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

[WhatupThailand]

Is Climate Change like Gender Change, where if you say so, it has to be True.

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Here here. I am certain someone stole my dreams.

im sure your dreams are a bit morr time limited than hers. Not to mention more self serving.

[Sujo]

29 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

* My neighbours cat

* The dead rat he was carrying

* Random somchai

 

They are in 100% consensus that CO2 isn't killing them.

Well your research aligns with your arguments and conclusions.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, WhatupThailand said:

Is Climate Change like Gender Change, where if you say so, it has to be True.

No its backed by scientific consensus. Not by personal belief.

[DrTuner]

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

beside that, consensus is a thing for democracies, science dont do consensus,

science check a theory against data, and if data dont match the theory,

the theory is discarded.

It's been about more about politics and not science ever since Gore got into it. Probably before that too but not as popular. Now it's almost fully politics. And money, of course.

 

My proof? Science doesn't have feelings. Greta's show was all about emotion. Sells better.

[Sujo]

8 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Here here. I am certain someone stole my dreams.

Must rankle you that trudeau looks like getting in again.

[Solinvictus]

14 hours ago, rabas said:

No, it is not particularly good to produce more CO₂ at this time. We are already producing a lot. However, you must separate short term from long term effects. Historically (100s of Myears) I'm convinced the Earth is running low on CO₂. This is why we are now deep in a multi million year ice age and why the freeze ups are getting worse.

Here you say, it's not good. That is, the production of more CO_2.    

14 hours ago, rabas said:

Then use fossil fuels as needed to recirculate CO₂ at optimum levels.

How are they "optimum" levels? Is that an assumption or what really makes more it optimal?

On 10/20/2019 at 2:30 PM, rabas said:

Did you read the article you posted? It's nonsense. He lists all the companies producing fossil fuels. Duh. OTOH, energy consumption is universal. No wonder people don't trust activists.

Now, back to my OP followed by your, again, nonconstructive yet confusing comment. Followed by a further mix or cluster of typing. Pretty chart there too. He, Lee Camp in that opinion piece was also advocating the need for reductions in using fossil fuels thus the reduction in CO₂.   You later go on to say "it's not particularly good.." That, Greta Thunberg is doing such that as she too thinks there needs to be a reduction in fossil fuels.

 

I've been around a beer and falangs enough to know when someone is arguing for an argument's sake. I don't think your completely inaccurate but surely either without a clear stance and/or strokin it.

 

 

 

My post was #2080 with a great opinion piece by Lee Camp from Truthdig.com

 

[Solinvictus]

On 10/20/2019 at 2:21 PM, RideJocky said:

 

Why don’t you quit trading with them?

 

Do the customers not bear any responsibility?

 

 

You're right customers contributing to the demand and market for such production need to become better aware. However, I would say this is quite shallow and lacking of the overall bigger picture. (Smells of corporate talking points, IMO) Which is there needs to be not only more regulations but in fact the companies themselves are the culprits. They produce them. Sure, you could argue both ways and we could continue that. But I believe our faith in good governance along with our tax dollars should be used for the betterment of society not the decay.

 

My take away point is simply saying the customers bear all the responsibility is short-sided if unthoughtful regarding the bigger picture not to mention how to deal with it. The poor can't be to blame for the wealthys' greed coupled with unregulated capitalistic cannibalism, ultimately hurting our environment.

 

My post was #2080 with a great opinion piece by Lee Camp from Truthdig.com

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Solinvictus said:

 That is, the production of more CO_2.    

How are they "optimum" levels?

 

greenhouse owners say optimum co2 levels are 1500 ppm,

after that its diminishing returns.

below 200 ppm plants no longer grow and if co2 fall below 150 ppm plants die.

note that at the bottom of last ice age, atmospheric co2 fell to 180 ppm,

a historic low and very close to wipe out life on earth surface.

and due to the continuous sequestration of co2,

it can be expected that if we humans do not intervene and recycle co2

back into the atmosphere where it belong,

next ice age will drop below 150 ppm co2 and end life on earth surface,

that is, the plants and every specie above in the food chain, like you for example

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Solinvictus said:

 

 

My take away point is simply saying the customers bear all the responsibility is short-sided if unthoughtful regarding the bigger picture not to mention how to deal with it. The poor can't be to blame for the wealthys' greed coupled with unregulated capitalistic cannibalism, ultimately hurting our environment.

 

 

i'd say each human should do what in is his ability to recycle the vital co2

back into the atmosphere where it belong.

it goes without saying that wealthy people have a greater ability

and therefore responsibility to recycle co2 back into the atmosphere,

simply because fossils cost money to recycle.

 

no one is blaming the poor for not recycling enough, they do what little they can

for if for no other reason to stay alive.

