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

[Chazar]

On 10/19/2019 at 8:22 AM, pegman said:

I should have known from your avatar pic.  It was my displeasure, for many years, to have to spend one or two weeks a month in Cowtown. The only good thing I remember about that place was Tuesday pasta nite at the Pallister Hotel lounge.  One of the worst days of my work career was when I found out the corporation i dealt with was moving their headquarters from the great city of Montreal to Calgary. I cried for a week. I should add Caesar's Steak House & Lounge have the best grilled steak in Canada.

 

Back on topic. Real  science  not paid for by the fossil fuel industry. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

Yeah lets show the whole  story though (4.6 billion) not  just the last  800k years , which is that tiny flat  bit at the end of this graph

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Solinvictus said:

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.

It's not possible for an American to be "unAmerican". 

They may disagree with other Americans, but they are still Americans.

[Airbagwill]

9 hours ago, Sujo said:

If you have credentials to question the consensus im sure you sent them in for consideration.

 

If not, then its just hot air.

 

[Solinvictus]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's not possible for an American to be "unAmerican". 

They may disagree with other Americans, but they are still Americans.

Misquoted my post and took it out of context.

[Forethat]

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Already said my piece earlier in thread.

 

Including pointing out misquoting of Carl Wunsch.

 

Provided evidence of this that was ignored...

Never called anyone a liar or a basket of anything as far as I recall. Please back up these allegations. 

Never misquoted Carl Wunsch. Please back up these allegations.

 

You just called me a liar again.

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Never misquoted Carl Wunsch. Please back up these allegations.

 

You just called me a liar again.

Nope, I posted a link to a letter, written by Carl Wunsch himself, in reply to a post making claims on his views [taken from a channel 4 documentary}, where he himself made clear the documentary on channel 4 misrepresented his views.

 

Did you read it? 

 

Now please back up your allegations about myself.

[RideJocky]

Misquoted my post and took it out of context.

How?

[RideJocky]

Nope, I posted a link to a letter, written by Carl Wunsch himself, in reply to a post making claims on his views [taken from a channel 4 documentary}, where he himself made clear the documentary on channel 4 misrepresented his views.
 
Did you read it? 
 
Now please back up your allegations about myself.

Yeah, a lot of people back-pedal when the left puts the heat on them.

That’s what they don’t like about Trump. He doubles-down on the idiocy

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Yeah, a lot of people back-pedal when the left puts the heat on them.

That’s what they don’t like about Trump. He doubles-down on the idiocy

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

 

Channel 4 deliberately misrepresented his views...a fact some choose to refuse to accept.

[RideJocky]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
 
Channel 4 deliberately misrepresented his views...a fact some choose to refuse to accept.

The press deliberately misrepresents most everything.

How many times have you heard or read the 97% lie regurgitated?

Do you not think it is intentional?

You’ve knowingly regurgitated the 97% lie yourself any number of times, and now your panties are all in a bunch about someone else using the same tactics you use.

Get over it.

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

The press deliberately misrepresents most everything.

How many times have you heard or read the 97% lie regurgitated?

Do you not think it is intentional?

You’ve knowingly regurgitated the 97% lie yourself any number of times, and now your panties are all in a bunch about someone else using the same tactics you use.

Get over it.
 

 

Yeah, I've read all the "opinions" on this thread.

 

I made clear my views on the facts earlier. Not going to do so again. Or respond to snide comments.

 

Care to admit Wunsch did not back pedal?

[RideJocky]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
 
Channel 4 deliberately misrepresented his views...a fact some choose to refuse to accept.

It is worth noting that in his clarification that you linked to, he made it clear the science was nowhere near settled, yet you and most everyone that buys into the hysteria claims it is.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, RideJocky said:

 

It is worth noting that in his clarification that you linked to, he made it clear the science was nowhere near settled, yet you and most everyone that buys into the hysteria claims it is.
 

 

I buy into the science and facts.

[RideJocky]

Yeah, I've read all the "opinions" on this thread.
 
I made clear my views on the facts earlier. Not going to do so again. Or respond to snide comments.
 
Care to admit Wunsch did not back pedal?

