A Finnish climate action group is raising $500,000 to carve President Trump’s face into an arctic iceberg according to a press release I received.
In an attempt to prove global warming exists, the Finnish group called Melting Ice wants to carve a 115-foot ice sculpture of Trump’s face into a glacier for an effort they call “Project Trumpmore” and seeks to raise $500,000 to do pull it off.
Read on, video follows. h/t to Dr. Willie Soon
Press release 26.4.2018
Will the carving of Donald Trump’s face on an arctic iceberg melt or last for a thousand years?
Project Trumpmore is aiming to demonstrate climate change in a monumental way. A Finnish NGO wants to commission a 115-foot tall ice sculpture of Donald Trump’s face in the arctic region to demonstrate that climate change is happening. Like the former US presidents on Mount Rushmore, Donald Trump will have his face carved onto an arctic glacier, in order for it to melt.
- Global warming is one of the most important issues and topics of today. There are still people who ponder whether it’s a real issue. We want to build the monument for all of us, so we can see how long the sculpture lasts before melting. Often people only believe something when they see it with their own eyes, says Nicolas Prieto, the chairman of the association Melting Ice, which is behind Project Trumpmore.
One person can make a difference
The project started when three young men working in the creative field got enough of talking and wanted to act instead. Instead of filling the world with fake news and alternative facts, this project aims to actually show climate change taking place.
- Our starting point was to create something concrete, something people can see and something that makes climate change visual. In general, we believe that a DIY-attitude appeals to people, and it’s certainly the same thing which got us started, Prieto sums up.
Project Trumpmore’s goal is to generate conversation and hopefully catch the eye of anyone who is willing to fund our project.
- This project is a huge challenge and we can’t do this without help. We are now asking everybody to join this movement. It can be made by talking, liking, sharing, funding etc. All possible help is more than welcome.
Video:
For more information:
Web site: www.projecttrumpmore.com
Project Trumpmore is a science/art project by Melting Ice Association, whose intention is to provide a concrete test that shows whether global warming is true or false. The objective is to sculpt president Donald Trump’s bust into the Arctic glacier and install a camera to the site of the sculpture to live stream its fate. If you want to be involved in sending a message about the hottest topic in the world, come along! Visit www.projecttrumpmore.com and see what you can do to help. Let’s make this happen – together.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Also from Finland, I have never heard of that. The Chairman is not a Finn, so this is not a thing real Finns would do.Smells like greenpiss.
If this is what passes for creative for these young folks, I’d pick another field.
Stupid symbolism, to say the least.
Choose a medium that is fugitive by nature, make a sculpture in it, watch it vanish, and proclaim the fugitive nature of the substrate relates to the issue being symbolized.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
All things are fugitive on some time scale. Why choose one that is fugitive on a relatively short time scale, to pretend like it symbolizes something more profound than the short time scale that is the very nature of that substance ?
False analogy comes to mind.
1) It would be helpful for them to understand better what happens to active glacial ice – it… melts!
2) They seem to be confusing icebergs and glacier ice, which, over time may become an iceberg.
3) When the hype over disastrous global warming is over, the image will be certain to take pride of place on the cover of one or more books chronicling the the biggest lie ever told. It will be useful as an illustration on another book about the man who saved the greatest civilization from economic and cultural ruin, at least parts of it. Some of it is too late to save, I fear. It may be time to start thinking about moving the Mona Lisa and other priceless cultural icons to a safe place.
.
“Our starting point was to create something concrete,” In ice. The concrete that causes CO2 emissions? What am I missing?
Now on to more important things…..
Like how to stop ice cubes from exploding in your favorite beverage, and spattering your worksite.
Put them in one of those plastic net bag things they ship garlic and onions in, and put that in your drink. The netting will catch any shrapnel from exploding cubes. 🙂
Don’t invite Al Gore to the ribbon-cutting ceremony, or your Trumpcicle will last for a lot longer than you wanted.
I am pretty damned certain that I don’t want the Guinness book listing the world’s largest man made ice sculpture as being of Trump.
That wouldn’t read well in history books, it would be impossible to explain in a generation that it actually happened because people were so poorly educated that it was thought it would somehow have an impact on whether people drove in a hurry.
So you co not like Trump. Do you seriously think that Clinton would be better?
prj, you mean as a token sacrifice to Gaia?
While the news cameras are away they light a fire on the glacier to melt the carving, which would “prove” there is global warming. And the media would eat it up. “Trumpmore melts faster than we Feared!”
“… whose intention is to provide a concrete test that shows whether global warming is true or false”
But we already know that based on all metrics quantifying the ‘average’ global temperature, both global warming and global cooling are always happening both chaotically and periodically, with periods spanning from 1 year to over 100 thousand years. What they should to be testing is whether or not increased CO2 concentrations will have any significant effect on the known, natural variability seen in the average surface temperature.
Better yet, how about testing whether or not doubling CO2 concentrations will have an effect greater than the lower limit presumed by the IPCC? If they’re so confident in their ‘settled’ science, they must have a trivial test for this, or at the very least, support from basic thermodynamic laws. Of course, they can’t fool anyone by presuming that all short term warming is from increased CO2 since this is not a test that can distinguish between natural variability and the effects of increased CO2 concentrations.
If I were Trump I’d finance the whole thing out of pocket. Why not?
I’ll take a pound of stupid, and a bag of completely nuts, please. On ice.
