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

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The temperature has been rising since the last cooling trend ended in 1910. But the amount of CO2 we have been putting in the air has gone up 40% in the last 50 years.

We had the same pace of warming 1910 to 1940 that we had 1970 to 2000. But the CO2 was much greater in the second 30 year period. And we even had cooling and then a flat line after WW2 despite the onset of major industrialization. There is no correlation to be seen between a rise in CO2 and the rise in temperature that cannot be explained as a natural fluctuation. The CO2 increased massively while the temperature rose at the very slow pace of .08 degrees in 100 years. Not at all anomalous in the longer temperature record. The impact of CO2 is proving to be insignificant. Our climate continues to be incredibly stable.

That warming trend was a reversion to mean.

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Another unattributed graphic.

 

Here’s a clue, something written on a graphic is part of the graphic, it is not confirmation of the source.

 

So please, provide a link to where you got this graphic.

I'm sure the graph is genuine. But you'll note it ends on 2014. This lets us know that it came via a denialist website because the last 4+ years make the situation look a lot worse. Here's the latest update:

[canuckamuck]

Just now, bristolboy said:

That warming trend was a reversion to mean.

 

I'm sure the graph is genuine. But you'll note it ends on 2014. This lets us know that it came via a denialist website because the last 4+ years make the situation look a lot worse. Here's the latest update:

It shows cooling in the last 4 years

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Sometimes it's just the wrong link. As in post #1776.

It's not the wrong link. 

How hard can it be? Here's a screenshot. Pay particular attention to the heading: "Facts" and "Global Temperature". I have used exactly the same data as NASA. The data is available on that page as well.

 

I'm sorry but I simply have to ask: are you trolling or are you actually serious?

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

It shows cooling in the last 4 years

It sure does.  Relative to 2016.. Just like it showed cooling for several years after 1998. And you know why that is? Because 1998 and 2016 were years of major el ninos. But all of the last 6 years have been warmer than the el nino year of 1998. With only 2016's high temperature due to the el nino factor. In fact out of the 10 hottest years on record, 1998 now stands at #10. It's likely that by the end of 2019 it will be #11.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It's not the wrong link. 

How hard can it be? Here's a screenshot. Pay particular attention to the heading: "Facts" and "Global Temperature". I have used exactly the same data as NASA. The data is available on that page as well.

 

I'm sorry but I simply have to ask: are you trolling or are you actually serious?

 

 

 

Here's the original image you claimed you linked to:

[DrTuner]

9 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

It shows cooling in the last 4 years

What about the last 15 seconds? I love it when people zoom into timeframes to find something they like. Provides lovely trading opportunities to screw them over.

 

Point being, when you pan and zoom enough, you'll always find some spot to fit your hypothesis.

[canuckamuck]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It sure does.  Relative to 2016.. Just like it showed cooling for several years after 1998. And you know why that is? Because 1998 and 2016 were years of major el ninos. But all of the last 6 years have been warmer than the el nino year of 1998. With only 2016's high temperature due to the el nino factor. In fact out of the 10 hottest years on record, 1998 now stands at #10. It's likely that by the end of 2019 it will be #11.

If I would have included the cooling my point would have been even stronger

It's amazing that after 12,000 years of recovering from an ice age that we are getting record temperatures eh?

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

If I would have included the cooling my point would have been even stronger

 

What don't you understand about El Ninos? Let me guess. That they elevate global average temperatures for a year or so.. But multihear trends not so much.

[metisdead]

Some troll posts and replies have been removed. 

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

What don't you understand about El Ninos? Let me guess. That they elevate global average temperatures for a year or so.. But multihear trends not so much.

Your the one that made a point of me not including the last 5 years. Without those 5 years I have a weaker argument. You should have left it alone.

Anyhow I was talking about two 30 year periods primarily

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I got it from a site that would give you cooties, so here is the same info in a slightly different format right from NASA. Link

I couldn't get the graph to link directly but you can find it on the page linked under the second drop down at the bottom.

The reason I ask for a link to the graphic you posted is to confirm where you got it.