I never saw his original statements, so I have no idea. But clearly he is of the opinion the science is not settled.

Care to admit the 97% is a regurgitated lie?

Care to admit the science isn’t settled?

Didn’t think so.

[RideJocky]

I buy into the science and facts.

Yeah, we all do.

[Forethat]

9 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Already said my piece earlier in thread.

 

Including pointing out misquoting of Carl Wunsch.

 

Provided evidence of this that was ignored...

Never called anyone a liar or a basket of anything as far as I recall. Please back up these allegations. 

You pointed out misquoting of Carl Wunsch? You pointed out diddly, to be fair. Here's some of that "backing up" that you so often ask for and repeatedly fail to recognise when it is provided.

 

Here's the Carl Wunsch quote (the one you claim is a misquote (in other words, you claimed that I lied) :

Quote

Carl wunsch is professor of oceanography at MIT. He was also visiting professor in oceanography at Harvard University and University College London. And a senior visiting fellow in Mathematics and physics at the University of Cambridge. He is the author of four major textbooks on oceanography. 

 

“The ocean is the major reservoir into which carbon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or to from which it is readmitted to the.. the atmosphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean it tends to emit carbon dioxide. So similarly if you cool the ocean surface the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide.”

 

Here's a link to the quote:

 

Here's a video where you can listen to Carl Wunsch uttering that EXACT phrase:

 

In other words, my quote is correct, and your allegations are incorrect. And on top of everything you claim to have "provided evidence"?

Quote

 

"Including pointing out misquoting of Carl Wunsch.

 

Provided evidence of this that was ignored..."

 

 

 

PS.

Oh and btw, if you've forgotten how many times you use the word "liar" and "lie", please ask me to provide evidence of that as well... ????

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Yeah, we all do.

 

Good to see.

[Bluespunk]

9 minutes ago, Forethat said:

You pointed out misquoting of Carl Wunsch? You pointed out diddly, to be fair. Here's some of that "backing up" that you so often ask for and repeatedly fail to recognise when it is provided.

 

Here's the Carl Wunsch quote (the one you claim is a misquote (in other words, you claimed that I lied) :

 

Here's a link to the quote:

 

Here's a video where you can listen to Carl Wunsch uttering that EXACT phrase:

 

In other words, my quote is correct, and your allegations are incorrect. And on top of everything you claim to have "provided evidence"?

"Including pointing out misquoting of Carl Wunsch.

 

Provided evidence of this that was ignored..."

 

PS.

Oh and btw, if you've forgotten how many times you use the word "liar" and "lie", please ask me to provide evidence of that as well... ????

I'll take Wunsch's word on what happened and what his views are over yours anytime.

 

Especially, though not exclusively, as you cannot back up the allegations you made of me.

[Forethat]

11 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I'll take Wunsch's word on what happened and what his views are over yours anytime.

 

Especially, though not exclusively, as you cannot back up the allegations you made of me.

Come again? I just backed up the allegation in the most detailed manner. What else is it that you fail to comprehend? That you repeatedly call people liars?

Like here:

 

and here:

 

So in summary:

1. You repeatedly call people liars. Fact

2. You didn't provide evidence of a "misquote". Fact.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Come again? I just backed up the allegation in the most detailed manner. What else is it that you fail to comprehend? That you repeatedly call people liars?

Like here:

 

and here:

 

So in summary:

1. You repeatedly call people liars. Fact

2. You didn't provide evidence of a "misquote". Fact.

 

 

I am telling you Wunsch knows what he meant and knows what he said better than you.

 

I also note in my posts I say Patrick Moore is lying and his claim to have founded Greenpeace is a lie.

 

Not you.

 

Now please back up your claims.

 

 

[Forethat]

45 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I am telling you Wunsch knows what he meant and knows what he said better than you.

 

I also note in my posts I say Patrick Moore is lying and his claim to have founded Greenpeace is a lie.

 

Not you.

 

Now please back up your claims.

 

 

You repeatedly use the word "liar" and you claim to have provided evidence that I misquoted Carl Wunsch.

