The Dutch People Are Rising Up To Protest "Destructive WEF Climate Law"

No, gerrymandering is gerrymandering. Period. And, one can see its effectiveness in how disproportionate representation has become in places where gerrymandering is used.

And, the idea that the roadblocks being placed in the way of specific communities of voters don't make a difference is just pure sophistry.

 

https://www.hogeveluwe.nl/en/discover-the-park/nature-and-landscape/nature-management-2

A landscape is largely defined by its vegetation. Maintaining a specific landscape means maintaining its vegetation. This, in turn, calls for the removal of certain species to make room for others or to ensure a greater variation in vegetation. And that is exactly what the park hopes to prevent.

You say this, I source the opposite.

De Hoge Veluwe National Park follows a policy of active management. This means intervening in the natural landscape, as a varied landscape that is diverse in both plants and animals requires constant adjustments. Without our intervention, the landscape would become increasingly uniform, with an ever smaller number of plants and animals able to survive within it. And that is exactly what the park hopes to prevent.

That is "was native".
And you claimed a forest like Hoge Veluwe has been destroyed, while it has been maintained for a century.
Nothing suggest the current forest elsewhere in the country are in need of pioneering.

You're just dishonest. The pine tree is not just growing, it's growing out of control. That's the bottom line of your own source. While my source says:
Without our intervention, the landscape would become increasingly uniform, with an ever smaller number of plants and animals able to survive within it.

You have yet to source how the parc that is over a century old is not maintained.

You sourced that they grow there simply because of a lot the nitrogen pollution.

I'm not hearing anything new. It's actually all kinds of things. From cars, the industry. The thing is,... the farmers are by far the biggest producers of nitrogen.

Well, let me educate you...
Not all plants are the same. A cactus can grow in a dry sandy soil. They don't grow in a marsh. Same with nitrogen.

And you are denying the nitrogen pollution like some idiot claiming there is no covid.
The OP says there is. It's scientific. Your opinion is irrelevant.

 

Learn some history. What you're calling "gerrymandering" has simply been redistricting, by both parties, for over 200 years.
You have no data for your second assertion.

 

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries to favor one party over the other.

It is NOT simply redistricting. It IS an assault on democracy.

The Voting Rights Act was enacted to combat Jim Crow.

Republicans oppose that act. We've seen Republican states ensure that minorities and those in Democratic strongholds have a far harder time voting.

The more blatant methods include allocating voting equipment to ensure short times and easy voting in Republican districts, while leaving huge and slow lines elsewhere.

For example, at Texas Southern university in the November election Trump lost, the voting lines were at least 6 hours long.

So, the use of long lines combined with laws against any kind of aid for those standing in those lines means that older voters, voters with jobs and responsibilities, etc., can not vote.

Success! Republicans just successfully assaulted Democracy. Again.

And, I'd point out that similar assaults are being planned by Republicans all across America wherever Republicans hold office.

 

LOL. These people are not intelligent. It’s no wonder they are having troubles with nitrogen. The reason the Netherlands were deforested down to only 1% of their forests remaining in the 1800’s is because morons like you are quoting removed species (native forests and grasslands) to make way for crops and intensive food animal production. If they ever want to rid themselves of their problems they are going to have to come to grips with the fact nature knows best. Before man started removing species and replacing them with others in the Netherlands there was no problem with excess nitrogen. It seems they will never learn.

Again, intervention is what has CAUSED the problems in the Netherlands. Healthy ecosystems DO NOT need humans meddling in them all the time. These people have no understanding of how to fix their problems if they think doing more of what caused the problems is the solution. They should allow their park to take natural succession back to what nature intended. It would be much better for the environment. Perhaps helping their environment is not their top priority.

The whole freaking country’s forests were destroyed. All of them. If the park had not been destroyed it would not need people meddling in it. It would naturally have an abundance of native plants and animals. If it was not unhealthy, pioneer species WOULD NOT GROW THERE because pioneer species can not compete with other species in healthy environments. Same for other forests that are comprised of almost 40% of the pioneer native species Scots pine. Again, if the forests were healthy it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to be comprised of 40% pioneer species.

