Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

98.5% of top scientists agree tinfoil hats

protects against radiation of CO2,

try one of those

And I'm sure you have a video to support your contention.

[brokenbone]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And I'm sure you have a video to support your contention.

that debate is settled, no reason to reharse it, now we just need to get the fact deniers to buy one each

Edited October 3, 2019 by brokenbone

[olfu]

just in...Church of Sweden supposedly declared this young chick as being reincarnation of Jesus.

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, olfu said:

just in...Church of Sweden supposedly declared this young chick as being reincarnation of Jesus.

halleluja !!!

the prophecy is true, when evil mankind is at the brink of extinction, the prophecy foretold that gods daughter will step in and sort it out, and THEN we will live in paradise

Edited October 3, 2019 by brokenbone

[DrTuner]

41 minutes ago, olfu said:

just in...Church of Sweden supposedly declared this young chick as being reincarnation of Jesus.

IIRC when Big J comes back he/she is supposed to smite all the disbelievers? Fits the bill, eh? Believe in man made climate change or be condemned to eternal damnation.

[bristolboy]

47 minutes ago, olfu said:

just in...Church of Sweden supposedly declared this young chick as being reincarnation of Jesus.

Well it's not just in that denialists repeatedly get it wrong. It wasn't the Church of Sweden but a church in Sweden. 

Church in Sweden names Greta Thunberg 'successor' to Jesus Christ

A Swedish church's tweet naming teenage climate change activist Greta Thunberg as the "successor" to Jesus Christ has again received backlash after it was unearthed following the U.N.'s Climate Change Summit.

“Announcement! Jesus of Nazareth has now appointed one of his successors, Greta Thunberg,” the Church of Limhamn wrote on Twitter on Dec. 1, 2018. Limhamn is a municipality in southern Sweden.

This announcement, which was both lauded and criticized on Twitter, was unearthed following Thunberg's speech at the U.N.'s Climate Action Summit in New York City on Sept. 23. 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/church-in-sweden-names-greta-thunberg-successor-to-jesus-christ.html

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

 

I did not call you a liar, and I don’t appreciate you claiming I did.

Linking to articles regurgitating the same 97% statistic you regurgitated doe not really substantiate it.

In any event, the articles implied a 97% agreement on the climate changing, but said nothing of the report you claim enjoys 97% agreement rate.

Do you even know where the 97% comes from?

 

A; Could not agree less.

 

"I would not argue the accuracy of the report one way or the other, but claiming 97% support the conclusions is at best unsubstantiated and more likely an out and out fabrication."

 

That is calling me a liar...

 

B: I said there was a report as in singular? Did I? Let me check...you know I can't find that post. Please let me know the #number, so I can reread it in context.

 

The links I posted back up what i said.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Bluespunk

[Scott]

Bickering posts reported and removed.   Continue and face a suspension.  

 

[Nigel Garvie]

11 hours ago, brokenbone said:

 

you just cant trust those radiating CO2 molecules.

on the bright side you learned a new word today, maybe someday you will learn the meaning of it, but i wouldnt hold my breath, heard holding breath builds up co2 in the lungs, and even the tinfoil hat cant protect you from those radiating suckers

Well 102 pages gone and might be enough. My last post on this:-

 

Greta appears genuine, She believes the widely accepted science in as far as she understands it. Her description of how she feels about this and how she believes others of her age group feel is completely plausible.  This doesn't mean that she is right or wrong in her beliefs, or that the Science is right or wrong, she is simply telling us how she feels.

Is she being looked after properly, is she being taken advantage of by other believers in the same cause? Who knows, there is no reliable data on this.  

Is she stressed by all the high profile events? Very probably I would imagine, I think it might be a good if she now "Spent more time with her family". 

 

The same also applies to many of our politicians of course - but in their case it is because they are lying bar stewards. 

 

One minor incidental point though, CO2 molecules don't radiate anything, (Maybe you were joking). CO2 molecules ABSORD energy re radiated from the Earth at certain frequencies, thus trapping the heat within the atmosphere, and stopping it from going out into space. Similar to the greenhouse or the poly tunnel - thus the "Greenhouse effect". The expression radiative forcing applies to any factor that can change the balance between heat in and heat out, nothing to do with actual CO2 radiation - there isn't any. 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[Sujo]

Make America Greta again.

[Cryingdick]

Just now, Sujo said:

Make America Greta again.

 

Thankfully, she doesn't represent America.

[rabas]

6 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

One minor incidental point though, CO2 molecules don't radiate anything, (Maybe you were joking). CO2 molecules ABSORD energy re radiated from the Earth at certain frequencies, thus trapping the heat within the atmosphere, and stopping it from going out into space. Similar to the greenhouse or the poly tunnel - thus the "Greenhouse effect". The expression radiative forcing applies to any factor that can change the balance between heat in and heat out, nothing to do with actual CO2 radiation - there isn't any. 

