START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
label:  
  Government & Politics
| track thread
« Back to topics
How Typhoon Haiyan is Used for the Climate Lie
8 months ago
| Government & Politics

Typhoon Haiyan is used on the 19th Climate Change Conference (COP 19) currently taking place in Warsaw to bring the story of the man-made global warming alarmists again among the people.

There is a storm raging with considerable damage and inflicts casualties and immediately the climate - hysterics make a connection to CO2, claiming it would be a greenhouse gas, that warms the atmosphere.

That would be the cause of the storm.

Here this unproven assertion has been refuted a long time, just like the lie, the sea level rises and the Pacific islands sinking.

Parsifal, November 12, 2013

The point is not to belittle or to ignore the suffering of the people of the Philippines, but to show how with the plight of the people is propagated a lie over again.

The United Nations Climate Change secretary Christiana Figueres took the news situation and said at the beginning of the twelve -day meeting, the record storm was one of the 'many sobering realities' as a result of global warming.

Now all should be clear to everyone that it relates to the future of humanity in the climate change policy: 'We all will win or all lose', warned Figueres.

Naderev Sano wants to get more money from the climate fund with tears

It's like all issues that are pressed on the eye of the people are just about money.

The Philippine delegation leader Alicia Ilaga called on the participants from more than 190 countries to act now to curb climate change.

Ilagas delegation colleague Naderev Sano said with tear-choked voice, out of solidarity with his countrymen he would fast during the course of the entire twelve -day conference.

One can not afford to leave the conference with a blank Climate Fund.

Aha, that's what it is about - money.

The emotional words Sano met at the Assembly with approval.

His speech was followed by a standing ovation.

Again fallen for the crocodile tears, so that the purse is pulled out.

Clever threaded with weeping eyes and announced fasting to pull out more money of the countries climate fund wallet.

This is also the popular trick of states consisting of Pacific Islands.

'We sink into the sea and the evil CO2 producers have to pay'.

Interestingly, however, this claim is made for 20 years, but the sea is unchanged and the islands are still above water.

The people are tired in the process of this constant fear-mongering and fib, which is spread by the globalists, the greatest swindle ever, since the other scams they have invented as the fiat money, central banks and compound interest ...

read more, watch videos, check out comments

How Typhoon Haiyan is Used for the Climate Lie

8 months ago

Perpetual threats are the a key to the new statists tactics.  When the cold war ended, this bunch lost the "threat" of the great Soviet menace.  That cow was milked for five decades and (at last) had dried up.  The statists had learned their lesson.  They began to seek "threats" that were never ending and were difficult to disprove, especially  given their control over the mass propagandist media and the "educational" systems.  Thus the "war on terror", "climate change" and such.  This gives them the excuse to exert more control over the population and redistribute more wealth and power to themselves.  Each "crisis", and usually the crisis has been created by them, is immediately used to advanced their own interests.  An example was the banking crisis of 2008. That one allowed more control by the statists via regulation and the monetary system.  It also made the super rich super richer with the top .1% of the USA and other western countries to more than double their net worth in only 5 years.

.  

As history shows, this will end badly for all.        

8 months ago

Climate change is now a threat by statists? You mean sceintists? Those damn scientists and their crazy science! How dare they!

-

However, if you want to make the argument that the rich and powerful are using a real issue to try to increase profit and control of economies, I won't really argue.

The differentiator is the fact that climate change IS real. The choices we make going forward based on that fact are the issue. 1. as you say the powerful manipulate for own good and little real good for the planet. 2. We the people accept that their is a threat and it needs to be dealt with for the good of the world.

8 months ago

I thought it had been proven that the science was fudged to make it appear that global warming is man made?

I think it was proven that the earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling.

What is man made is pollution and the garbage islands in the oceans!!

8 months ago

right Rebecca

'If you want to control someone, all you have to do is to make them feel afraid'
- Paulo Coelho, The Devil and Miss Prym

This concept was successfully applied in the former empires as is today on a big scale

@ Chile:

climate change IS real

right, Chile: Climate change always took place and so still does.

Also on Planet Mars, where inhabitants assumedly have no SUV's

Maybe their government should tax them to death ?

This would be exactly the same logic...

Currently, means the last decades but there was no climate change.

In the 70's the same people who now claim the narration of Climate Change (interesting they switched from Global Warming to Climate Change in 2010 after the climate did not behave as the science for sale predicted) agreed the next Ice Age is determined and were so scared about the growing glaciers that they applied black paint on the glaciers to stop the 'Ice Age'.

'What luck for the rulers that men do not think'
- Adolf Hitler

Go Chile, fight Global Warming instead of sitting here before the sceen, waste precious energy and so cause Climate change.

8 months ago

"the science was fudged" - all of it? Proven? Of course the earth goes through natural cycles. Unfortunately this is not a natural cycle.

Of course their was climate change in the last decade. There has been massive climate change since shortly after the industrial revolution.

This group posts topic after topic about the MSM and big government and the corporatist state, yet somehow in the collective conscious here, there is no concievable way that the corporatist/statists among us want us to believe that there is NO Climate change? No possible way that the perpetual wars and land grabs for oil/gas, aka the status quo, is actually what those people want? Delay action until most of the resources have been consumed, then institute dramatic economy contolling changes. Meanwhile, you sit and believe that there is no climate change and do NOTHING while you cement their control over you with petro economy?



