Climate Change Defamation

[UNI88]

The Global Climate Scam continues to unravel. Latest research showing no crisis in sea level rise. The corrupt IPCC overestimated (faked it) it by over 100%.

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/13/9/1641

Credits to El Cid!!

ChatGPT says it's more nuanced than that ...

The paper focuses on local tide gauge measurements—specific locations around the world. At many of those individual sites, it finds no statistically significant acceleration of sea level rise yet. But that doesn’t mean global sea levels aren’t rising faster overall, or that the processes driving sea level rise (melting ice sheets, thermal expansion of oceans, etc.) aren’t happening.

Here’s the key distinction:

Local vs. global trends

• Local sea level can be affected by things like land moving up or down (subsidence/uplift), ocean currents, or regional climate patterns.
• So even if a specific tide gauge shows little acceleration, other places may be rising faster, and the global average can still be accelerating.

Short-term vs. long-term acceleration

• Detecting acceleration in sea level rise requires long, high-quality time series.
• A single 10–20 year window at one site may not yet show acceleration, even though the longer-term trend (decades to centuries) indicates it is happening.

Climate-driven drivers are still real

• Ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica) are losing mass, oceans are warming, and thermal expansion continues.
• Those processes affect global mean sea level, and projections show acceleration over the century. Local observations may lag behind or differ due to regional factors.

So in short: The paper provides useful local perspective and highlights variability, but it doesn’t invalidate the larger scientific consensus that global sea level rise is accelerating due to climate change.

In the paper's defense, ChatGPT also stated ...

Voortman's decision to self-fund the study ensured that the research was free from external influences, allowing for an unbiased analysis of the data. This approach has been highlighted in various media outlets, emphasizing the independence of the research.

But ...

Satellite data and gravimetry (like NASA’s GRACE mission) confirm global sea level is increasing at ~3.3 mm/year over the last few decades.

• NASA's Satellite Data: Since 1993, satellite altimetry missions like TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, Jason-2, and Jason-3 have measured global sea levels. According to NASA, the global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 3.3 millimeters per year over this period. This data is derived from precise measurements of sea surface height using radar altimeters aboard these satellites.
• GRACE and GRACE-FO Missions: The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and its successor, GRACE Follow-On (GRACE-FO), have provided complementary data by measuring variations in Earth's gravity field. These measurements help estimate changes in ocean mass, contributing to our understanding of sea level rise. Together with satellite altimetry data, they confirm the observed rise in global mean sea level.
• Scientific Consensus: Multiple peer-reviewed studies and reports from organizations like NASA and the European Environment Agency have consistently reported an average global sea level rise of about 3.3 millimeters per year since 1993. This rate has been accelerating in recent decades, primarily due to factors such as thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets

.

[Caribbean Hen]

The Global Climate Scam continues to unravel. Latest research showing no crisis in sea level rise. The corrupt IPCC overestimated (faked it) it by over 100%.

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/13/9/1641

Credits to El Cid!!

ChatGPT says it's more nuanced than that ...

The paper focuses on local tide gauge measurements—specific locations around the world. At many of those individual sites, it finds no statistically significant acceleration of sea level rise yet. But that doesn’t mean global sea levels aren’t rising faster overall, or that the processes driving sea level rise (melting ice sheets, thermal expansion of oceans, etc.) aren’t happening.

Here’s the key distinction:

Local vs. global trends

• Local sea level can be affected by things like land moving up or down (subsidence/uplift), ocean currents, or regional climate patterns.
• So even if a specific tide gauge shows little acceleration, other places may be rising faster, and the global average can still be accelerating.

Short-term vs. long-term acceleration

• Detecting acceleration in sea level rise requires long, high-quality time series.
• A single 10–20 year window at one site may not yet show acceleration, even though the longer-term trend (decades to centuries) indicates it is happening.

Climate-driven drivers are still real

• Ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica) are losing mass, oceans are warming, and thermal expansion continues.
• Those processes affect global mean sea level, and projections show acceleration over the century. Local observations may lag behind or differ due to regional factors.

So in short: The paper provides useful local perspective and highlights variability, but it doesn’t invalidate the larger scientific consensus that global sea level rise is accelerating due to climate change.

In the paper's defense, ChatGPT also stated ...

Voortman's decision to self-fund the study ensured that the research was free from external influences, allowing for an unbiased analysis of the data. This approach has been highlighted in various media outlets, emphasizing the independence of the research.