 

Of course CO₂ molecules can radiate IR energy in the same bands as they absorb, they do it all the time. You want to see (Albert) Einstein coefficients A and B and the principle of balance. In fact, a CO₂ molecule can radiate without first absorbing IR if it first collides with other molecules that raise its temperature (making it vibrate).  The overall equilibrium effect of CO₂ is to trap heat, though CO₂ radiation is thought to play a role in cooling the upper atmosphere¹. lol.

 

Now the tinfoil hat, which is aluminium. Aluminium is an excellent reflector of IR (heat). Since the brain consumes 30% of the body's energy (well, for some), it gives off lots of heat, which is trapped by the tinfoil thus warming the brain.

 

But, experiments on mobile phone microwave radiation have shown that heating the brain results in slightly improve mental performance, IQ, thus, tinfoil hats make you smarter.

 

Complicated? Global warming is vastly more so, which may be why deniers and believers can both be right at least some of the time.

 

1) https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/697/2016/esd-2016-8.pdf

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by rabas

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

We are talking about 10s of 1000s of Scientists here.

 

In the past, scientists have claimed the earth was flat, the sun orbited around the earth, sugar was good for us and tobacco wasn't harmful. I knew a scientist that killed loads of pregnant seals because he believed that they held the key to preventing cot deaths ( he was wrong of course ). 

Perhaps all the 10s of thousands of scientists referenced are all paragons of science and never ever get anything wrong, but I doubt it. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

I would not argue the accuracy of the report one way or the other, but claiming 97% support the conclusions is at best unsubstantiated and more likely an out and out fabrication.

I won’t call you a liar because I assume you are just regurgitating someone else’s lie.

If you don’t have anything that supports that claim you should take it back.

Thanks

 

The 97% has to be a nonsense, as there are millions of scientists on the planet and they haven't asked all of them. The riposte to that is that it's only 97% of climate scientists, but they never include that in their original statements.

I also doubt they asked every climate scientist on the planet for their opinion, as there must be an awful lot in that and related fields.

It's just more of the "the science is settled" urban myth, as no real scientist would agree that science is ever settled- there is always more to learn.

[Cryingdick]

13 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Of course CO₂ molecules can radiate IR energy in the same bands as they absorb, they do it all the time. You want to see (Albert) Einstein coefficients A and B and the principle of balance. In fact, a CO₂ molecule can radiate without first absorbing IR if it first collides with other molecules that raise its temperature (making it vibrate).  The overall equilibrium effect of CO₂ is to trap heat, though CO₂ radiation is thought to play a role in cooling the upper atmosphere¹. lol.

 

Now the tinfoil hat, which is aluminium. Aluminium is an excellent reflector of IR (heat). Since the brain consumes 30% of the body's energy (well, for some), it gives off lots of heat, which is trapped by the tinfoil thus warming the brain.

 

But, experiments on mobile phone microwave radiation have shown that heating the brain results in slightly improve mental performance, IQ, thus, tinfoil hats make you smarter.

 

Complicated? Global warming is vastly more so, which may be why deniers and believers can both be right at least some of the time.

 

1) https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/697/2016/esd-2016-8.pdf

 

 

Can I ask how many children you have?

[mauGR1]

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The 97% has to be a nonsense, as there are millions of scientists on the planet and they haven't asked all of them. The riposte to that is that it's only 97% of climate scientists, but they never include that in their original statements.

I also doubt they asked every climate scientist on the planet for their opinion, as there must be an awful lot in that and related fields.

It's just more of the "the science is settled" urban myth, as no real scientist would agree that science is ever settled- there is always more to learn.

Agree that the 97% consensus stinks to the high heavens.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Agree that the 97% consensus stinks to the high heavens.

It's from the same playbook as "the science is settled", and "it has to be true because they say it is".

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's from the same playbook as "the science is settled", and "it has to be true because they say it is".

Yep, it reminds me a bit of the inquisition in the middle ages

[DrTuner]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

Now the tinfoil hat, which is aluminium. Aluminium is an excellent reflector of IR (heat). Since the brain consumes 30% of the body's energy (well, for some), it gives off lots of heat, which is trapped by the tinfoil thus warming the brain.

I think for the perpetually offended and true climate believers the percentage brain uses is about 2%, the rest goes into the heart muscle, as it needs to keep the pressure high enough to pop out those temple veins. Should be safe to use a proper tinfoil hat without overheating and it'll prevent splashing when the veins finally give.

 

It won't save you from the onslaught of the incoming ice age though, aluminium is also a very conductive material and your noggin will freeze, unless you already died from starvation because the plants died due to low CO2 in atmosphere. We're doomed I say, doomed, the end is nigh!