I have provided detailed evidence to prove that you DO use the word "liar" and "lie" to describe others, and I have also proved that you have NOT provided any evidence that I misquoted Carl Wunsch. Instead, I have provided evidence of the contrary. I quoted him word by word.

 

 

 

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, Forethat said:

You repeatedly use the word "liar" and you claim to have provided evidence that I misquoted Carl Wunsch.

I have provided detailed evidence to prove that you DO use the word "liar" and "lie" to describe others, and I have also proved that you have NOT provided any evidence that I misquoted Carl Wunsch. Instead, I have provided evidence of the contrary. I quoted him word by word.

 

 

 

Don't why I expected anything else but deflection and denial from you...

[Sujo]

16 hours ago, Forethat said:

Well, isn't that the whole point? 10,257 scientists were asked to put their name to a theory which supported the view that global warming is caused by human production of CO2.

 

77 did.

 

But you posit that 97% of them did.

 

I really don't know what to say here...

No. 1200 scientists considered all evidence and came to a strong concensus.

 

Its settled. So no need to be upset the UN didnt ask for your advice.

[Forethat]

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No. 1200 scientists considered all evidence and came to a strong concensus.

 

Its settled. So no need to be upset the UN didnt ask for your advice.

Not in the papers I have quoted. I have (as usual) provided details and links to all referenced material. You can go there and read for yourself.

SImple as that.

 

One more thing, you should probably stop attacking me for an opinion I don't have. I don't claim to know better than anyone, I'm simply pointing out the flaws in statements where it is claimed that there is a 97% consensus. There is no such thing, and I have proved exactly that. As I have previously written in clear text:

Quote

 

My experiences of peer review and academic progress tell me that the most controversial subjects tend to have a 50/50 divide.

 

Note that I don't support either one, I'm simply expressing an opinion in terms of how big support there is for a theory.

 

So please stop the ad hominem fallacy and insulting posts.

[Solinvictus]

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

How?

You can't figure that out? Ahh..figures. Well, try grasping the point of that golden post of mine rather than focusing on your inability to figure out "how?" 555 I recommend kindly, that you and @thaibeachlovers should reread the thread. Ha, you both can't figure it out, wow.

 

Ehh, this thread on the great Activist Greta Thunberg has been taken over by dudes that like to argue not to mention clearly unable read when cognitive dissonance is felt. ????

 

By the way, establishment supporting republican conservatives are some of the least educated around. IMO. ????‍♀️ 

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

No. 1200 scientists considered all evidence and came to a strong concensus.

 

Its settled. So no need to be upset the UN didnt ask for your advice.

no, this is verifiable directly from the horses mouth,

maggie zimmerman received 3146 responses,

but she decided to use only 79 out of those to calculate percentage,

and then she subtracted 2 out of those 79.

the appropriate way to calculate is 79/3146 =2.5%

but she felt like 2.5% consensus wasnt going to give people like yourself

any argument to bring up,

so instead she cherry picked those 79 that thought co2 has added any

tangible increase in temperature, and subtracted with 2,

and voila, 77/79 = 97%, now we're gettin somewhere, THIS is the

result she sought before she even sent out the survey.

 

 

this 97% consensus scam is all verifiable straight from maggie zimmerman herself,

the other environmental enthusiasts, cook et all etc, uses the very same Modus Operandi to make it to 97%, while the actual consensus,

if adhering to standard procedure turns out to be 2-3 %

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/

[brokenbone]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

 

 

I also note in my posts I say Patrick Moore is lying and his claim to have founded Greenpeace is a lie.

 

 

 

when did patrick moore lie and when did he claim to have founded greenpeace ?

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

when did patrick moore lie and when did he claim to have founded greenpeace ?

Google is your friend. 
 

It’s not difficult to find this link and it’s not the first time I have posted it on this thread...

 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Google is your friend. 
 

It’s not difficult to find this link and it’s not the first time I have posted it on this thread...

 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

that site did not show any statement made by patrick moore that he founded greenpeace,

it only state that he played a significant role.

try again

[Bluespunk]

Just now, brokenbone said:

then paste the quote because i cant see it

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.