But ...

Satellite data and gravimetry (like NASA’s GRACE mission) confirm global sea level is increasing at ~3.3 mm/year over the last few decades.

• NASA's Satellite Data: Since 1993, satellite altimetry missions like TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, Jason-2, and Jason-3 have measured global sea levels. According to NASA, the global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 3.3 millimeters per year over this period. This data is derived from precise measurements of sea surface height using radar altimeters aboard these satellites.
• GRACE and GRACE-FO Missions: The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and its successor, GRACE Follow-On (GRACE-FO), have provided complementary data by measuring variations in Earth's gravity field. These measurements help estimate changes in ocean mass, contributing to our understanding of sea level rise. Together with satellite altimetry data, they confirm the observed rise in global mean sea level.
• Scientific Consensus: Multiple peer-reviewed studies and reports from organizations like NASA and the European Environment Agency have consistently reported an average global sea level rise of about 3.3 millimeters per year since 1993. This rate has been accelerating in recent decades, primarily due to factors such as thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets

.

So climate whore Gore was totally wrong

Next

[Caribbean Hen]

Global Warming Claims Crumble As Data Challenges Media Hysteria

Written by I & I Editorial Board on October 19, 2025. Posted in Current News
From various sources, here is an update on the facts and the fiction:

Summers are still summer in America – hot, but not as hot as the climatistas want us to believe they are. University of Alabama in Huntsville climate researcher Roy Spencer, who keeps up with this sort of thing, tells us summer’s hottest days in the U.S. “Have Barely Warmed in the Last 40 Years.” He continues: “Of course, you would never know this based upon media reports … in fact, most people are probably under the impression that our hottest days are rapidly getting hotter.”
A month ago, the New York Times reported, citing “scientists,” that “Severe heat this summer killed three times as many people in European cities as would have died had humans not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels.” Is that right? No, it’s not, says a fact-check service provided by a consortium of policy groups:

[UNI88]

Global Warming Claims Crumble As Data Challenges Media Hysteria

Written by I & I Editorial Board on October 19, 2025. Posted in Current News
From various sources, here is an update on the facts and the fiction:

Summers are still summer in America – hot, but not as hot as the climatistas want us to believe they are. University of Alabama in Huntsville climate researcher Roy Spencer, who keeps up with this sort of thing, tells us summer’s hottest days in the U.S. “Have Barely Warmed in the Last 40 Years.” He continues: “Of course, you would never know this based upon media reports … in fact, most people are probably under the impression that our hottest days are rapidly getting hotter.”
A month ago, the New York Times reported, citing “scientists,” that “Severe heat this summer killed three times as many people in European cities as would have died had humans not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels.” Is that right? No, it’s not, says a fact-check service provided by a consortium of policy groups:

One piece doesn't prove that climate change is fake any more than one piece proves that it's real. You have to look at the whole puzzle and all of the pieces/factors.

The other thing to consider is what are the costs/risks of ignoring it if it's real vs what are costs/risks of doing something if it isn't.

[Caribbean Hen]

Global Warming Claims Crumble As Data Challenges Media Hysteria

Written by I & I Editorial Board on October 19, 2025. Posted in Current News
From various sources, here is an update on the facts and the fiction:

Summers are still summer in America – hot, but not as hot as the climatistas want us to believe they are. University of Alabama in Huntsville climate researcher Roy Spencer, who keeps up with this sort of thing, tells us summer’s hottest days in the U.S. “Have Barely Warmed in the Last 40 Years.” He continues: “Of course, you would never know this based upon media reports … in fact, most people are probably under the impression that our hottest days are rapidly getting hotter.”
A month ago, the New York Times reported, citing “scientists,” that “Severe heat this summer killed three times as many people in European cities as would have died had humans not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels.” Is that right? No, it’s not, says a fact-check service provided by a consortium of policy groups:

One piece doesn't prove that climate change is fake any more than one piece proves that it's real. You have to look at the whole puzzle and all of the pieces/factors.

The other thing to consider is what are the costs/risks of ignoring it if it's real vs what are costs/risks of doing something if it isn't.

Where did I say it was settled?

You are the perfect example of why you can’t talk to a leftist, they can’t think past square one because most are emotionally challenged

[Gil Dobie]

Been a while since North Dakota was under a mile of ice. Left keeps rewriting their definitions to fit their agenda. First it was Global Warming, changed to Climate Change.