Brilliant.

8 months ago

Actually Chile, the models developed on global warming in the 1980's have proved to be in error. While global warming may indeed be occurring, the rate has been shown to be about 10% of what the the least dire of all the models has predicted. In other words, what is claimed to be happening in 100 years would occur in 1,000 years. 

.

Technically, this had to do with the reflectivity of cloud cover. The models being used assumed near 100% capture under the cloud cover and failed to take into account the fact that clouds also reflect back infra red (heat radiation). Satellite data confirm the reflection and disprove the models. Note the models also predicted certain atmospheric conditions that have failed to materialize.  I'm guessing you haven't bothered to look into this and just take the word of those that are milking the system.  If it fits your ideology then you accept it.   

.

As for the "science"? Do you know how much government money is given in grants for those that put in the words "climate change" in their proposals to fund a university study? How much is given to show the other side of the issue?  It's been said it's pretty hard to convince someone about something when ones living is dependent on not being convinced. and we know where the university/government money is on this issue.  The idea that the scientists are above this is silly.  

.

As an example, I read a study on viticulture a couple of months back. The person that wrote the study put in how climate change would effect which grapes might be selected in the future given "climate change". He got the funding for what he wanted to do and put a couple of paragraphs at the end of the abstract to justify the grant. That's how he got the funding. Otherwise, the funding would not have been given.

.

Some people will be swayed by these things as their existence is centered around "authoritarianism" of one form or another. Just like many are convinced by the other "side" that the USA needs to have troops all around the world and the skies have to filled with drones along with the NSA spying and repression of information and the press. Another example is the Wall Street bailouts and continuing concentration of wealth the monetary system entails. As I recall, you were convinced by "experts" and "authorities" on that one.

.

They wouldn't lie to us would they? LOL
8 months ago

Vostok Antarctica, last 12,000 years

Greenland Temperatures - last 10,000 years

8 months ago

Oh my... Ignorance is bliss.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-cosmically-behind-humans-explaining-global-warming.html

--

Oceans warming faster and acidifying - 97% sceintific consensus. And they are ALL lying! Its a scam!

relax Chile and do not hide behind a science for sale
8 months ago

Chile who owns sceptical science ?

...

Rockefeller clan ?

I mean with their ridiculous claim (reduce Carbon Dioxide to 300ppm) 300.org it is clear who would benefit.

...

It's not the biosphere.

The earth experienced ages with 7.000ppm CO2 and ALAS, we are here and life has continued until Bush and Obama appeared on the screens of history.

...

And as I said in my article, far more as a handful of scientists on the payroll of the UN oppose the Global Warming Theory by the Climate Change Hoaxters and there is NO CONSENSUS

NADA, ZERO ZILCH, NIL, NOUGHT, NOTHING.

Only is claimed the narration there would be accord...

...

A quick question to you, Chile - you know how small the portion of human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere is ?

...

Tens of thousands scientists do not agree on the GW hoax

...The Myth of the Rising Sea Levels due to Global Warming

LOL Chile cites fraud as "fact"
8 months ago
Skeptical science is hardly an unbiased source. As you are quite aware the 97% consensus claim is disputed and note that no where is there any mention of how many of the papers in question were funded by governments that have a stake in the claims on global warming. That's the point you keep on intentionally missing.
.
But correct me if I'm wrong Chile: your pay is connected with being on the side of global warming, directly or indirectly. Mine is not on either side. I also happen to be pretty frugal on my use of energy and resources. Almost surely I use less than you do. I also advocate a economic philosophy that reduces the waste in our society of resources. You on the other hand, embrace Keynesian economics which is based on aggregate demand vs savings and utility.  
.
Your positions are inconsistent with your claims.  Including of this issue.  When the inconsistencies are removed it reveals that  your core philosophy which is clearly Statist. You have no problem with the use of force against others to acheive what you want.  The rest is just rationalization.  Easy to see through. 

 

8 months ago

'When we allow science to become political then we are lost.
We will enter the internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better'
- Michael Crichton

...

Dr. Jim, we should be deliberate and empathetic when dealing with the addicts of the Global Warming Sect.

Because to detach common sense and replace with a religion of guilt and fear may, in some cases take time.

Maybe years.

And no one of the minions of the cult wants to confess to have fallen for the 'OMG, save the planet' mantra.

Right, we should not confuse Global Warming with Environmental pollution but this is an other topic.

...

I agree with you on infantrist Chile, which I know for years now and he is a sound denier of NON Global Warming and possibly was promised a higher rank in the society of Alarmists and bows before the political correct dogma 'mankind is to blame for something that does not even exist...'


