Inspired by Swedish teen, worldwide protest demands climate action

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

well, you know, people want to have children, and machines who do that "pesky physical work" will also create unemployment, so it goes both ways, far from being a solution.

LOL. Machines don't take sick days, holidays, claim sexual harassment and always start work on time. Why would any sane employer hire a human if he can get a machine to do the job?

The fact that there won't be enough earners to buy his products will not happen till after he's retired a wealthy man, and the social upheaval that will result from millions of unemployed will be regarded as someone else's problem. 

[Sujo]

The UN commissioned a report. Received the for and against data. Thousands and thousands of pages of evidence.

 

its settled science. Denying it is just believing alternative facts.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

The UN commissioned a report. Received the for and against data. Thousands and thousands of pages of evidence.

 

its settled science. Denying it is just believing alternative facts.

You believe something the UN put out? LOL.

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

the social upheaval that will result from millions of unemployed will be regarded as someone else's problem. 

Sorry, but here i disagree completely, every big problem on the planet concerns all of us, as we are all part of the whole humankind.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, but here i disagree completely, every big problem on the planet concerns all of us, as we are all part of the whole humankind.

Yes it does, but to believe that large corporations care about their employees well being over their shareholders profits would be somewhat naïve, IMO.
 

[stevenl]

I find this thread with the defaitism, with a lack of respect for science since it doesn't suit the posters, but especially with the disdain for people who in their own way are trying to say things have to change very depressing.

Edited September 21, 2019 by stevenl

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

I find this thread with a lack of respect for science since it doesn't suit the posters, but especially the disdain for people who in their own way are trying to say things have to change very depressing.

I'd love governments to take realistic steps to stop polluting the air, land and sea, but they seem to ignoring pollution and concentrating on electric cars and windmills instead ( and imposing lots of new taxes ).

I don't see much real "change" happening. Only more aeroplanes, bigger airports, more international tourism, more cars on the roads, more pollution, more people- all government policy.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes it does, but to believe that large corporations care about their employees well being over their shareholders profits would be somewhat naïve, IMO.

Indeed it would be naive to think that large corporations, whose sole aim is profit, would care for the well-being of all.

That's why, in a previous post, i said that a one world government and some huge change in the capitalistic system would be necessary to implement some real change.

Mind you, i am not necessarily advocating those changes, but just speculating on what awaits us in the future.

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The Journal publishers today are in a similar position to what the Vatican occupied. The Vatican controlled what was sanctified and what was not. That was the point. The conspiracy is not to hard to imagine. They publish what is in their interest to publish. Apocolyptic climate change is juicy. Everything is OK, not so juicy.

But I see you needed that deflection because you can't discredit the the research from the video. 

First of all, unlike the Vatican, scientific journals don't have a pope. It's not a top down situation. Clearly, for you, a conspiracy involving roughly 35000 climatologists is not hard to imagine. That says a lot about your imagination and a lot about your powers of discernment also.

And when my cardiologist tells me I need to have a stent installed, do I think I know enough to question his judgement? I can go to a second cardiologist because she is also qualified to make that judgement. But I'm not foolish enough to think that I'm qualified to make a knowledgeable judgement.

And if someone comes along and tells me that there's a video on youtube by some self anointed expert who claims stents are a fake, why should I pay attention to that? I understand that I'm not an expert I understand that science isn't like shopping where the overriding criterion is that the information presented gratifies you. It's about expertise.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd love governments to take realistic steps to stop polluting the air, land and sea, but they seem to ignoring pollution and concentrating on electric cars and windmills instead ( and imposing lots of new taxes ).

I don't see much real "change" happening. Only more aeroplanes, bigger airports, more international tourism, more cars on the roads, more pollution, more people- all government policy.

Nonsense. It's true that some governments, like the USA's are taking backwards steps as far as pollution is concerned. But the fact is the air and water in developed nations is a lot lot cleaner than it used to be. Thanks to government programs. And  many governments are promoting the use of renewable energy. The use of which is skyrocketing. As for more people being government policy. Really? Very few nations are promoting that. 

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I find this thread with the defaitism, with a lack of respect for science since it doesn't suit the posters, but especially with the disdain for people who in their own way are trying to say things have to change very depressing.

Well, science is that thing that, while having made life more comfortable for billions of us, has invented fuel-economy, consumerism, nuclear weapons, you name it.

Now, before putting my faith on science, i'd rather put my faith in humanity first, and then science.

Just saying "things have to change" is not nearly enough.

[dunroaming]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You know nothing, Greta Thunberg.

And yet millions are following her lead.  Young people all over the world are worried by what is happening to the planet, so are their parents, so are the scientists.  The evidence is there now and slowly, begrudgingly, those who have mocked it in the past are seeing for themselves.

 

There will always be a few of the "head in the sand" brigade who will remain in denial but they really are not worth bothering with.  Greta is just giving a voice to all who are rightly concerned about their future.