Instead of pointing fingers and calling names, spend your time and money on a real solution.

[UNI88]

[Caribbean Hen]

In 1982 Dan Boy Rather told America that Florida would soon be under water, today more people are moving there than anywhere ….

[UNI88]

In 1982 Dan Boy Rather told America that Florida would soon be under water, today more people are moving there than anywhere ….

WRONG

[Caribbean Hen]

In 1982 Dan Boy Rather told America that Florida would soon be under water, today more people are moving there than anywhere ….

WRONG

Rather was wrong

[UNI88]

WRONG

Rather was wrong

You said "Rather told America that Florida would soon be under water". He didn't say all of Florida would be under water. To parse words and BDKnitpick, you were WRONG.

[Caribbean Hen]

Rather was wrong

You said "Rather told America that Florida would soon be under water". He didn't say all of Florida would be under water. To parse words and BDKnitpick, you were WRONG.

If you saw the Greta map he displayed you would say it would all underwater…. Not literally but for all intents and purposes it was all underwater.

Dan Boy was wrong

[UNI88]

You said "Rather told America that Florida would soon be under water". He didn't say all of Florida would be under water. To parse words and BDKnitpick, you were WRONG.

If you saw the Greta map he displayed you would say it would all underwater…. Not literally but for all intents and purposes it was all underwater.

Dan Boy was wrong

I'll take your word for it. Who am i to question your extensive experience.

[Caribbean Hen]

If you saw the Greta map he displayed you would say it would all underwater…. Not literally but for all intents and purposes it was all underwater.

Dan Boy was wrong

I'll take your word for it. Who am i to question your extensive experience.

This post actually sounds like you’ve been going to your TDS therapy classes

My name is MSBBC 88 and I have stage 4 TDS

[UNI88]

I'll take your word for it. Who am i to question your extensive experience.

This post actually sounds like you’ve been going to your TDS therapy classes

My name is MSBBC 88 and I have stage 4 TDS

I was talking about your extensive experience being wrong.

[Caribbean Hen]

This post actually sounds like you’ve been going to your TDS therapy classes

My name is MSBBC 88 and I have stage 4 TDS

I was talking about your extensive experience being wrong.

Well, it’s you who’s been wrong about everything

[SeattleGriz]

As this thread was started about Michael Mann, here is an update.

Judge slashes award because Mann lied. Why should anyone trust Mann, when he's now known as a liar? 9.7 million to 112K is a big difference. That's a hockey stick graph of difference!

https://www.thedp.com/article/2025/05/p ... ial-update

After winning his defamation case against bloggers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn last year, Mann — Penn’s vice provost for climate science, policy, and action — has been ordered to pay attorneys’ fees totaling $477,350.80 based on the dismissal of three of his claims in 2019. The defendants filed the motion for fees under D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP Act, which is intended to protect those exercising free speech from frivolous defamation lawsuits.

In March, Irving sanctioned Mann and his legal team for providing misleading and inconsistent information during the trial. Irving called disparities in the case “an affront to the Court’s authority” and referred to the “bad-faith trial misconduct” of Mann and his legal team. He also threw out the earlier penalty owed by Steyn and reduced the damages to $5,000, stating that the verdict against Steyn was “grossly excessive.”

Mann's legal team presented a chart listing a grant that Mann allegedly lost due to the defamatory remarks as $9.7 million. However, in a separate testimony, Mann stated the grant was worth $112,000. Comparing Mann’s grant income before and after the accusations from Simberg and Steyn, Mann's lawyers initially claimed a disparity of $2.8 million, while a corrected calculation put the difference at $2.37 million

[UNI88]

As this thread was started about Michael Mann, here is an update.

Judge slashes award because Mann lied. Why should anyone trust Mann, when he's now known as a liar? 9.7 million to 112K is a big difference. That's a hockey stick graph of difference!

https://www.thedp.com/article/2025/05/p ... ial-update

After winning his defamation case against bloggers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn last year, Mann — Penn’s vice provost for climate science, policy, and action — has been ordered to pay attorneys’ fees totaling $477,350.80 based on the dismissal of three of his claims in 2019. The defendants filed the motion for fees under D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP Act, which is intended to protect those exercising free speech from frivolous defamation lawsuits.