 

Don’t worry about the source giving me ‘cooties’, just be open about where you are getting the information you post.

[Forethat]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The reason I ask for a link to the graphic you posted is to confirm where you got it.

 

Don’t worry about the source giving me ‘cooties’, just be open about where you are getting the information you post.

It says on the graph...

 

*facepalm*

 

 

 

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The reason I ask for a link to the graphic you posted is to confirm where you got it.

 

Don’t worry about the source giving me ‘cooties’, just be open about where you are getting the information you post.

Too many times I have posted real info from non main stream approved places and had the whole conversation shift to the source and not the info. It isn't worth my time to introduce that kind of distraction.

 

[evadgib]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The reason I ask for a link to the graphic you posted is to confirm where you got it.

 

Don’t worry about the source giving me ‘cooties’, just be open about where you are getting the information you post.

That then becomes 'ripped memes' dunnit?

[Forethat]

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Here's the original image you claimed you linked to:

I have never claimed to have linked to that image. I claimed to have referenced the data set on the page I linked to. NASA:a data set.

 

You're wrong again.

 

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

If I would have included the cooling my point would have been even stronger

It's amazing that after 12,000 years of recovering from an ice age that we are getting record temperatures eh?

At the rate it's happening, yes it is, if not amazing, impressive. 

[DrTuner]

9 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It says on the graph...

 

*facepalm*

 

 

 

Had to check what that ERRST is, as I was wondering how many probes they got floating in the oceans. Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST).

 

So what's the forecast for tomorrow's temp at the Mariana trench then? 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Too many times I have posted real info from non main stream approved places and had the whole conversation shift to the source and not the info. It isn't worth my time to introduce that kind of distraction.

 

Then don’t rip content from pages you won’t provide an attributing link to.

 

Simples.

 

Adds:

 

That you find your ideas at the fringes of the Internet you dare not let no to is no surprise.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, evadgib said:

That then becomes 'ripped memes' dunnit?

Not quite, it’s a ripped meme if you don’t provide an attributing link.

 

But you knew that.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It says on the graph...

 

*facepalm*

 

 

 

Someone else who doesn’t understand the difference between something written in a graphic and a link to the source of the graphic.

[Forethat]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Someone else who doesn’t understand the difference between something written in a graphic and a link to the source of the graphic.

Well, I guess I operate on a completely different level of understanding than what you do since I had no problem finding and reviewing the source as it was written in clear text.

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts and a post violating Fair Use Policy have been removed.  

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/14/2019 at 7:42 PM, JamesBlond said:

Forget about climate change if it's too subtle for you. Concentrate on the attrition of the natural environment - habitat loss, species loss - and throw in quality of life loss, because nature is the touchstone of all meaning.

The on-going catastrophe of that is self-evident, and it's man-made.

Is that not enough for you to justify more prudent and less self-indulgent political/economic policies, which is all that is being asked?

It is indeed, except the emphasis is, IMO, on all the wrong things, like electric cars with polluting batteries- should be hydrogen technology, that will make car companies incredibly rich when everyone is forced to give up their fossil fuelled cars and buy new ones, and bird killing windmills when it should be on developing efficient nuclear or fusion power stations.

Far as tackling pollution- sod all except banning plastic bags in supermarkets, except for all the plastic bags they supply to put loose vegetable in, and all the plastic used to wrap everything.

I do try, but there is no getting around all the plastic waste I have after every supermarket visit.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, RideJocky said:

So aside from bickering and finger-pointing, what is everyone doing to reduce their carbon footprint?




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Well, the climate activists are doing an awful lot of air miles to contribute vast amounts of CO2 to the upper atmosphere, and apparently not a lot else.

Meanwhile millions of fossil fuelled cars are being bought and put on the roads, China builds more coal powered power stations, and cargo ship are burning fossil fuel bringing all those plastic goods to the consumers in the west- you know, plastic, it's made from oil.

Not a lot going on to prevent destruction of old growth forests in Sth America, Africa and Indonesia, which must be releasing millions of tonnes of carbon.

