BIG NEWS - despite fake mmgw, LOL, NIAGRA FALLS FREEZES
-
Does anybody with any common sense, think this graph represents scary mmgw?
-
So the cold is caused by global warming...that’s the dumbest Sh!t I’ve ever read!
I think global warming is is caused by the cold. ?
So the cold is caused by global warming...that’s the dumbest Sh!t I’ve ever read!
I think global warming is is caused by the cold. ?
Canton, go look it up. Just go look it up. Its been explained since the fukking 80's
-
They even made an awful movie decades ago about how gw could cause a mini ice age. This is such old hat but u uneducated illiterate bumpkins just wallow in ignorance and u love it....u really love it
-
So the cold is caused by global warming...that’s the dumbest Sh!t I’ve ever read!
I think global warming is is caused by the cold. ?
Canton, go look it up. Just go look it up. Its been explained since the fukking 80's
Canton, go look it up. Just go look it up. Its been explained since the fukking 80's
I’ve followed it for years, and I still don’t see any correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
-
Canton, go look it up. Just go look it up. Its been explained since the fukking 80's
I’ve followed it for years, and I still don’t see any correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
I’ve followed it for years, and I still don’t see any correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
There is none. They have mostly dropped the discredited CO2 "crisis" in mmgw, and don't even call it
man made global warming anymore it was so ridiculed. No, it's "climate change", much more respectable, except their
mmgw crap is still a crock.
-
I’ve followed it for years, and I still don’t see any correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
There is none. They have mostly dropped the discredited CO2 "crisis" in mmgw, and don't even call it
man made global warming anymore it was so ridiculed. No, it's "climate change", much more respectable, except their
mmgw crap is still a crock.
There is none. They have mostly dropped the discredited CO2 "crisis" in mmgw, and don't even call it
man made global warming anymore it was so ridiculed. No, it's "climate change", much more respectable, except their
mmgw crap is still a crock.
And this is the same group of fools that used to warn us of “global cooling”...I didn’t buy that nonsense either.
-
Psssh, those "experts" and their "science"... What do they know? I'm a red blooded, god fearin American, and I agree with the Trump, a real American. All this climate change nonsense is a liberal ploy to take my money and my guns! Dumb scientists, it's snowing outside, how could the earth be warming? Think idiots
-
I wish woodypeckerhead would stop farting and stinking up this forum - it's adding to the "mmgw" that he is addicted to.
https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming
PRINCETON, NJ (January 3, 2011)—S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”
Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.
Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,
I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.
NIPCC is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, another group established by Singer. In 2009 NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered,an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming. Singer believes that global warming exists but that human contributions to it are minimal. In the interview Singer said he believed his efforts in the last twenty years had been successful in disproving the notion that “the science is settled.”
Singer continues his work in the sciences, focusing lately on geophysical research and the Earth’s atmosphere. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).
The National Association of Scholars does not take a position on global warming but advocates for a full discussion of all sides of the controversy.To learn more about NAS, visit www.nas.org.
-
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2009/07/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick/
Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book
James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book
Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands. No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes. No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom. And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy.
Imagine no more, for your fairy godmother is here. His name is Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, and he has recently published the landmark book Heaven And Earth, which is going to change forever the way we think about climate change.
‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,’ says Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority. Where fellow sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg or Lord Lawson of Blaby are prepared cautiously to endorse the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) more modest predictions, Plimer will cede no ground whatsoever. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history.
To find out why, let’s meet the good professor. He’s a tanned, rugged, white-haired sixtysomething — courteous and jolly but combative when he needs to be — glowing with the health of a man who spends half his life on field expeditions to Iran, Turkey and his beloved Outback. And he’s sitting in my garden drinking tea on exactly the kind of day the likes of the Guardian’s George Monbiot would probably like to ban. A lovely warm sunny one.