It’s a good job ice melts. Otherwise……
This brings back memories of the failed Copehagen climate meeting in 2009, when greenies had made and displayed an ice sculpture of a polar bear outside the venue. But the Danish weather was so chilly, the silly beast refused to melt!
It amuses me how the word concrete is used several times.
I hope there will be enough to cover any funeral expenses.
This might be more difficult than these nuts who have probably never seen a glacier may think.
Glaciers tend to be rather flat, so the face wouldn’t be visible except from above. The only vertical part is the calving front which is extremely unstable.
Glacier ice is almost always full of cracks and crevasses, particularly close to the surface and in the steeper parts of the glacier. It will be very hard to find a reasonably large solid block to carve.
Glacier ice moves. As a matter of fact this is the definition of a glacier: a mass of ice large enough to move under its own weight.
Given all this an iceberg would be a better proposition. Large icebergs are usually derived from the deeper parts of a glacier and relatively free of cracks. However as already noted icebergs can be violently unstable. The best bet would be a stranded Antarctic plateau iceberg. There are usually a number available e. g. around South Georgia. Or they could try the B-9B berg the “ship of fools” tangled with. However it has already been around for 30 years, so the risk is that their effort might turn it into a new Mount Rushmore.
The above is based on personal experience of glaciers on six continents as well as Arctic and Antarctic icebergs.
If the nuts ever get that far, expect to see headlines about how they died from the collapsing/moving ice thus proving CAGW is real.
P S There are no glaciers in Finland, so they presumably have no practical experience of them.
They need to travel north by northwest to search for one. (I know there’s no such direction, northwest by north is closest).
Perfect demonstration of the sound silence that Global Warming is based. “If she weighs less than a duck, she is made of wood and therefore is a witch.” Just keep promoting this as the “proof” that Global Warming exists. I bet Mann could do a write up for Nature.
This site needs a running counter of how many impoverished people are not being saved the money being spent on publicity stunts.
If they want to play with icebergs why don’t they head to the Antarctic and go hunting for suitable ones for Nick Sloane to tow to Cape Town to help alleviate the freshwater crisis? It’s a grand endeavor of human engineering, an idea that’s been on the drawing board for a hundred years…. it’s humanitarian and there would be plenty of eco-neurotic photo ops. When the thing is safely moored I’ll bet the South Africans will let them carve whomever they want onto it, as they draw 100mil liters/day. The Cape Town delivery project was estimated at $130 million. And here we have people ready to blow half a million to do NOTHING.
Idiots! Some people have too much time to waste on meaningless political vacuous gestures.
They could create a constant revenue stream by carving a likeness Angela Merkel’s anus into the ice and charging greenies €100 for a one-minute lick.
Since bergs turn over as they melt, it is likely it would flip while being carved, thus killing the work crew, sinking their boats, and obliterating their work. Sure, I’ll contribute to that.
Once again, notice something completely weird about this: the disconnect between the supposed beliefs of the activists, and what they focus on.
The project is directed explicitly at Trump. But, if the activists believe what they claim to, Trump and the US are a very small part of the problem. We are as a species emitting some 37 billion tons of CO2 a year. Of that the US is doing around 5 billion.
Basically, whether the US makes a reduction of a billion tons or so is not going to make any measurable difference. This is even if you accept the activists account of emissions leading to great disaster.
So, inquiring minds want to know, why do the activists focus all the time on Trump? Or even on the US if it comes to that?
Why do they not make a sculpture of the man who is currently presiding over not 5 billion tons a year and falling, but 10 billion tons a year and rising? Surely, if they believed what they claim, their indignation and horror would be directed at Xi Jinping? And at the developing world?
I realise that this will be dismissed as conspiracy thinking, but cannot avoid the conclusion that all the evidence points in the same direction. We have repeated horror at trivia and repeated demands that trivial things be done. And we have repeated acceptance of large scale emissions, and a resolute refusal to demand reductions by the largest and fastest growing emitter.
I see no way to avoid the conclusion: these people do not believe there is any real danger, they do not believe in the necessity of global emission reductions. But what they see is that the topic is very useful for organising and radicalising. And so they will rail against Trump, make impossible demands for local reductions in emissions.
Because what interests them is the politics and conduct of America and the UK. They do not have any interest in global emissions. What they want is something they can use to organise around to bring about the changes in Western economies that, for some mysterious reason, they really, really want.
Mysterious, isn’t it? Wonder why they could be wanting it?
I think it’s just misguided people thinking that they are doing something important. Feeling good seems to be the most important thing in enviromentalism. Even if the glacier melts, that doesn’t prove that global warming is happening, that it’s bad, that humans are largely responsible, that we can do something about, and that we should do something about. They do this, they get famous and rich, and most importantly feel good about the issue because they “did something”, even though this doesn’t achieve anything even if global warming is as serious as they believe. Just like when people stop buying plastic bags because they believe they are destroying the planet. They don’t know for sure if it actually does anything, but hey, it feels good.
And they target Trump because, duh, he is evil. And he withdrew from Paris agreement, which everyone “knows” is so effective in saving the planet. I disagree with Trump on many issues, but this project is just illogical “feel-good” project that ultimately achieves nothing concrete.
https://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/societe/plainte-de-greenpeace-contre-la-deputee-qui-voulait-tirer-en-cas-d-intrusion-dans-une-centrale_2006200.html
During a congressional meeting about nuclear safety, Perrine Goulet suggested that people who invade nuclear plants should be shoot from miradors, so Greenpeace is suing Perrine Goulet.
Finnish winters produce manic depression, alcoholism and ideas like mount Trumpmore.