...

~~~~~~~~

Chile, I'm bounteous today, here's a fine read you may print out and put the essay under your pillow to sleep well and without fear before the chimera of 'Global Warming'

written by Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball

...

'There is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change'.

Global Warming - The greatest deception in the history of science



This post was modified from its original form on 19 Nov, 8:49
8 months ago

How many times are you going to accuse me of the same thing? more than half my income comes from mining/oil and gas/power clients. THe other part is municipalities and utilities. So tell me then, who pays you?

-

Yeah? and Jeanne Nova is? Skeptical Science is a easy location to find recent papers published by other people. Come on. You mock yourself. Govenrment has a stake in non-global warming too. WTF? You are all of a sudden blinded to corporate influence in government? Again, you mock yourself.

-

Again, back to my original point, we as a society, collectively, can opt for working for change. Or force will have to be used at some point. Plain and simple. And yes, I have no problems with collective governance inacting change.

Climategate: Obama's Climate Change Laugh
8 months ago

Chile, the man from TX said

Govenrment has a stake in non-global warming too. WTF?

As so often, epic fail Chile, you're wrong

...

Climategate: Obama's Climate Change Laugh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOmeKr5J-do

Global Warming Greatest deception in the history of science
8 months ago

By Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball
“There is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change.”

(Excerpts – 5 Feb 07) – Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth.

But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.

Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Let me stress I am not denying the (global warming) phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970′s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990′s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

Passive acceptance yields less stress

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

If Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment? ...

read more

Global Warming - The greatest deception in the history of science

“The consensus was reached before the research had even begun”

8 months ago

Yep, Jim. Dr. Tim Ball is on your side! Credibality abounds!

8 months ago

Chile: " I have no problems with collective governance inacting change." Obviously. It benefits you and others have to pay for it. You get paid because of this this so you support it. And yes, Corporate influence abounds in DC. You support that special interest influence and power Chile. I don't. Thanks for making my point again .

.

As for who writes your checks? It does not matter. OF COURSE you get your money from mandates the government sets forth. That's the point. You are advocating for your own benefit. I appreciate you making my point for me again, but it isn't really needed. Everyone here understands where you are coming from.

.

"Skeptical Science is a easy location to find recent papers published by other people" Of course. It is a location to get publiched advocacy papers for particular viewpoints that you agree with. How does that make it more relevant?  Other way around.   But you seem to feel because it mirrors your beliefs that somehow it makes it more relevant. Just a bit myopic andmore than a little hubristic  

.

As far as my money? As I said, I built several business from scratch and made money the old fashion way: I earned it by being productive. I didn't use force or coercion to get money. I didn't run to the State for "collective" (Special Interest) " governance" to force others to accept a service I got paid for. I didn't support or use the State to suppress competition either.

.

Hey Chile, I understand what you stand for and why. I don't accept the bs reasons that you give. Of course you really could be so far gone that you don't realize why yourself. That would explain some of the things you write.    



This post was modified from its original form on 19 Nov, 12:44
NASA Discovery: Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
8 months ago

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

.

"A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere. 

.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that 'greenhouse gases' actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface."

8 months ago

Every time I venture in here, the converstation always turns to what I do and what I am and what generalizations you can make about me, most of which are fictitious.

What that shows is that you know you are wrong. You know your arguments are faulty and without merit.

--

Jim, I get paid because population is growing and people need water. Industry is developing and they need water. They need people to find it, treat it, move it and clean it. So again. You are wrong.

-

The funny thing is that you think you could have built the same businesses in a climate with out strong governance. Like your business would have succeeded in Afghanistan, or Rwanda, or Somalia. You are more reliant on the strong governement and the business protections than I am. I actually have done work for industry in some of those "failing" states. Industry doesn't care. But keep lying to yourself. You pulled yourself up by your bootstraps. Didn't take advantage of all the infrastructure that Fed, State, and Local governments built so you could do business. What foolish man you are.

-

I have no problem with collective governance for change when people are acting in ways that harm me and my rights as a citizen of the planet. And you do to, but you just lie to yourself and pretend that nothing governance does affects or benefits you. Its borderline psychotic.

__


No Skeptical Science is a resource for finding papers that publish the latest science on Climate Change. They talk about the triffling few papers that disagree with it as well. But again, your hypocrisy knows no bounds as you feel like you can cite a Joane Nova's cite with impunity. Jim your hypocrisy is showing as it always does.

8 months ago

Chile: ........"The funny thing is that you think you could have built the same businesses in a climate with out strong governance."

.

The problem with your claims Chile, is your "strong governance" is actually control of the government by special interests. Which you have essentially admitted. You favor a powerful central government which is controlled by those special interests. You might claim to oppose what the government is doing as in the war on drugs, security state, repression of free speech, US foreign policy. BUT you would not give up any of the power that the government has if that was necessary to curb those abuses.

.