[Odysseus123]

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

And yet millions are following her lead.  Young people all over the world are worried by what is happening to the planet, so are their parents, so are the scientists.  The evidence is there now and slowly, begrudgingly, those who have mocked it in the past are seeing for themselves.

 

There will always be a few of the "head in the sand" brigade who will remain in denial but they really are not worth bothering with.  Greta is just giving a voice to all who are rightly concerned about their future.

Very true.

 

 

[canuckamuck]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First of all, unlike the Vatican, scientific journals don't have a pope. It's not a top down situation. Clearly, for you, a conspiracy involving roughly 35000 climatologists is not hard to imagine. That says a lot about your imagination and a lot about your powers of discernment also.

And when my cardiologist tells me I need to have a stent installed, do I think I know enough to question his judgement? I can go to a second cardiologist because she is also qualified to make that judgement. But I'm not foolish enough to think that I'm qualified to make a knowledgeable judgement.

And if someone comes along and tells me that there's a video on youtube by some self anointed expert who claims stents are a fake, why should I pay attention to that? I understand that I'm not an expert I understand that science isn't like shopping where the overriding criterion is that the information presented gratifies you. It's about expertise.

You can play as thick as you want. I wasn't talking about the structure of publishing, I was talking of the pathway of what gets to be said.

And the conspiracy mentioned by me was not really a conspiracy but rather the reasoning behind what gets published. At the end it's politics and money. I said nothing about the climatologists. They have their own paradigms to satisfy. But mutual benefit is a good motivator for cooperation. 

I won't bother with your strawman argument. It is really quite irrelevant. Medicine is hardly the equivalence of climate research.

 

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

And yet millions are following her lead.  Young people all over the world are worried by what is happening to the planet, so are their parents, so are the scientists.  The evidence is there now and slowly, begrudgingly, those who have mocked it in the past are seeing for themselves.

 

There will always be a few of the "head in the sand" brigade who will remain in denial but they really are not worth bothering with.  Greta is just giving a voice to all who are rightly concerned about their future.

Your post shows only how hypocrite you and others are.

You could even make a song about it, but i'm afraid it won't change anything.

While the cute Greta and all the tvs are enjoying the show, 30 pine-nuts pickers have been killed by a zero-emissions hyper-technological drone in the God-forgotten land of Afghanistan.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

 

I won't bother with your strawman argument. It is really quite irrelevant. Medicine is hardly the equivalence of climate research.

 

The point was about expertise. Neither you nor I have the expertise to judge these questions. But when the vast majority of scientists say one thing, and a few self anointed climatologists publish (publicize) non peer-reviewed "research" , why should we take that seriously?

By the way, I did take a peek at their journal, and much of their so called research is nonsense. You should look up richard mueller an eminent physicist who was skeptical about global warming because he felt that temperature readings might be flawed. He got money from denialists to assemble a dream team of scientists highly qualified to examine the whole question of bias due to various factors like the urban heat island effect. I'll give you one guess as to what the result of that research was. Here's a hint: the denialist community disavowed him after he published the results.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Your post shows only how hypocrite you and others are.

You could even make a song about it, but i'm afraid it won't change anything.

While the cute Greta and all the tvs are enjoying the show, 30 pine-nuts pickers have been killed by a zero-emissions hyper-technological drone in the God-forgotten land of Afghanistan.

Nothing hypocritical about the post you're reacting to.

 

But a post like yours from someone who claimed earlier to be not defaistic is exactly that, defaistic.

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Not 97% of scientists. 97% of climatologists.

But thanks for your report of what some chemists allegedly said. I guess in your world, anecdotes and anonymity are part and parcel of the scientific method.

As is playing silly semantic games. Yes climate is always changing. But now it's about the rate and direction of change.

"97% of scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans (CO2)" 

If I had a penny for every time I've heard this argument... the good thing is that it is an awesome counter-indicator; if someone uses this argument it indicates that they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

 

So what is the origin of this "97%" argument?

John Cook published a paper in May 2013 "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Abstract:

Quote

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

 

The interesting bit is how John Cook came up with the number 97,2%. In short, here's how he did it (and in case you think I'm speculating, the method and the numbers are clearly visible in the paper itself):

10,257 members of the American Geophysical Union were asked the question: "Is climate change caused by human production of CO2"? 3,145 members replied.

From the 3,145 replies, Cook selected 77 (completely arbitrary) and 75 of these replies had answered "Yes". 75 of 10,257 is 0,7% not 97%.

 

So, the correct argument is that "0,7% of American Geophysical Union members agree that climate change is caused by human production of CO2".

 

Questions?

Edited September 21, 2019 by Forethat

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

They put up their research and their methodologies for all the world to see. Sure that is not the route you take when you are trying to get published in a mainstream scientific journal. But we all know the same group that owns the journals are the guys pushing the narrative. They only want to publish stuff that satisfies their politics.