So go on then, Prof. What makes you sure that you’re right and all those scientists out there saying the opposite are wrong? ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’
What Heaven And Earth sets out to do is restore a sense of scientific perspective to a debate which has been hijacked by ‘politicians, environmental activists and opportunists’. It points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty.
All this is scientific fact — which is more than you can say for any of the computer models turning out doomsday scenarios about inexorably rising temperatures, sinking islands and collapsing ice shelves. Plimer doesn’t trust them because they seem to have little if any basis in observed reality.
‘I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’
Plimer’s uncompromising position has not made him popular. ‘They say I rape cows, eat babies, that I know nothing about anything. My favourite letter was the one that said: “Dear sir, drop dead”. I’ve also had a demo in Sydney outside one of my book launches, and I’ve had mothers coming up to me with two-year-old children in their arms saying: “Don’t you have any kind of morality? This child’s future is being destroyed.’’’ Plimer’s response to the last one is typically robust. ‘If you’re so concerned, why did you breed?’
-
Canton, go look it up. Just go look it up. Its been explained since the fukking 80's
I’ve followed it for years, and I still don’t see any correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
I’ve followed it for years, and I still don’t see any correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
I said look up how cold snaps can be a result of gw. This isnt about whether humans are causing it or not, this is about rational discussion. You made the statement about how is itbpossible to havevthese cold snaps on acsupposedly warming planet. I told u to go look it up. In guessing you have and now you want to change the subject a lil.
-
Ian pilmer....
https://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/
"
“Ian Plimer’s performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed.
Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn’t count underwater volcanoes.
When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist.”
yeah that sounds alot like the playbook cal uses. Duck, weave, obfuscate, resort to catch phrases......oh yeah thats cal to a T
-
This is just a tiny bit of the information about mmgw being a complete farce
http://akdart.com/warming12.html
Snowfall on Alaska mountains has doubled — climate change blamed. Snowfall on a major summit in North America's highest mountain range has more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Age, according to a study from Dartmouth College, the University of Maine, and the University of New Hampshire. The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Global Temperature Increases Are Lower and Slower, Says New Study. A new study using more than 38 years satellite and weather balloon temperature data hypothesizes that global temperatures are going up more slowly than projected by most climate models. And right on time, these results were challenged by other researchers who defend the scientific climate consensus as embodied in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. The new study done by University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Richard McNider published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science argues consensus models may not have accurately captured how storms in the tropics expel excess heat back into space and/or that they have failed to account for how heat is absorbed by the world's oceans.
Inconvenient: oceans continue to cool. From the way media and climate scientists portray the global air temperature this past year, you'd think there was only one place to go — up. September Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) are now available, and we see downward spikes in ocean temps everywhere, led by sharp decreases in the Tropics and SH, reversing the bump upward last month. The Tropical cooling in particular factors into forecasters favoring an unusually late La Nina appearance in coming months.
Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm. From the world of science — as opposed to grant-troughing junk science — two more studies confirming that the man-made global warming scare is a myth. One, a study by Scafetta et al, published in International Journal of Heat and Technology, confirms that the "Pause" in global warming is real — and that "climate change" is much more likely the result of natural, cyclical fluctuations than man-made CO2 emissions.
The New York Times Embraces Fake Science, Fake Engineering, and Fake Economics. Global warming is now called climate change because the globe has not warmed for two decades. The "science" behind predictions of global warming due to emissions of CO2 has clearly collapsed. The promoters of the catastrophe are most charitably described as bad scientists and less charitably as snake oil salesmen. The predictions are based on computer models that don't agree with each other and that have failed miserably in predicting the actual global temperature. There is no shortage of distinguished scientists screaming that global warming is a fraud. Even if you believe the junk science of climate change, the CO2 emissions are concentrated in Asia. Reducing CO2 emissions in the U.S. at great cost makes no sense because the supposed problem is in Asia.