 

"unregulated capitalistic cannibalism" wut mighty ?

it was the various forms of shell life forms in the sea that took the vital co2 with them

into their grave over millions upon millions of years, that eventually

led to the risk of extinction of life on earth.

if you want to blame anything on hurting environment, blame those life forms,

and praise sheer fluke that is the human discovery that

recycling fossils back into the atmosphere can be done at a profit,

or it wouldnt have been done at all

 

[JimmyJ]

9 hours ago, DrTuner said:

It's got to be true if Sudan Academy of Sciences says so. 

 

Actually first time I saw such a list. Not impressed.

Nice bit of racism there.

 

I'm sure you don't have a clue of the academic standards/members/achievements, but nonetheless you are instantly dismissive because it is not part of the "white" world.

 

Science is facts, not skin color.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/22/2019 at 6:42 AM, Solinvictus said:

I like your post until this quote. I would respectfully disagree. My reasoning is due to the poor outnumbering the rich. The poor will benefit from the new 'industry' or 'market' along with other 'green' new services/jobs. Halting or slowing long established sources of dirty pollution will be of course hurt some and who are they? The wealthy. 

The poor are set to get poorer. Poor people work in factories or suchlike ( sweatshops in LOS etc ). All those jobs are going to disappear with AI / robotics. 3D printing is going to eliminate millions of factory jobs.

 

People working will be those like mechanics, electricians, plumbers etc and those in services like medical. Apprenticeships were destroyed long ago in NZ, so to get qualifications, one has to be wealthy enough to be able to afford the education. I assume it's the same in many western countries.

 

How will the poor benefit from green technology? Everything will be built in automated factories and delivered by self driving trucks.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Solinvictus said:

The poor can't be to blame for the wealthys' greed coupled with unregulated capitalistic cannibalism, ultimately hurting our environment.

True, but it's nothing to do with the OP.

[rabas]

3 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

13 hours ago, DrTuner said:

It's got to be true if Sudan Academy of Sciences says so.

Nice bit of racism there.

 

I'm sure you don't have a clue of the academic standards/members/achievements, but nonetheless you are instantly dismissive because it is not part of the "white" world.

 

Science is facts, not skin color.

Sudan is a country, not a race!

 

A country heavily dependent on petroleum. Dr. Tagwa Ahmed Musa of the Sudan University 3 weeks ago received the Regional Service Award of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) for Middle East and North Africa. http://www.sustech.edu/news/detail/2019/09/25/21212199-SPE-Award

 

Race:0 Science:1

[rabas]

8 hours ago, Solinvictus said:

My post was #2080 with a great opinion piece by Lee Camp from Truthdig.com

 

Your post in #2080 is a foul mouthed, anti-society rant by a comedian actor with no understanding of science. He works for RT America part of Russia's anti-Western propaganda state media RT. He is working for Putin to destabilize western petroleum industry.

 

https://www.truthdig.com/author/lee_camp/

 

[Airbagwill]

15 hours ago, brokenbone said:

no, the 97% TM is abstracts that john cook & fellow enthusiastic amateurs subjectively decided concluded his agenda.

mark my words, future generations are going to use the 97% TM

as a verb to ridicule science and older generations in a belittling manner

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

Ah...brokenbone the master of climate science and false syllogism. 

I have to conclude that 97% of the world's scientists are wrong and he is right?

Yet according to his post he doesn't even understand the principles of elementary school science .... Bit of an oxymoron there?

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Ah...brokenbone the master of climate science and false syllogism. 

I have to conclude that 97% of the world's scientists are wring and he is right?

Yet according to his post he doesn't even understand elementary school science .... Bit of an oxymoron their?

the question that maggie zimmerman posed was:

do you believe climate has increased since 1800 ?

well, as anyone who is aware of that earth has been recovering

from the minor ice age since 1800, it would seem a pointless question,

but she doubled up by drawing the conclusion that man made recycling of co2

for the past few decades somehow caused unusual low solar activity 1600-1800

in a reverse way of time continuum.

 

most of the recipients of the survey couldnt (bother) to respond,

but out of those who did, many questioned her unscientific approach.

worse still, she sherry picked out of the 3146 responses she did get,

and used only 79 responses to further her agenda,

so from the proper statistic of 79/3146 =2.5%,

she arrived at 97% by taking away 2 opinions from those 79 responses she liked

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c9c8/0585cb18c23c1eb604659501fa95c6b7564e.pdf?_ga=2.250007425.668095861.1571774302-1952811878.1571774302

https://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=748:what-did-global-warming-poll-respondants-say&catid=14:text

https://fcpp.org/2012/11/06/climate-scientists-consensus-based-on-a-myth/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/

[Airbagwill]

16 hours ago, DrTuner said:

It's got to be true if Sudan Academy of Sciences says so. 

 

Actually first time I saw such a list. Not impressed.