As for the straw man arguments aka "Somalia"....keep in mind that the diaorder in Somalia was the direct result result of "strong governance", i.e., a powerful central government under Barre; not free markets and liberty. The fragile traditional systems were undemined by Barre leading to collapse. Regardless, comparisons of tribal based nation states with completely different histories is just silly. Unless you think the USA is actually tribal, non industrialized and has a similar history.

.

Likewise your claim that I could not have made money and been successful if it wasn't for "strong governance" is both a specious argument and a non sequitur. Your claim I need "strong governance" in order to build a business is absurd. The tired old claim "there is no progress and no growth in the economy without government control" has been laid to rest, or should have been, with the demise of many failed nation states that had "strong governance".

.

In fact, I have been prevented, obstructed, delayed and charged for the "privilege" by the government is setting up a business that would initially employ 16 people. That number would grow 10 fold within 15 years. AND I am not the only small business person that is having this problem. Notice that under the straight jacket of the government, the participation rate in the economy is at a 35 year LOW. Notice that BIG business that ship jobs overseas and Wall Street firms are doing exceptionally well, while the general economy is %#&!*%. That average real wages have declined for 5 years in row.......

.

Yes, there is your "strong governance" at work. At work for those connected with the government. HARMING the economy. EXPLOITING the people. That's what you support. Guess what? There is a better way. We don't need your massive, corrupt special interest driven, crony capitalistic "strong governance".

.

8 months ago

What are you talking about Chile.  :  "...as you feel like you can cite a Joane Nova's cite with impunity."  

I didn't cite anything from this source, and I have looked up to see if papers that I have read that disagree with the climate change claims are there.  They are NOT.  This is simply an advocacy site.  That's OK, but claiming that it is unbiased source is a fail.  

.  

It's telling that you cannot tell the difference.  

8 months ago

your chart has her website link on it! wow...

8 months ago

Yeah, sure. You were "prevented" from creating a company that would grow 10 fold in 15 years! Of course you were jim. We all believe you..

-

The rest of your spew... just crap. Same argument you always make, everyone else is impure and you are pure...got it.

Really?
8 months ago

The site we are talking about that you cited is "Skeptical Science". Blog started by John Cook.

  • In his own words: "How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website"..

In other words, when he set it up, he already had made up his mind. So, it is an advocacy site. 

  • "Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.".

In other words this is how he makes his living. As I said, it's pretty had to get a person to be unbiased when his paycheck depends on a pre set viewpoint. 

.

More on Cook and "Skeptical Science".

  • According to his official biographyat Australia’s Queensland University, John Cook is a researcher/postdoctoral fellow. He is the creator of the misleadingly-titled SkepticalScience.comwebsite (it’s a ferocious defender of non-skeptical climate thought).
  • Over at The Conversation website, Cook’s profile says he earned a bachelor of science back in 1989. Although he currently holds three positions with two different Australian universities – adjunct researcher, adjunct lecturer, and climate communication research fellow – no other academic degrees are listed. We’re advised that his current research interests are in “Psychology And Cognitive Sciences.”
  • Those of us unfamiliar with Australian academia are left scratching our heads. If Cook has completed a Masters and a PhD why doesn’t his bio say so? If he hasn’t, how can he be a postdoctoral fellow?
  • Between 1995 and 2010, Cook was the creator of a popular web-based comic strip. In 2011, the Australian museum recognized the contribution Cook’s SkepticalScience website has made to the “Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.” Cook pocketed $10,000 and can now claim to have won a prestigious Eureka Prize.
  • .

So far you haven't come up with anything Chile. Other than the usual, "everyone knows", "Argumentum ad populum.

.

Cooks background as a comic strip creator is interesting though. He was known for creating a number of online parodies and hoaxes. From there to being "defender of great climate change claims" must have have been a easy transition.   



This post was modified from its original form on 21 Nov, 7:35
8 months ago

One of the products I helped design is in more than half the households in the USA Chile.
.
You can believe or not, I don't really care. You just cannot accept that your glorious State is increasingly run by criminals. And you have been unable to refute anything I or others have posted.

Skeptical of "Skeptical Science"
8 months ago

The Truth about Skeptical Science

.
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

.
John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

.
Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,
"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science

.

.

(Above)  A link from the Skeptical Science "About" page originally went to his cartoonist page.

.

.

It is very important for Mr. Cook to keep up this facade, as once people learn of his lack of credentials and scientifically worthless employment history they are unlikely to take his website seriously no matter how he desperately pads his resume. As opposed to the highly credentialed climate scientists his staff harassed and censored;

.

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)
.

scientists censored by by Skeptical Science (cont)
8 months ago

Roger A. Pielke Sr., B.A. Mathematics, Towson State College (1968); M.S. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1969); Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1973); Research Assistant, Pennsylvania State University (1968); National Science Foundation Trainee, Pennsylvania State University (1968-1971); Research Meteorologist, Experimental Meteorology Laboratory, NOAA (1971-1974); Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1974-1977); Distinguished Authorship Award, NOAA (1974); Leroy Meisinger Award, American Meteorological Society (1977); Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1978-1981); Chief Editor, Monthly Weather Review (1981-1985); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (1982); Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1982-1985); Abell New Faculty Research and Graduate Program Award (1984); Deputy Director, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (1985-1988); Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1985-2000), Abell Research Faculty Award (1987/1988); Researcher of the Year, Colorado State University Research Foundation (1993), Pennsylvania State Centennial Fellow (1996); Alumni of the Year, Pennsylvania State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (1999); Colorado State Climatologist (1999-2006); Engineering Dean's Council Award, Colorado State University (2000); Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University (2003-2006); Fellow, American Geophysical Union (2004); Visiting Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona (2004); Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Senior Research Associate, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (2007-Present)