Another Climate Prediction Gone off the Rails. Winter started early this year. The first blizzard of the season in Montana broke a snow record with 30 inches during the first week of October, barely a few weeks into fall. In my state of Colorado too, with 11 inches of snow in Grand Mesa. Prompting the local CBS affiliate to proclaim, "The snow season is off to a big start in western Colorado!" Town and Country magazine, which caters to one percenters in predominantly blue Northeastern enclaves, had their own forecast. Warning readers, "Prepare to Bundle Up: Winter 2017 & 2018 Is Going to Be Unusually Cold." Predicting for the enlightened #NeverTrump residents of New York and Boston, "an above average amount of snowfall" and "a colder winter than last year." [...] Do the smart set at the NY Times find any irony or contradiction in the Town and Country story about more snow and their own 2014 article titled, "The End of Snow?" Ski mountains predicted to be brown rather than white.
Now it's a War on Pipelines. The prestigious journal Nature Geoscience recently published a careful study that found there has been far less planetary warming since 1998 than alarmist scientists and computer models had predicted. The models are based on the assumption that carbon dioxide drives climate change, and they "run too hot," resulting in predictions that deviate from actual temperature measurements more and more every year. But instead of admitting they were wrong, the usual strident suspects in the climate crisis industry doubled down and attacked the study and any news outlet that called attention to it. Even Britain's BBC denounced the inconvenient study and displayed not a whit of apology over its climate chaos claims.
Judges Forcing Trump to Reverse Climate "Endangerment Finding". Nine years ago, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency issued an "Endangerment Finding," claiming man-made global warming posed an imminent threat to Americans. The Finding, however, was based on computerized climate models that couldn't even successfully hind-cast the weather we'd had over the past century — much less forecast earth's climate 100 years into the future. The earth's climate has always changed, often abruptly. EPA essentially asserted that 80 percent of our energy "warmed the earth" and represented a long-term risk. Obama's team thus bet in 2009 that the earth's strong warming from 1976–98 would continue. But it didn't. Never mind all those recent "hottest year" claims from NOAA and NASA. Satellites, our most honest indicator, say our planet's temperature has risen an insignificant 0.02 degrees C since 1998.
-
And now the finale.....its like a broken record.
"Plimer is the former non-executive director of CBH Resources Limited from 1998 to 2010, former non-executive director of Angel Mining plc from 2003 to 2005, former director of Kimberley Metals Limited from 2008 to 2009, former director of KBL Mining Limited from 2008 to 2009 and former director of Ormil Energy Limited from 2010 to 2011.[3][16]
He is currently the non-executive deputy chairman of KEFI Minerals since 2006,[17]independent non-executive director of Ivanhoe Australia Limited since 2007,[18] chairman of TNT Mines Limited since 2010,[11][19] non-executive director of Niuminco Group Limited (formerly DSF International Holdings Limited) since 2011,[20][21] and non-executive director of Silver City Minerals Limited since 2011.[3][16][22][23][24] Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[25]
According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.[6][27]"
-
Everytime they wheel out someone they call a "credible scientist"....he's literally bankrolled by fossil fuels. Case dismissed, again.
we do this everytime cal but u never learn
-
http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/22/can-we-discuss-the-climate-without-the-hysteria/
May 22, 2017 by Larry Bell, 54 Comments
For starters, let’s recognize no “settled science” indicates human activities are dangerously overheating the planet; no remotely credible surveys indicate a consensus among scientists that we are; and no sensible people who challenge such false representations therefore deny either that climate changes or that recent warming — and cooling — has occurred. Such agenda-driven claims are antithetical to fundamental principles of scientific inquiry and honest discourse.
Earth’s mean temperatures have been warming since the last in a series of approximately 90,000-year-long Ice Ages ended about 12 to 15 thousand years ago; was at least just as warm as now 2,000 years ago and again 1,000 years ago; and has been warming in fits-and-starts since the end of the “Little Ice Age” during the mid-1800s. That warming began soon after Gen. George Washington’s troops suffered a bitter 1777 winter at Valley Forge, and Napoleon’s undertook a frigid retreat from Moscow in 1812.