I think that perfectly encapsulates a denier's thinking on climate change .... QED. There isn't even an argument made.

 

Perhaps he'd line to give us his thoughts on the rest? Should be hysterical.

[Airbagwill]

Have you noticed how there are hardly any jokes about the reality of climate change but loads about MMCC deniers? Maybe climate deniers cant think of one or draw?

 

 

 

[Nyezhov]

13 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Have you noticed how there are hardly any jokes about the reality of climate change but loads about MMCC deniers? Maybe climate deniers cant think of one or draw?

 

With all due respect, and said with true admiration, that that is possibly the dumbest thing to have been posted on the internet, ever.. Analyze your statement and take a bow.

 

 

[Forethat]

14 hours ago, Forethat said:

Exactly. I have previously provided details regarding the 97%.

 

The first mentioning of the 97% is an old survey performed by University of Illinois 2009 (Doran/Zimmerman, Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, 2009). Two questions were sent by post to 10,257 members of the American Geophysical Union, AGU. 3,146 replied. Every single respondent but 77 (!) was removed for arbitrary reasons, and out of the remaining 77, there were 75 who agreed with the theory. That's 97% of 77, but only 0.07% of the 10,257 who received the question. 

 

 

The second reference to 97% (or close to that number) I believe is a paper published by PNAS 2010 (William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, Expert credibility in climate change). In this case, 1,372 scientists were asked if they believed that global warming is the result of human activities. 50 of the respondents had previously published papers on anthropogenic global warming and got selected. 49 of the selected 50 agreed that humans are causing global warming. That's 98% of 50, but only 2.3% of the 1,372 who replied.

 

With the above in mind, the abstract becomes almost humorous (I have been careful to stick to the fair use policy):

 

Quote

 

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC.

A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

 

 

[brokenbone]

45 minutes ago, Forethat said:

The second reference to 97% (or close to that number) I believe is a paper published by PNAS 2010 (William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, Expert credibility in climate change). In this case, 1,372 scientists were asked if they believed that global warming is the result of human activities. 50 of the respondents had previously published papers on anthropogenic global warming and got selected. 49 of the selected 50 agreed that humans are causing global warming. That's 98% of 50, but only 2.3% of the 1,372 who replied.

 

With the above in mind, the abstract becomes almost humorous (I have been careful to stick to the fair use policy):

 

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

 

 

that is strikingly similar to the first study,

i think it qualify for a pattern to state that the 'consensus' are just over 2%,

and another pattern that these 'studies' are as corrupt as it gets

when they selectively cherry pick abstracts/scientists representatives

to make it from just over 2% to 97%

[Solinvictus]

4 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Your post in #2080 is a foul mouthed, anti-society rant by a comedian actor with no understanding of science. He works for RT America part of Russia's anti-Western propaganda state media RT. He is working for Putin to destabilize western petroleum industry.

 

https://www.truthdig.com/author/lee_camp/

 

You're talking about a guy that consistently advocates for issues like the demonstrations at for Dakota Pipeline, Civil Liberties, stopping war, etc. Whatever bro, you need to get off that corporate tv programming you have. Hating on such a person for speaking up on social issues including poor water quality.  Wow, some folks really demonstrate how much corporate talking points enters and persuades regular folks.

 

I'm not saying you are but I find some of the most un-American folks in terms of their progressive views and ideological views are Conservative Republicans. Not to mention Evangelical Christians. You my fellow TV user seem to be in one of those boxes.

 

By the way Ed Schultz was on RT also, even Chris Hedges. They and their views are part of that Russian anti-western rhetoric too huh? Ha, wow.  Get out of hear with those mainstream talking points..God I'm glad I'm not a victim of the tv box.

[DrTuner]

9 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Nice bit of racism there.

 

I'm sure you don't have a clue of the academic standards/members/achievements, but nonetheless you are instantly dismissive because it is not part of the "white" world.

 

Science is facts, not skin color.

Nice try with the identity politics there. Ever been to Sudan? Doesn't matter if you're rainbow colored, ain't exactly a hotbed of science in there. But let's double down and say CO2 is caused by white middle aged meat eating straight men, eh? They're responsible for all evil anyway.

 

Now that that little gem is done and Godwin's law was proved pages ago, the point: Climate "science" is starting to look more and more like women studies, where a bunch of extremists start crossreferencing each other in their papers, creating an illusion that it's all legit, when it's in fact just a <deleted> circle of buddies trying to look legit. Fillers like Climate University of Nakhon Nowhere add to the bulk and bring up percentages. 

 

It's institutions like this that can be taken a bit more seriously, although there's no guarantee of absence of bias there either: https://climate.mit.edu/

[DrTuner]

2 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

Have you noticed how there are hardly any jokes about the reality of climate change but loads about MMCC deniers? Maybe climate deniers cant think of one or draw?