.

via:http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html



This post was modified from its original form on 21 Nov, 8:21
8 months ago

So Jim, what do you think of the Union of Concerned Scientists?  Are they "alarmist" as well?

8 months ago

No. Its NOT how he makes his living.

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.

=====

But they were mean to Dr. Peilke! Ahh, poor babies!

THey also have the Truth about John Stewart:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/10/the-truth-about-jon-stewart.html

How does anyone take you seriously? I sure don't.

So your website lies about another website, you misattribute motive, yet you probably still think your sources are Fine. Got it

--

But what Skeptical science does is first accumlate papers that were published on Climate Science and disseminate them to people. They also have pages showing arguments of why so many of the theories against CC are wrong.

--

But again, you don't care that you and your "source" flat out lie. And that you refused to acknowledge the source of your first posts.

You're just pathetic.

8 months ago

Everyone is Nancy! They all get paid by this global conspiracy to control the free markets and take everyone's liberty!!!

8 months ago

Yup,  But you do have to admit that some ARE using Climate Change for political purposes. 

8 months ago

As I said Nancy people that I know in the scientific community have put a few paragraphs in on "climate change" in order to get grants to do their research. I asked one if he was convinced that there was global warming caused by man he said: "I really don't know". An honest answer..

.

We are told that there is no dispute on this question, but the site above has over a thousand peer reviewed papers questioning this claim: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

.

As I recall, the Union of Concerned Scientists thought that climate cooling was the problem in the 1970's.

.

I also noticed that they claimed that major corporations, in this case GE, were funding those that questioned the claims of global warming. They were forced to retract that statement when it turned out the GE was ONLY FUNDING THOSE IN THE ACC/AGW camp. Now, why would a major corporation only fund one side of this issue?

.

. Here is the retraction by the UOCS: "We now conclude that GE has only funded non-profit groups that support climate science. Previously, we had concluded they were funding groups that misrepresent climate science"....

.

I always try to look closer when it seems that one side is being shouted down by those that have a vested interest in a position. Ten years ago I believed what the corporate/media/government/university complex was telling us. Since then, I have looked closer and while It may be the case that there is global warming occurring, it is not out of line with what has occurred in the past 10,000. In fact, it is still quite a bit cooler than it has been over the last 10,000 years. And the fact is that the ACC/AGW models have been disproved over since they were made 20-25 years ago.

.

The fact is I'd really like to move to a different energy source(s). One of my projects is to prove the use of ultracapacitors as a storage of voltaic electricity for housing. They take a lot more space than lithium batteries, but they are much less polluting and they don't need replacing for a century or more vs 20 years.

.

I'm not wild about carbon sources. Heck, I don't even like the noise that cars and especially motorcycles make. But that does not alter the opinion that the Corporate State and powerful special interests appear to be creating another crisis and grabbing more power and wealth to themselves by these claims. I don't trust these people.  

.

The media is shouting down those that disagree.  Corporations and  government is only funding one side.  Information is being censored.  People are being bought off.  This reminds me of 2002 and 2003 when we were told that there were WMD and al Qaeda in Iraq.  I didn't believe that either after looking into it carefully.  IMO, fear mongering and a nebelous threat is being used to expand power and authority of the State and those that run it for their own purposes.

8 months ago

Nancy, I couldn't agree more that people are using climate change for political purposes, it was the first post I made in this thread. But its a big difference from using an issure for political gain and creating an issue for political gain.

-

"Never let a good crisis go to waste". There is no doubt about it. But that does not mean that we don't have to do something about climate change.

8 months ago

Chile: "But what Skeptical science does is first accumulate papers that were published on Climate Science and disseminate them to people. They also have pages showing arguments of why so many of the theories against CC are wrong."

..........But notice that Cook has failed to publish or has censored the refutations of his arguments on those very papers. That's the point. He pretends to have an open debate, but does not. The refutations of his arguments made him look silly. That's when he got abusive. Hmmm......He's not the only one doing that to those that question.
.

BTW, The comments on Cooks resume come directly from screen shots on his own site Chile. That's an incontinent truth isn't it?

.

Where did I say Cook where Cook was getting money for his site Chile. Put up or shut up. Where did I make any claims on that?????
.
I said that Cook makes his living by his advocacy of climate change claims. I stand by that statement. He makes money on speaking engagements and via funding on his job. There is nothing wrong with that, but it hardly makes him unbiased.
.

Sorry I've questioned another one of your icons Chile. I must have struck a nerve with you. You're getting abusive like Cook has. Just can't handle those that don't accept the claims made. . Pretty sad way to argue a point. It's known as argumentum verbosium.

8 months ago

Go ahead and do something then Chile. Talk to people. Educate and convince them if you can.
.
I don't really have a dog in this fight other than to oppose the use of force on others and to resist the encroachment of the powerful on the public.
.