In March, Irving sanctioned Mann and his legal team for providing misleading and inconsistent information during the trial. Irving called disparities in the case “an affront to the Court’s authority” and referred to the “bad-faith trial misconduct” of Mann and his legal team. He also threw out the earlier penalty owed by Steyn and reduced the damages to $5,000, stating that the verdict against Steyn was “grossly excessive.”

Mann's legal team presented a chart listing a grant that Mann allegedly lost due to the defamatory remarks as $9.7 million. However, in a separate testimony, Mann stated the grant was worth $112,000. Comparing Mann’s grant income before and after the accusations from Simberg and Steyn, Mann's lawyers initially claimed a disparity of $2.8 million, while a corrected calculation put the difference at $2.37 million

“Why should anyone trust Mann, when he's now known as a liar?” Can also be applied to:
- trump
- whiskeyleaks
- worm brain
- kos play noem
- susie wiles
- sean duffy
- lee zeldin
- karolying leavitt

The list goes on and on and on

People in glass houses …


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

As this thread was started about Michael Mann, here is an update.

Judge slashes award because Mann lied. Why should anyone trust Mann, when he's now known as a liar? 9.7 million to 112K is a big difference. That's a hockey stick graph of difference!

https://www.thedp.com/article/2025/05/p ... ial-update

“Why should anyone trust Mann, when he's now known as a liar?” Can also be applied to:
- trump
- whiskeyleaks
- worm brain
- kos play noem
- susie wiles
- sean duffy
- lee zeldin
- karolying leavitt

The list goes on and on and on

People in glass houses …


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've truly gone off the deep end. We have a professor who has made a shit ton off global warming propaganda and now he's been caught lying to curry favor in courts.

This is much different.

[UNI88]

“Why should anyone trust Mann, when he's now known as a liar?” Can also be applied to:
- trump
- whiskeyleaks
- worm brain
- kos play noem
- susie wiles
- sean duffy
- lee zeldin
- karolying leavitt

The list goes on and on and on

People in glass houses …

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've truly gone off the deep end. We have a professor who has made a shit ton off global warming propaganda and now he's been caught lying to curry favor in courts.

This is much different.

Now you're making a weak ass attempt to qualify your statement.

It's pretty simple. All of those people are known liars. If we can't trust Mann because he's a known liar then we can't trust them either.

[kalm]

“Why should anyone trust Mann, when he's now known as a liar?” Can also be applied to:
- trump
- whiskeyleaks
- worm brain
- kos play noem
- susie wiles
- sean duffy
- lee zeldin
- karolying leavitt

The list goes on and on and on

People in glass houses …


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've truly gone off the deep end. We have a professor who has made a shit ton off global warming propaganda and now he's been caught lying to curry favor in courts.

This is much different.

The Mann accusations were thoroughly debunked. Who knew a hockey stick pointing out the obvious was so threatening?

[SeattleGriz]

You've truly gone off the deep end. We have a professor who has made a shit ton off global warming propaganda and now he's been caught lying to curry favor in courts.

This is much different.

Now you're making a weak ass attempt to qualify your statement.

It's pretty simple. All of those people are known liars. If we can't trust Mann because he's a known liar then we can't trust them either.

You don't understand science, do you. Two totally different situations Klam Jr.

[SeattleGriz]

You've truly gone off the deep end. We have a professor who has made a shit ton off global warming propaganda and now he's been caught lying to curry favor in courts.

This is much different.

The Mann accusations were thoroughly debunked. Who knew a hockey stick pointing out the obvious was so threatening?

No they weren't. They were proven fraudulent.

[UNI88]

Now you're making a weak ass attempt to qualify your statement.

It's pretty simple. All of those people are known liars. If we can't trust Mann because he's a known liar then we can't trust them either.

You don't understand science, do you. Two totally different situations Klam Jr.

Science has nothing to do with it. It’s ideological plain and simple. Lies by people you agree with are acceptable, lies by people you disagree with are not.

The emperor has no clothes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caribbean Hen]

You've truly gone off the deep end. We have a professor who has made a shit ton off global warming propaganda and now he's been caught lying to curry favor in courts.

This is much different.

The Mann accusations were thoroughly debunked. Who knew a hockey stick pointing out the obvious was so threatening?

You also said that the entire Hunter laptop story had been debunked as fake news

You have no credibility