When Illiberals didn’t like the news, they called it fake, facts had to be called ‘false facts and truth had to become ‘a relative concept’.

 

Now in the face of science the whole basis of scientific peer review and the publication of scientific research must be branded ‘political’.

 

Rather than face reality, dream up an illiberal reality that must not be challenged by news, by science, not even by children.

[stevenl]

From nasa.gov:

 

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. "

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nothing hypocritical about the post you're reacting to.

 

But a post like yours from someone who claimed earlier to be not defaistic is exactly that, defaistic.

No it's not, quite the opposite, really.

[norbra]

To all the school kids going on 'strike' for Climate Change:
You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom.
You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised.
You spend all day and night on electronic devices.
More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke local roads and worsen rush hour traffic.
You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy,
Your entertainment comes from electric devices.
Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.
The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed.
How about this...
Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con.
Walk or ride to school. Switch off your devices and read a book.
Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little 'princesses', inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a 'noble cause' while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life.
Wake up, grow up and learn to research facts and think for yourself and not blindly accept the words and thoughts of others - I don't think you formulated this action plan all by your self - suspect you may have had some influence and 'guidance' from those you trust ....a word of warning, be cautious of the influence of the 'left' because there may be a time in the future that you will be the ones left out...

[Sujo]

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You believe something the UN put out? LOL.

 

Yes. Since they commissiined the report from anyone that wanted to provide details, for and against.

 

Do you have anything better?

[Odysseus123]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

No it's not, quite the opposite, really.

Whatever.

 

I shall not be following you or the internet chameleon you support (something to to do with beaches in Thailand) as I prefer a more intelligent response-

 

Go Greta go!

 

Keep the topic at the forefront of our consciousness.

[canuckamuck]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When Illiberals didn’t like the news, they called it fake, facts had to be called ‘false facts and truth had to become ‘a relative concept’.

 

Now in the face of science the whole basis of scientific peer review and the publication of scientific research must be branded ‘political’.

 

Rather than face reality, dream up an illiberal reality that must not be challenged by news, by science, not even by children.

There is a ton of stuff out there about the crisis in the peer review system. You should look it up. More than 50% of the findings these days can't be replicated.  It's a vicious circle. Universities need grants, grants come from papers published. Professors are pressured to publish prolifically. Scientists know which kind of papers get published. They focus on the ones they can knock off without too much scrutiny. The ones that attract the right attention.

Science these days is about cash. The only people doing the real sexy science are the guys that attract the cash.

Now the science journals and their foundations are owned by the same handful of families that own everything these days.  Money makes the world go around, always has.

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Odysseus123 said:

Whatever.

 

I shall not be following you or the internet chameleon you support (something to to do with beaches in Thailand) as I prefer a more intelligent response-

 

Go Greta go!

 

Keep the topic at the forefront of our consciousness.

So, apart from "Go Greta go !" which i agree on a sentimental level, what would be your intelligent response ?

Putting the Scientists in charge does not go well with me, i suggest you reading "Brave new world" by A. Huxley, would you really like to end that way ?

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

So, apart from "Go Greta go !" which i agree on a sentimental level, what would be your intelligent response ?

Putting the Scientists in charge does not go well with me, i suggest you reading "Brave new world" by A. Huxley, would you really like to end that way ?

Off topic, but I was assisting my kid with his homework this week, and found that the term 'brave new world' originates from Shakespeare. Same as 'knock knock, who's there', but also many other well known phrases. Just some useless but sometimes interesting things to know ????

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Off topic, but I was assisting my kid with his homework this week, and found that the term 'brave new world' originates from Shakespeare. Same as 'knock knock, who's there', but also many other well known phrases. Just some useless but sometimes interesting things to know ????

Nice to hear that, and no, i am not unconcerned or oblivious to the ecological and humanitarian disasters which are afflicting our planet and the lives of us and our children... I am just tired of the hypocrisy.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, norbra said:

To all the school kids going on 'strike' for Climate Change:
You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom.
You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised.
You spend all day and night on electronic devices.
More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke local roads and worsen rush hour traffic.
You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy,
Your entertainment comes from electric devices.
Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.
The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed.
How about this...
Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con.
Walk or ride to school. Switch off your devices and read a book.
Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little 'princesses', inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a 'noble cause' while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life.
Wake up, grow up and learn to research facts and think for yourself and not blindly accept the words and thoughts of others - I don't think you formulated this action plan all by your self - suspect you may have had some influence and 'guidance' from those you trust ....a word of warning, be cautious of the influence of the 'left' because there may be a time in the future that you will be the ones left out...

Gross generalizations and the obligatory ‘immigrant rant’ your thing then?!

[Forethat]

While we're discussing this, does anybody know what the going rate is for a carbon credit these days?

 

Amazing how much cleaner the world gets as long as you invent a system that funnels trillions of dollars to...the right people.

 

Money makes the world go around

...the world go around

...the world go around

Money makes the world go aroung