The fact remains, the claims are unproven. and you seek empower government to use force on others, then you are using aggression.

OUCH!
8 months ago

Air Temperatures

One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the "father of global warming":

Figure 3
Figure 3
Hansen's predictions to the US Congress in 1988,[6] compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.[7]
another failed prediction
8 months ago

A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC's First Assessment Report:[8]

Figure 4
Figure 4
Predictions of the IPCC's First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.

It's 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

maybe in the oceans? ...... nope.
8 months ago
Figure 5
Figure 5
Climate model predictions of ocean temperature,[11] versus the measurements by Argo.[12] The unit of the vertical axis is 10^22 Joules (about 0.01°C).
must be in predicted "hot spots" at the equator. Well....No.
8 months ago
Figure 6
On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons.[14] On the right is what the climate models say was happening.[15] The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.
Emitted radiation? Every cc model failed.
8 months ago

Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth's surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation. Here are the results:

Figure 7
Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea-surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper-left graph) and as "predicted" by 11 climate models (the other graphs).[17] Notice that the slopes of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.

This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification shown in figure 1 does not exist.

8 months ago

This reminds me of the claims made by the other statists (Neo-Cons) on Iraq.  I  didn't believe their claims.   But for YEARS in the face of massive proof that there were no WMD's and no al Queda connections, the media and the government continued to make claims that just weren't true.  It's almost a religion for some to believe this stuff.   Note I did believe that the Clinton sanctions on Iraq were causing massive numbers of children to die.  The media hardly mentioned it.  Why?  

8 months ago

So........  As I mentioned, I actually do think some climate change is likely.  At about 1/10 the rate claimed.  But that would not create a immediate threat.....And so it would not empower the political class.

.

Have a nice warm weekend all.  

8 months ago

Dr. Jim, climate change always takes place.

But there was none the last two decades.

Chile, let's not talk about computer models which if continued, will predict doomsday, undoubtly.

Why not speaking in terms of real life instead throw the reader something as:

'Click it because I am right !'

Look Chile we should not believe the UNIPCC (so called) climate scientists because their computer-based predictions simply do not arrive:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

Why would we give in to be lied to and taxed to death by a government, horny to save the banks and their other principals, certain corporations with mandatory climate certificates on the shoulders of the citizen based by an invented peril and the resulting dread, based exclusively (!) on predictions in the cubbyhole and laboratories and not by observing nature ?

Look at the charts
8 months ago

LOL.  The climate scientists knew all this before and they made models that predicted what would happen.  The models didn't work.  So,  people like Cook make excuses, rationalize and deny.  Like those that continued to say there were WMD in Iraq.  When people believe something in religious like way, the first thing that happens when confronted with reality is denial.  The models didn't work.  Period.  The charts above prove that.  The very charts/prediction/data that the climate change cultists came up with in the first place.  

.

In the middle ages, the "experts" of the time were convinced that the earth was the center of the Universe.  As more and more observed data came in via  budding optics advances, instead of using this data to understand reality, the "experts" and established order, commisioned (paid for) ever more complicated models that matched their beliefs.  When these models were shown to be wrong, the "center of the universe" order attacked and ridiculed those that pointed out the disparity in observe  This was a violation of the scientific method as the scientific method is based on the LEAST complex model/theory that explained the data.  

.

Today we have a similiar occurence in the ACC/AGW community.  Like their middle age predecessors, when their claims and models turn out to be incorrect, instead of adjusting the underlying theories, they make ever more complicated models to expain why their models didn't work. And they are being paid to do this by the established order.....  The more things change, the more they are the same.  

The Truth about Skeptical Science
8 months ago

Thank you for posting your great find Jim, really appreciate, I deem it is necessary this excellent work goes viral to destroy the lying structures for good. Alone the offer by a co worker of Al Gore to John Cook speaks volumes...

...

Skeptical Science: The Partnership with Al Gore

"This morning, had a long skype call with a guy working with Al Gore's Climate Reality Project. [...] He brought up the possibility of a partnership. [...] an exciting opportunity and another vindication of what we're doing" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 27, 2011

...

This all is exactly how todays bookburners work and deceive but I doubt there will be not a single corporation or lobbying group, think tank which benefits from the Global Warming hoax send their donations, allocations from time to time to keep the illusion running (but have no evidence yet)

The more threats the scoundrels aka scientists (for sale) invent the more money flows into their direction.

The creeper their show the more spectators, which will then turned into believers of the cult.

I really have been overlooking your above comment exposing 'skeptical science', sorry for that....

...

currently I'm working on an other essay about CO2, which is heavier as (surrounding) air and can not rise to the higher layers of atmosphere and there cause a greenhouse effect...

8 months ago

David Evans who has never published a peer reviewed article on global warming is now more credible than 10's of thousands of scientists...


Got it.

Also Popular Technology.net is funded by oil companies. But that is OK.

8 months ago

there are NO tens of thousands of credible PRO GLOBAL WARMING scientists brother Chile, on the contrary - it is the UNIPCC who claims to have climate scientists but most of them are laymen or better said lyingmen.

.

In reality, it is only a handful, appointed by governments people sitting on the chairs in the MET Office at the UN-IPCC, feeding the computer with most imaginative data IN ORDER TO EXAGGERATE FACTS AND SO KEEP THE MOST GULLIBLE WORLD IN FEAR BEFORE A CHIMERA - watch:

.

Give Me A Break - Global Warming - one of the most censored mini documentations in the www about the religion of guilt and fear

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHCJ-UhZFT4

.

.

Why, instead of fear mongering don't you relax, put the solar panels on your house roof, engage in free energy development, drive an eco-powered cruiser use these toxic squirly indecent lightbulbs, avoid heating your house in winter and warm water for shower, sit in the dark such as every addicted Global Warming Alarmist does ?

Am I wrong with my assessment Chile ?

.

.

(Fact is, there is not only no accord among the people, the UN-IPCC claims to be scientists from the field of Climate Research on their payroll nor they pull the same string in the same direction).

.

And the question remains, why humanity has to pay via Carbon tax the plain lies and inventions of a madgone UN panel ?

.

How the carbon tax became the 'killing fields' of Australian politics
Climate change and carbon pricing have toppled political leaders and divided Australia.
(The Guardian)

About the NIPCC
8 months ago

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.

http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

.

(A true fact finding gem on 'Climate Change)

.

GLOBAL WARMING PETITION PROJECT

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

source

CO2 is Heavier than Air
8 months ago


If one studies the history of coal mining, one discovers an interesting detail, namely how the miners themselves protected by a gas poisoning.

They were using birds, even small canaries in cages and took them deep down into the tunnel to where they taking down the coal.

As long as the birds were singing, the miners knew, it's all right.

Was it suddenly silent, then there was imminent danger, now they must get out.

The birds responded very early on bad air.
Parsifal, July 2, 2009

.
When the gases are carbon monoxide, methane and carbon dioxide, the birds responded immediately to too high concentration.

The deeper the miners dug, the more dangerous it was because the gas is heavier than air, which, is collected at the deepest point of the pit.

I say it again more clearly ... Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air.

Each of us, up to the '90s was in a discotheque and seen the special effects on stage knows, the smoke was mostly no smoke, but a fog of CO2, from a dry-ice machine, which flows like a liquid on the floor and behaves like a waterfall on steps.

The reason is CO2 is heavier than air.

It does not rise up like smoke, but falls down.

Here's a video to illustrate:

Dry Ice in Boiling Water

.
video SaveFrom.net
.
However, it is claimed by the climate - hysterics, CO2 is raising up where it causes a greenhouse effect.

The gas would form a layer several kilometers high above the planet, which absorbs the heat from the sun or reflected back to earth.
.
How CO2 to ascend into the sky, and there catch as the glass of a greenhouse the heat when this gas is heavier than air ?

It must yet remain near the ground.

One can also not inflate a balloon with CO2 which then flies.

The balloon falls like a stone to the ground.

.
'CO2 formed certainly no magic layer in the atmosphere which acts like a greenhouse', says the chemist Hans Schreuder. 'This is pseudo-science' !
.
'CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air', agrees Dr. Tim Ball, a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg in Canada.

'One of the greatest fallacies of the proponents of the theory of global warming is that CO2 can easily and quickly mix in the atmosphere.

That it does not.

They also argue that CO2 is the most effective way to capture the heat from the Earth (infrared radiation) in the uppermost layers of the atmosphere.

Therefore, their computer models predict the greatest warming takes place high in the atmosphere over the tropics.

The only problem is that temperature measurements carried out do not confirm that'.
.
Anyway, it's amazing how all the claims about climate change in the future are built only on computer models and have nothing to do with reality.

As if one can simulate the complexity of the global climate in a computer.

If only one factor is ignored, then the whole model is wrong, and their prognosis is for the garbage.

And the weathermen make it so not even to predict the weather with their supercomputers more than three days in advance for a city and then they are usually wrong.

.
Now they are talking for 20 years about the threat of global warming, already said at the time ahead, in Central Europe, in place of snowfalls will be Palm Beaches and we will have a tropical climate, and what happened ?

Nothing, on the contrary, the last winter was very cold and very snowy, the climate even cools for 10 years and more and more people freeze off the arse or even to death.
.
How credible are then their claims and predictions ?

.

read more

CO2 is Heavier than Air

8 months ago

Wow. Of all the stupid articles on the internet, you picked the winner

8 months ago
    1. Uh huh Chile, the "scientists" that have rejected the scientific method are paid directly and indirectly by the government and special interests in the "green technology" industry. The government and those that support this crap gain more money and power by claiming there is rapid global warming. But somehow we are to believe that they are not effected by this? LOL. Your own arguments are centered around energy special interests, but because it fits your political dogma and your own beliefs, somehow it is beyond question. Kind of like a religious belief.
    2. You say that Popular Science is funded by oil companies? I couldn't find that, but if those that get paid by oil companies connected companies be dismissed from the claims made then shouldn't Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science be one of the people on your list of discredited sources? And shouldn't people that get "more than half my income comes from mining/oil and gas/power clients." be discredited also. Oh wait. That would be you Chile
    3. BTW, Notice that you haven't been able to reply on the data that shows the climate change models have been consistent...... Consistently wrong that is.
    4. BTW, there are not 10's of thousands of climate scientists that are making this claim. Other scientists may be following the herd, or not, but the consensus if very often wrong. Take for example the "scientific" and "medical" consensus on marijuana. This went on for decades. An example of a medical "expert" changing his mind would be Dr Sanjay Gupta,
    5. And there are MANY powerful corporations that are funding the ACC/AGW camp. Perhaps they should be discredited.
    6. That would largely leave governments sources. Doubtless you would claim that the government wouldn't lie to us? LOL. WMD. There is no housing bubble. There wasn't any fraud in the financial crisis. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.  