Yes, the pines are growing because it’s NATURE’S way of fixing what man destroyed. Instead of letting nature repair itself they are killing the plants doing the restoration. It’s like calling a plumber to fix your leaky pipe, shooting him dead as soon as he walks through your door, and then complaining that your pipe is leaking on your couch. These fools have been “intervening” for centuries to the point they have not only destroyed most of the country’s forests, but now the soil and water as well.

The fact pines are growing there is incontrovertible proof it’s an unhealthy ecosystem. Pioneer species DO NOT GROW AND THRIVE in healthy ecosystems.

Not only because of nitrogen. Because the ecosystem is a total wreck and the species nature spend millions of years perfecting to remedy wrecks is being killed by the fools who created the wreck to begin with.

You specifically said it had nothing to do with fertilizer, only manure. You were 100% wrong.

If the plants in the Netherlands were suffering from nitrogen toxicity they would not be food exporters and they would not be killing trees they don’t like. The trees would not be growing.

Are you saying some plants don’t require nitrogen?

I have not offered opinions. I have stated facts. I have NEVER claimed the Netherlands doesn’t have nitrogen pollution. You just made that up out of straw and old rags and sticks. I have offered numerous SOLUTIONS to their nitrogen problems. I would not do that if I believed there was no problem. LOL

Please don’t invoke science in your posts. It cheapens the term when you don’t actually follow the science.

 

It's not about whether climate change is a thing or not .. it's about how they're utilising Net Zero to ease into complete control.

 

Exactly this!

But the WEF will never approach the problem thusly, because it doesn't advance their cause. They will always go with these 'displays', and in the meantime do everything in their power to ensure that we keep consuming at the same breakneck pace.

 

Yep, our consumption is what made them all wealthy enough they now believe themselves truly elite and uniquely qualified to fix the problems they created!

 

Again, what is called "gerrymandering" is simply redistricting in control of one party or another. It has been done by both parties for over 200 years. The remedy is to win elections and earn more input into redistricting.
There is no data to support the claim that any voting procedures had any effect on outcomes anywhere.
The rule against providing aid to voters in line was originally created as a good government measure, to prevent political organizations from influencing waiting voters.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, in a democracy, people who are elected to govern have rightful authority. I don't know what "violently control people" means or what relevance it has in this discussion.

 

Quote the part of the conclusion that contradicts the consensus position I stated.

 

There is no debate. AGW is a scientific fact as proven by every single study available this century. Anything else is religious dogma. And I don't debate religious dogma. Which doesn't mean I won't make fun of those who still do.

I am waiting, as I state above, for your quote of the conclusion you claimed. Which, even though I doubt you will produce, even if you did, one study would not make a dent in the literally THOUSANDS of studies that prove the consensus conclusion.

 

I don't live in Tampa. But I see you still have as much trouble understanding the concept of "average" as you do understanding the term "anecdotal"

 

The paper cited is the final puzzle piece to demonstrate the alternative climate hypothesis of Shaviv and Svensmark. This paragraph from the conclusion may help you. Bolding mine.
". . . In conclusion, a mechanism by which ions condense their mass onto small aerosols and thereby increase the growth rate of the aerosols, has been formulated theoretically and shown to be in good agreement with extensive experiments. The mechanism of ion-induced condensation may be relevant in the Earth’s atmosphere under pristine conditions, and able to influence the formation of CCN. It is conjectured that this mechanism could be the explanation for the observed correlations between past climate variations and cosmic rays, modulated by either solar activity13–17 or supernova activity in the solar neighborhood on very long time scales18–20. The theory of ion-induced condensation should be incorporated into global aerosol models, to fully test the atmospheric implications."