Edited October 4, 2019 by DrTuner

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's from the same playbook as "the science is settled", and "it has to be true because they say it is".

Not to forget a million flies can't be wrong, <deleted> tastes good.

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Yep, it reminds me a bit of the inquisition in the middle ages

Nobody expects the climate inquisition.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4

[Nigel Garvie]

4 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Of course CO₂ molecules can radiate IR energy in the same bands as they absorb, they do it all the time. You want to see (Albert) Einstein coefficients A and B and the principle of balance. In fact, a CO₂ molecule can radiate without first absorbing IR if it first collides with other molecules that raise its temperature (making it vibrate).  The overall equilibrium effect of CO₂ is to trap heat, though CO₂ radiation is thought to play a role in cooling the upper atmosphere¹. lol.

 

Now the tinfoil hat, which is aluminium. Aluminium is an excellent reflector of IR (heat). Since the brain consumes 30% of the body's energy (well, for some), it gives off lots of heat, which is trapped by the tinfoil thus warming the brain.

 

But, experiments on mobile phone microwave radiation have shown that heating the brain results in slightly improve mental performance, IQ, thus, tinfoil hats make you smarter.

 

Complicated? Global warming is vastly more so, which may be why deniers and believers can both be right at least some of the time.

 

1) https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/697/2016/esd-2016-8.pdf

 

Well thanks for that information, and I'm happy to admit that my understanding of this is partial. I guess I was focussing in my reading on "The overall equilibrium effect of CO₂ is to trap heat". My area of science is acoustics at a moderate level, my son has a Phd in particle physics, I'll discuss this with him soon. 

[4675636b596f75]

5 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Thankfully, she doesn't represent America.

Give it time.

 

Ilhan Omar ring a bell?

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Well thanks for that information, and I'm happy to admit that my understanding of this is partial. I guess I was focussing in my reading on "The overall equilibrium effect of CO₂ is to trap heat". My area of science is acoustics at a moderate level, my son has a Phd in particle physics, I'll discuss this with him soon. 

All in fun of course! My Phd is in chemical physics. OTH, a climatology degree usually requires basic chemistry,  physics, a lot of meteorology, in addition to climatology courses.

 

So why do meteorologists (who deal with water) sometimes disagree with climatologists? Maybe because, according to NASA, H₂O's role in global warming is not yet well understood because of things like vapour, clouds, condensation, precipitation, evaporation, convection, heat, etc.  CO₂ is much easier because it just sits there.

[RideJocky]

The 97% has to be a nonsense, as there are millions of scientists on the planet and they haven't asked all of them. The riposte to that is that it's only 97% of climate scientists, but they never include that in their original statements.
I also doubt they asked every climate scientist on the planet for their opinion, as there must be an awful lot in that and related fields.
It's just more of the "the science is settled" urban myth, as no real scientist would agree that science is ever settled- there is always more to learn.

The 97% comes from the percentage of climate change papers published that agree, not the number of climate scientists that agree.

That it is constantly regurgitated as fact is hilarious.

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Of course CO₂ molecules can radiate IR energy in the same bands as they absorb, they do it all the time. You want to see (Albert) Einstein coefficients A and B and the principle of balance. In fact, a CO₂ molecule can radiate without first absorbing IR if it first collides with other molecules that raise its temperature (making it vibrate).  The overall equilibrium effect of CO₂ is to trap heat, though CO₂ radiation is thought to play a role in cooling the upper atmosphere¹. lol.

 

 

Actually, the role the CO2 plays in cooling the stratosphere is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the role it plays in warming the earth. If the greenhouse effect wasn't in play, but just solar activity or some other factor was responsible for the warming of the atmosphere, then you would expect the atmosphere uniformly to get warmer. But if heat was being trapped by increasing quantities of a greenhouse gas then the upper layers of the atmosphere should have gotten cooler.

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

The 97% comes from the percentage of climate change papers published that agree, not the number of climate scientists that agree.

That it is constantly regurgitated as fact is hilarious.
 

 

Sounds reasonable, i wonder what our alarmist posters have to say about that

[dabhand]

Couple of interesting articles that may or may not have been mentioned  previously. 

 

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/24/no-climate-emergency-mit-climate-expert-500-prominent-global-experts-write-in-letter-to-un/

https://electroverse.net/acclaimed-israeli-astrophysicist-suggests-that-the-sun-drives-earths-climate-not-co2/

 

What is rather alarming is the indication of a high degree of censorship against those who don't conform to what is rapidly becoming a cult. David Bellamy comes to mind and him becoming an 'unperson'. 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sounds reasonable, i wonder what our alarmist posters have to say about that

I thought 97% was the percentage of your naysaying and negative posts in this thread.