    .

8 months ago

1. Yes. When 10 of thousands of articles are published across the world, with various governments, various foundations and they overwhelimgly in consensus yes. Absolutely.

2. I sais Popular Technology.net is - which is one of the sources you are using.

3. I posted a response. A link and the word FAIL. Did you know Joanne Nova and David Evans are Business Partners in a communications firm! no conflict there.

4. Yes there are.

5. There are corportions on both sides. True. But the overhwelming the science is clear.

6. Come on, you are going to complain about logical falicies.


but at least you have Parsifal posting in support of you

8 months ago

Chile why you always fail.

I wonder why you trying so hard convincing someone bare of arguments or evidence on the Global Warming mantra, 'Yes, Global Warming Is Real' as apologetes (defenders of a religion) constantly use to do; απολογητής - Greek for apologists - apologetes.

.

Does this behavior have a certain reason ?

.

You should understand, you make yourself ridiculous as in your posts you only repeat the mantra and here and then drop some links from a page, already debunked by Dr. Jim as sorry effort.

.

Scientific evidence you ignore as Rebecca posted and go ahead like a wounded Texan bull who only has one target to offend the 'deniers' of the replacement religion of Global Warming.

.

It is so sad to see how this discussion slips away from the topic and instead of showing commiseration to the victims and their relatives by the taifun 14 days ago which hit so hard the Philippines you go on and on and constantly bring-up the prayer wheel.

.

While we (one-sided) discuss Global Warming there has accumulated evidence on the enormous impact of Geoengineering which may, at least have contributed to the enormoussss havoc in Indonesia....

.

Yes, Dr. Jim, there are paralleles between WMD's (Iraq) and Global W.

Both gave the pretext on war.

For me, there are two kind of wars - the war against humanity (Global Warming scam) and the war against Terra (Wars all over the planet).

Both exclusively benefit a minority which can be summarized as the 0,1%.

And these socio-psychopaths exploit the good doers and political correct to wage war against their own people and basis of life.

.

Global Warming Panic explained

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

.

check out:

.- How Typhoon Haiyan Is Used for the Climate Lie
World  (tags: Typhoon Haiyan, global warming or not? )
Elderberry - 3 days ago - lovingenergies.spruz.com

Typhoon Haiyan is used on the 19th Climate Change Conference (COP 19) currently taking place in Warsaw to bring the story of the man-made global warming alarmists again among the people....(Thanks Parsifal)

13 comments

8 months ago

Chile I have to send you a green star for writing my name correctly.

8 months ago
  1. The vast consensus by governments and those funded by government and corporate sponsers like GE?  Gee, that's conforting.  There was a consensus on global cooling 4 decades ago.   See also other comments 
  2. And I have pointed the ACC/AGW camp is funded by special interests so you really have no point.
  3. I read your link. It just rehashed previously refuted points.
  4. Not that are making this claim.  
  5. You keep on repeating this Chile, but you have not been able to refute the real data shown in the charts above.
  6. Yes.  In fact, you are using quite a few.
8 months ago

When I was in college getting my first degrees I took a Psychology course. One of the criteria to get the credit for the course was to be subject to a number of studies being done at that time. A number of the studies have been published. One of them had to do with group psychology. In this study there was a chalk board with four lines on it seen through the window in the next room. Each person was to say how many lines there were on then chalk board. I saw three, but everyone in the room said "four". Now the other people in the room were not real subjects in the study, but were there to provide the "crowd" consensus. Above 90% of the population would change their opinion on the number of lines to match the group. I was one of the under 10% that didn't.

.

I make up my mind based on what I discern, not based on what I am told. I do not blindly accept either authority or group think. I look at the facts and make up my mind based on those facts. The "majority" does not convince me. "Authority" does not influence me. I am a individual, not a member of a collective.

.

This does not mean I am always right.  But it is part of my liberty to be wrong based on my own viewpoints and decisions.  Along with this is my right to do what I choose with my life and the property that is based on my productivity.

.

I do not force others to buy something from me or support what I believe in with their time or their money.  Those that do this are exploiters.  If they use the State to force their moral, social or economic concepts on others, then they are supporting despotism.  

Physics Professor Confirms: HAARP Capable of Warming Arctic
8 months ago

High-power ELF radiation generated by modulated HF heating of the ionosphere can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and strong localized heating.

image top: Fran De Aquino, PhD

.
Maranhao State University, Physics Department, S.Luis/MA, Brazil.

Abstract:  The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is currently the most important facility used to generate extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation in the ionosphere.

In order to produce this ELF radiation the HAARP transmitter radiates a strong beam of high- frequency (HF) waves modulated at ELF. This HF heating modulates the electrons’ temperature in the D region ionosphere and leads to modulated condu ctivity and a time-varying current which then radiates at the modulation frequency. Recently, the HAARP HF transmitter operated with 3.6GW of effective radiated power modulated at frequency of 2.5Hz. It is shown that high-power ELF radiation generated by HF ionospheric heaters, such as the current HAARP heater, can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and strong localized heating.…Continue (.pdf)

.

Recently Completed Planetary Network of Climate Modification - Weapons That Global Warming Scientists and IPCC Will Not Talk About.  HERE


video: Huge Weather Modification Base Discovered in South Indian Ocean

.

read more

Physics Professor Confirms HAARP is Capable of Warming Arctic

10 Climate Myths Busted (in 60 seconds!)
8 months ago

The Corbett Report presents a one minute debunking of 10 common climate myths

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB109lhkAyk SaveFrom.net

Published on 9 Dec 2013 by corbettreport

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=8370

so much about anthropogenic global warming
8 months ago
This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.