How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

 

None, there will be only candles left when they are done.

 

I'll get me coat.

[Airbagwill]

34 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

 

None, there will be only candles left when they are done.

 

I'll get me coat.

QED

[Airbagwill]

46 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Nice try with the identity politics there. Ever been to Sudan? Doesn't matter if you're rainbow colored, ain't exactly a hotbed of science in there. But let's double down and say CO2 is caused by white middle aged meat eating straight men, eh? They're responsible for all evil anyway.

 

Now that that little gem is done and Godwin's law was proved pages ago, the point: Climate "science" is starting to look more and more like women studies, where a bunch of extremists start crossreferencing each other in their papers, creating an illusion that it's all legit, when it's in fact just a <deleted> circle of buddies trying to look legit. Fillers like Climate University of Nakhon Nowhere add to the bulk and bring up percentages. 

 

It's institutions like this that can be taken a bit more seriously, although there's no guarantee of absence of bias there either: https://climate.mit.edu/

" Climate "science" is starting to look more and more like women studies, " - QED!

[Forethat]

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

The second reference to 97% (or close to that number) I believe is a paper published by PNAS 2010 (William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, Expert credibility in climate change). In this case, 1,372 scientists were asked if they believed that global warming is the result of human activities. 50 of the respondents had previously published papers on anthropogenic global warming and got selected. 49 of the selected 50 agreed that humans are causing global warming. That's 98% of 50, but only 2.3% of the 1,372 who replied.

 

With the above in mind, the abstract becomes almost humorous (I have been careful to stick to the fair use policy):

 

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

 

 

The THIRD paper I've found where there are references to an alleged 97% consensus is published by IOP 2010 (John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature).

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

 

This is widely known as the paper where climate-scepticism is "debunked". They reviewed 11,944 scientific papers. 97% of the papers agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human activity has SOME effect on global warming. Here's the kicker; only 41 (!!) of the papers stated that human activity and CO2-production is the main cause for the global warming since 1950. 41 out of 11,944 is 0.3%.

 

 

[Forethat]

6 minutes ago, Forethat said:

The THIRD paper I've found where there are references to an alleged 97% consensus is published by IOP 2010 (John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature).

 

This is widely known as the paper where climate-scepticism is "debunked". They reviewed 11,944 scientific papers. 97% of the papers agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human activity has SOME effect on global warming. Here's the kicker; only 41 (!!) of the papers stated that human activity and CO2-production is the main cause for the global warming since 1950. 41 out of 11,944 is 0.3%.

The FOURTH reference to an alleged 97% consensus is - unbelievably enough - again made by John Cook in a paper published by IOP 2016 (John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T Doran, William R L Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W Maibach, J Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew G Skuce, Sarah A Green, Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming). In this paper, they are making references to the three papers I've mentioned earlier and are basically reusing the results in those three reports to support their own agenda.

 

The abstract, again, shows that these papers are is more or less a statistic trickery:

Quote

Abstract

 

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. 

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

[brokenbone]

30 minutes ago, Forethat said:

The THIRD paper I've found where there are references to an alleged 97% consensus is published by IOP 2010 (John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature).

 

This is widely known as the paper where climate-scepticism is "debunked". They reviewed 11,944 scientific papers. 97% of the papers agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human activity has SOME effect on global warming. Here's the kicker; only 41 (!!) of the papers stated that human activity and CO2-production is the main cause for the global warming since 1950. 41 out of 11,944 is 0.3%.

 

 

yes, i found him earlier, the way he make up result is a bit distressing,

John Cook john@skepticalscience... 130.102.158.12

When I read an abstract like this: Spatial And Temporal Projected Distribution Of Four Crop Plants In Egypt ... It is projected that there will be increased air temperature throughout all four seasons in the coming 100 years, from the southern towards the northern parts of Egypt... We can be confident that this statement is based on the fact of AGW. So is it not appropriate to rate it as 'implicit endorsement'? Not all 'predictions of future warming' tip over the line into endorsement but the stronger the prediction, the more the likelihood of implicit endorsement, methinks.

 

i sure wouldnt spend my time going through all the abstracts,

so i only read this abstract he is referring to as "endorsement of co2 theory",

(which, do note, is the very premise of this survey)

but the fact is that abstract does not ever mention co2 nor man made,

they simply expect temperature to rise another 0.5%C or so over the course of

the next 100 years.

but what ever, john cook and fellow enthusiastic amateurs happily add

it to the 'scientific literature that think climate is largely driven by man'

so to recap, he takes an abstract that does not ever mention

co2 or otherwise man made global warming, and declare that very same

abstract support the theory of man made global warming through

co2 recycling ! adding to the much vaunted 97 consensus,

even when it doesnt add

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html