Conditions warmed up considerably during the early 1900s through the mid-1940s, with temperatures much like now. That was followed by three decades of cooling which prompted leading scientific organizations to forecast a headline-grabbing imminent arrival of the next big Ice Age caused by fossil-fueled smokestacks.
A decade later, those same smokestacks were blamed for an opposite crisis . . . the world was suddenly at a calamitous overheating “tipping point.” The only hope for salvation was for developed nations to join a carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, to buy carbon offsets from Al Gore’s hedge fund, and to give lots of money to the U.N. for redistribution in penance for unfair capitalistic prosperity.
Yes — much like the current Paris Climate Accord.
Immediately pinning the blame for this climatological catastrophe upon plant-fertilizing CO2 emissions (now re-branded as “climate pollution”) an International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was convened to sanctify, sermonize — and sell this theory. In doing so, their dismissals of natural changes and influences, persistent defenses of provably failed computer model projections, politically-edited alarmist summary reports, and media-hyped activist anti-fossil climate confabs have succeeded brilliantly.
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
That Paris conference agenda got a useful boost from U.S. government agency scientists at NASA and NOAA who conveniently provided “warmest years ever” claims. Both have histories of stirring overheated global warming stew pots with alarming and statistically indefensible claims of recent “record high” temperatures.
Whereas NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), a small climate modeling shop located in a Manhattan Midtown office building, reported that 2014, an El Nino year, was the “warmest year in the modern record”, it was statistically indistinguishable from 2005, 2010 and 2016.GISS subsequently proclaimed 2016 as a new warmest year “since modern recordkeeping began,” whereas the difference versus 2015 was within one-quarter of the statistical margin of error.
A whistleblower who formerly directed NOAA’s climate data section has recently charged that the agency hurriedly prepared and released unverified and flawed global temperature information in order to push policy agendas favored by the U.N. and Obama administration at the U.N.’s 2015 Paris climate conference. The goal was to influence advanced nations to commit to sweeping reductions in their uses of fossil fuel and huge expenditures for climate-related aid projects.
NOAA’s politically sensationalized 2015 Thomas R. Karl study retroactively altered historical climate change data to eliminate a well-known “climate change hiatus” . . . a temperature period between 1998 and 2013 during which global temperatures remained flat despite much ballyhooed record atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Instead, the report claimed that the “pause” or “slowdown” in global warming never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising even faster than expected.
Although satellite measurements since 1979 show virtually none outside underreported margins of error, the altered record data now makes 2010 appear just enough warmer to suggest a media headline-prompting upward trend. Moreover, balloon recordings of the Earth’s atmosphere show no overall warming since the late 1950s, while U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. In fact, there have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.
Get used to natural climate changes, there’s no sane basis for denying them. Meanwhile, let’s demand political climate changes as well.
-
-
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
- 3/29/2016
Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven't been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.
We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.
If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."
Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.
Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate."
"What if global warming isn't only a crisis?" Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. "What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?"
In her mind, the world has to "change, or be changed" because an "economic system" -- meaning free-market capitalism -- has caused environmental "wreckage."
This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a "crisis" to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists' "better world" is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They've admitted this themselves.
-
http://billmoyers.com/story/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-redistribute-wealth/
To Stop Climate Change, Don’t Just Cut Carbon. Redistribute Wealth.
Climate disruption is inextricably linked to economic inequality.
-
These left wing fools have no clue, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
-
I’ve followed it for years, and I still don’t see any correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.
I said look up how cold snaps can be a result of gw. This isnt about whether humans are causing it or not, this is about rational discussion. You made the statement about how is itbpossible to havevthese cold snaps on acsupposedly warming planet. I told u to go look it up. In guessing you have and now you want to change the subject a lil.
I said look up how cold snaps can be a result of gw.
I also said GW can be caused by cold snaps...it goes both ways.
Besides, GW is a myth.
-
And ur going to slap and crap more stuff from the web without acknowledging the takedown of yet another one of ur "credible experts"
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login