UC Berkeley signs joint research pact with Israeli govt (legal, attorney, activist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those people are idiots who should be arrested. I 100% agree with you.
But they also are not representative of students at Berkeley. They were a few hundred anarchist tools that took over the protest - as they have done in the past, too.
I'm in complete agreement with you in that they should be arrested.
Well, with all the cops and security, why were there no arrests? Nothing, nada!
Let me tell you why, because the students, university and the town were in full support of this violent protest. Just look at all the social media support.
It was so blatant and brazen that the POTUS himself said, "If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?"
So you can all try to hide behind the men in the masks, but 'they' are everywhere you go. Very telling. You're doing nothing to try to stop them.
It's truly one of the most succinct examples of modern bigotry!
The textbook definition of a bigot is someone who makes dumb, irresponsible, sweeping statements such as yours.
What other stereotypes and extrapolations would you like to share with us?
Nice try (not really!), but when you type in BIGOT into google you get this
Search Results
big·ot
ˈbiɡət/ noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
synonyms:chauvinist, partisan, sectarian; More
Correct. They are not representatives of the school, they arent students, they arent administration etc.
They came up Telegraph Av from Oakland, reaked havoc and then went back to Oakland and tweeted about it:
Of course the real story is inconvenient to those who are itchinh to take it out on the university...FOX News milked this guilt-by-association LIE for days.
Which is why I created this thread, to show that UC Berkeley isnt going to be stopped by their lies or the president's fake threats.
So you have a tweet from some group in masks as the source of your "real story". *Proof* that it wasn't students. Hilarious!
That isn't the point. The point is that AGW isn't happening at the rate 36 of the 38 climate models predicted. The models' predicted rates of warming are off, quite significantly.
Well, with all the cops and security, why were there no arrests? Nothing, nada!
Let me tell you why, because the students, university and the town were in full support of this violent protest. Just look at all the social media support.
It was so blatant and brazen that the POTUS himself said, "If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?"
So you can all try to hide behind the men in the masks, but 'they' are everywhere you go. Very telling. You're doing nothing to try to stop them.
It's truly one of the most succinct examples of modern bigotry!
I go to Berkeley weekly. I know people who go to the school and know non-students that live there.
They were not in favor of the idiot anarchists. Most normal people are fed up with these people. Stop believing all of the nonsense that you read everywhere. Most people at Berkeley are just trying to attend school and aren't protesting, let alone rioting.
Do you know how many people go to UC Berkeley or live in Berkeley? Do you know how many people were protesting? And rioting (small % of overall protest)?
That isn't the point. The point is that AGW isn't happening at the rate 36 of the 38 climate models predicted. The models' predicted rates of warming are off, quite significantly.
A paper led by James Risbey (2014) in Nature Climate Change takes a clever approach to evaluating how accurate climate model temperature predictions have been while getting around the noise caused by natural cycles. The authors used a large set of simulations from 18 different climate models (from CMIP5). They looked at each 15-year period since the 1950s, and compared how accurately each model simulation had represented El Niño and La Niña conditions during those 15 years, using the trends in what's known as the Niño3.4 index.
Each individual climate model run has a random representation of these natural ocean cycles, so for every 15-year period, some of those simulations will have accurately represented the actual El Niño conditions just by chance. The study authors compared the simulations that were correctly synchronized with the ocean cycles (blue data in the left frame below) and the most out-of-sync (grey data in the right frame) to the observed global surface temperature changes (red) for each 15-year period
Quote:
The authors conclude,
When the phase of natural variability is taken into account, the model 15-year warming trends in CMIP5 projections well estimate the observed trends for all 15-year periods over the past half-century.
Most models actually underestimate the effects:
Quote:
A common misconception is that climate models are biased towards exaggerating the effects from CO2. It bears mentioning that uncertainty can go either way. In fact, in a climate system with net positive feedback, uncertainty is skewed more towards a stronger climate response (Roe 2007). For this reason, many of the IPCC predictions have subsequently been shown to underestimate the climate response. Satellite and tide-gauge measurements show that sea level rise is accelerating faster than IPCC predictions. The average rate of rise for 1993-2008 as measured from satellite is 3.4 millimetres per year while the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a best estimate of 1.9 millimetres per year for the same period. Observations are tracking along the upper range of IPCC sea level projections.
Quote:
Similarly, summertime melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models. The thickness of Arctic sea ice has also been on a steady decline over the last several decades.
The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.