment in renewable energy creates more jobs than investment in fossil fuel energy.	1O

 

[EarlyActs]

As Nye shows, it is now normal for scientists to be frauds, even about prizes, and then if that issue comes up , say ‘ I have no comment on that.’

x.com

x.com

 

[EarlyActs]

If you don’t watch HUMAN ZOOS last paragraph, you will not understand modern science: a major US science institution will not discuss its fraud unless you the objector have a $2M bond.

(They know they could be wrong and want that much to answer questions. )

Any further questions about the sacredness of science?

 

[Frank Robert]

If you don’t watch HUMAN ZOOS last paragraph, you will not understand modern science: a major US science institution will not discuss its fraud unless you the objector have a $2M bond.

No need wasting your time watching when its plainly obvious. Why give climate science deniers a popular public forum to further their campaign to undermining confidence in solutions for human climate change with the near unanimous agreement among climate scientists that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

 

[EarlyActs]

Dr Happer, Princeton
“We are in a CO2 famine”

x.com

x.com

 

[Frank Robert]

As Nye shows, it is now normal for scientists to be frauds, even about prizes, and then if that issue comes up , say ‘ I have no comment on that.’

x.com

x.com

Not commenting about unreliable climate idealist is he kindest statement that can be made about. you don't know when you to be rejoicing.

 

[Frank Robert]

Dr Happer, Princeton
“We are in a CO2 famine”

x.com

x.com

Happer is not an climate science and has not done any originaal research. and is well known for his lack of experience and misrepresent of climate science.

The evidence against Dr. William Happer's unreliable views and stance on climate change comes from the broad scientific consensus that contradicts his views. Key points include:

1. Contradiction of Scientific Consensus: The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. This consensus is supported by numerous scientific organizations worldwide and is contrary to Happer's skepticism about the role of CO2 in climate change
   
   Source​
2. Criticism from the Scientific Community: Happer's views have been criticized by other scientists and experts in the field. For instance, his claim that "there's nothing exceptional about the current climate" is at odds with the federal government's own climate science assessment and the positions of various scientific bodies that recognize the unprecedented rate of climate change in the modern era
   
   Source​
3. Misinterpretation of Climate Data: Critics argue that Happer misinterprets or selectively cites climate data to support his claims. For example, references to global cooling in recent years ignore the overall trend of increasing global temperatures over decades, which is a critical factor in understanding climate change
   
   Source​
4. Questionable Policy Influence: Happer's role in pushing climate denial within the White House and his efforts to undermine scientific consensus on climate change have been deeply concerning to many. His leadership in efforts to challenge the government's official stance on climate change, which recognizes it as a serious national security threat, has been criticized as being led by a discredited climate change denier
   
   Source​
5. Lack of Expertise in Climate Science: Although Happer is a physicist, he is not a climate scientist. This lack of specialization in climate science raises questions about the basis of his skepticism and the validity of his critiques against established climate science
   
   Source​

The extensive evidence against Dr. Happer's stance includes his contradiction of the scientific consensus on climate change, criticism from the scientific community, misinterpretation of climate data, questionable influence on policy, and his lack of expertise in climate science. Many sources have criticized his "A Primer on Carbon Dioxide and Climate", "pro-CO2 propaganda. These factors contribute to the view that his stance on climate change is unreliable and not supported by the prevailing scientific evidence.

​

Dr. William Happer's "A Primer on Carbon Dioxide and Climate" has been criticized by EcoWatch, which reported on the publication and described it as containing "classic denier myths," such as the idea that CO2 is inherently good, the existence of a global warming pause, and the notion that there is significant disagreement among scientists about climate change
Source
. The Guardian has also reported on Happer's views, characterizing them as far to the right of the typical conservative stance on climate change and noting that his position is at odds with the federal government's own climate science assessment
Source
. These sources reflect skepticism and concern regarding Happer's views on climate science and his interpretation of the role of CO2 in climate change.​

 

[EarlyActs]

More climate factors about our solar system:

x.com

x.com

 

[EarlyActs]

But he still gets paid….

x.com

x.com