The alternative hypothesis is sometimes referred to as the "solar/cosmic rays" theory. Here Svensmark discusses it at some length.
FORCE MAJEURE - The Global Warming Policy Foundation
https://www.thegwpf.org › SvensmarkSolar2019
PDF
has been to quantify the solar impact on climate, and it has been found that over the eleven- year solar cycle the energy that enters the Earth's system is ...

 

Repetition does not make your claim less false. Another example:

". . . Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling).

You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776

The low climate sensitivity one obtains this way is actually consistent with other empirical determinations, for example, the lack of any correlation between CO2 variations over the past half billion years and temperature variations. See in particular fig. 6 of a sensitivity analysis I published in 2005. . . . "

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

As for consensus:

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . ."

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

 

The figures hold for high daytime, high nighttime, average high summer, average high winter, absolute high summer daytime, absolute low winter nighttime…..well, all measures of ambient air temp. You simply aren’t physiologically equipped to “feel” the changes you post about.

So you are not any more equipped to “feel” your temperature changes in Florida than you are to understand your post was anecdotal in large part. LOL

 

To me it's ALL about whether climate change is a thing or... Well, it's a thing. So I'll leave the "not" part to friends of religious dogma.

 

Every society is 9 missed meals from revolution. Folks getting red-pilled.

 

No!!! The correlation between past climate variations and cosmic rays may be VERY relevant, but NOT to the consensus conclusion. Quoting myself: "Which is that the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing, and that the anomalous increase is caused by human actions"

You claim this study contradicts the consensus conclusion that anomalous warming when not even the AUTHORS of the study claim any such thing. Unless you show the AUTHORS claiming, in the peer-reviewed publication, that this is an alternative that would explain the anomalous increase, you are talking nonsense.

And, since you didn't, it becomes obvious that you are desperately looking for some way to reassure yourself of your religious dogma.

 

I suggest you educate yourself on Svensmark's and Shaviv's body of work. The short version is that approximately half of 20th century warming was caused by solar influence. No single paper in the peer-reviewed literature is going to overturn AGW orthodoxy, but the whole point of Svensmark et al 2017 and preceding work was to explain and confirm their alternative climate hypothesis. If you don't know that background then you are not equipped to participate in this discussion.

 

Are you not understanding the consensus? Smaller or not is not the consensus. The consensus is that it exists and that the major cause is human activity (CO2 being one factor). Nothing more, nothing less... Of course, you will find studies that differ on what is "a better fit" (most of them in the higher end of impact), but NONE that contradict the consensus that I stated.

 

This from Shaviv may help you.

". . . Instead, one can and should simulate the 20th century, and beyond, and see that when taking the sun into account, it explains about 1/2 to 2/3s of the 20th century warming, and that the best climate sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling (compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C of the IPCC). Two points to note here. First, although the best estimate of the solar radiative forcing is a bit less than the combined anthropogenic forcing, because it is spread more evenly over the 20th century, its contribution is larger than the anthropogenic contribution the bulk of which took place more recently. That's why the best fit gives that the solar contribution is 1/2 to 2/3s of the warming. Second, the reason that the best fit requires a smaller climate sensitivity is because the total net radiative forcing is about twice larger. This implies that a smaller sensitivity is required to fit the same observed temperature increase. . . . "
Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct

 

I couldn't care less. All I care about is what they can PROVE. And if they can't provide PROOF that there is an alternative to the consensus opinion, it won't get published in a peer-reviewed publication. Because those require proof. You have quoted these authors, and I understand they minimize the role of CO2 in AGW. But they don't CONTRADICT the consensus opinion. So, as I said, there has not been a peer-reviewed studies that contradicts the consensus opinion that the surface temperature of the planet is raising, and that the main cause of the anomalous increase is human activity.

 

Sorry, but lower climate sensitivity is lethal to the claim of predominantly anthropogenic forcing. And Shaviv's point is that human activity did not cause more than half of 20th century warming.

 

They have provided proof in the peer-reviewed literature.
Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776