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well, the climate activists are doing an awful lot of air miles to contribute vast amounts of CO2 to the upper atmosphere, and apparently not a lot else.

Meanwhile millions of fossil fuelled cars are being bought and put on the roads, China builds more coal powered power stations, and cargo ship are burning fossil fuel bringing all those plastic goods to the consumers in the west- you know, plastic, it's made from oil.

Not a lot going on to prevent destruction of old growth forests in Sth America, Africa and Indonesia, which must be releasing millions of tonnes of carbon.

In even broader terms, the world has plenty of difficult problems that need addressing, yet everything stops while world "leaders" hang on every word from Greta Thunberg, who knows nothing about the climate, or economics, beyond that which she has been taught to repeat.

 

It's a sign of the idiotic times we live in that real problems such as malaria, TB, malnutrition, atmospheric pollution and so on, risk becoming sidelined, purely on the whim of an ignoramus.

[JimmyJ]

50 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

In even broader terms, the world has plenty of difficult problems that need addressing, yet everything stops while world "leaders" hang on every word from Greta Thunberg, who knows nothing about the climate, or economics, beyond that which she has been taught to repeat.

 

 

Numerous posters here have no trouble disagreeing with the massive scientific concensus plus the daily proofs of the climate emergency, yet believe unquestioningly - without a shred of proof - that Greta Thunberg has been taught what to say by handlers who are using her.

 

No wonder they are so upset by her - a 14 year old girl with Asperger's has no trouble understanding the science, dedicates her life to effect change, and is articulate and outspoken - yet they don't understand the science and instead have no argument other than to try to demean this impressive person (for 123 pages and counting during 23 days and counting).

[canuckamuck]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

Numerous posters here have no trouble disagreeing with the massive scientific concensus plus the daily proofs of the climate emergency, yet believe unquestioningly - without a shred of proof - that Greta Thunberg has been taught what to say by handlers who are using her.

 

No wonder they are so upset by her - a 14 year old girl with Asperger's has no trouble understanding the science, dedicates her life to effect change, and is articulate and outspoken - yet they don't understand the science and instead have no argument other than to try to demean this impressive person (for 123 pages and counting).

Believing what you are told is not the same as understanding the issue. When someone disagrees with an opinion it at least shows some thought and consideration is involved. Anyone can parrot popular talking points.

[Chomper Higgot]

52 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

In even broader terms, the world has plenty of difficult problems that need addressing, yet everything stops while world "leaders" hang on every word from Greta Thunberg, who knows nothing about the climate, or economics, beyond that which she has been taught to repeat.

 

It's a sign of the idiotic times we live in that real problems such as malaria, TB, malnutrition, atmospheric pollution and so on, risk becoming sidelined, purely on the whim of an ignoramus.

Because nobody is working on these other problems or because you needed to pad out your ad hominem use of ‘ignoramus’.

[RickBradford]

Quote

Numerous posters here have no trouble disagreeing with the massive scientific concensus plus the daily proofs of the climate emergency, 

Since you know nothing about my views on climate science, it is baseless to suggest that I understand less about it than Greta Thunberg, or that I disagree with the consensus position.

 

The idea that Thunberg understands the science is easily disproved. Earlier this year, she said to the UK Parliament: "Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

This is utter nonsense, not backed up by any scientific analyses. Certainly, the IPCC does not talk in those terms.

 

The NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel summed it up well: "Climate change isn't a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down".

 

Given that Greta demonstrates that she knows nothing about the science, and talks in apocalyptic terms which are often used by radical activists, I think it makes a lot of sense to assume that she is being told what to say.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Believing what you are told is not the same as understanding the issue. When someone disagrees with an opinion it at least shows some thought and consideration is involved. Anyone can parrot popular talking points.

Somebody stating they disagree with an opinion is not evidence that they employed any thought on the matter.

 

They might simply believe stating they disagree gives an impression of being smart or perhaps they wish to signal their affiliation with others who they know disagree on the matter.

 

To indicate thought on the matter, considered counter opinions are needed, preferably offered in the absence of ad hominem attacks on the person holding the views that are being contested.