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

[tlandtday]

another hack indirectly bought and paid for by the Soros foundations and setting up the climate change agenda for huge Wall Street carbon trading profits in the billions or trillions...

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, tlandtday said:

another hack indirectly bought and paid for by the Soros foundations and setting up the climate change agenda for huge Wall Street carbon trading profits in the billions or trillions...

Pretty much. Perfectly summed up.

 

And people are buying into it, hook, line, and sinker.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, grollies said:

No, they summarised the article thus:

 

" It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." (My emphasis).

 

So they took the 79 'secialists' responses, stated 96.2% answered 'risen' to Q1 and 97.4% answered 'yes' to Q2 and used those results to summarise as above and use the phrase "largely nonexistent" (sic).

No, their conclusion wasn't just based on those 79 specialists. If you look at the graph, you'll see that for all actively publishing scientists who replied

 

21 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Just to point out, I brought this paper up for discussion because several posters referred to it in reference to the 97% consensus. 

 

WHat the climate alarmists have done is to build up a series of papers that make incorrect statistical conclusions. The second one refers to the second one, the third one refers to the second and so on. Finally IPCC refers to ALL of them and claims that there are several papers making the same conclusion - that there is a 97% consensus. There isn't. it's a fib, just as you point out.

 

First post

 

Second post

 

Third post

 

 

Forth post

 

 

That someone can argue against this is pretty explanatory for the debate - people simply refuse to admit that they are wrong.  

You mean like claiming that only 77 responses were included and the rest eliminated arbitrarily? Even though the report clearly showed that all 3000 plus respondents were included and that the group of 77 was only one of several subgroups? And the report explicitly stated why the groups were divided they way they were?

You mean like claiming that the report represented that the 97.4 percent number was for all scientists when it explicitly stated that it was only for actively publishing climatologist who had published at least 50 percent of their paper on climate change in peer-reviews journals?

Whoever that poster was is clearly one of those people who "simply refuse to admit that they are wrong."

 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, tlandtday said:

another hack indirectly bought and paid for by the Soros foundations and setting up the climate change agenda for huge Wall Street carbon trading profits in the billions or trillions...

What's significant is not only that you offer no evidence for this but that a certain party endorses your assertion. Not much use for evidence.

[grollies]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

31 minutes ago, grollies said:

No, they summarised the article thus:

 

" It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scintific basis of long-term climate processes." (My emphasis).

 

So they took the 79 'secialists' responses, stated 96.2% answered 'risen' to Q1 and 97.4% answered 'yes' to Q2 and used those results to summarise as above and use the phrase "largely nonexistent" (sic).

No, their conclusion wasn't just based on those 79 specialists. If you look at the graph, you'll see that for all actively publishing scientists who replied

Yes, it was. I'm talking about their concluding remarks, not the graph. In stating the debate on AGW is "largely nonexistent" (sic) you must agree that non-existent is based on the 96.2% & 97.4% figures for Q1 & Q2 and not the overall trend from the graph.

 

It's a moot point anyway, the survey is spurious.

[Rimmer]

A baiting post removed

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/31/2019 at 6:46 PM, RickBradford said:

It's more like a zombie, being kept undead by repeated injections of hysteria from activists or the media, or sometimes the activists in the media, plus liberal application of taxpayer funds.

Trying to get facts using google is a bit difficult now. They seem to have bought into the <deleted> completely. I tried to find how much the sea level has risen around Thailand, and didn't find any facts, only a lot of Chicken Little could be, might be type results.

[thaibeachlovers]

39 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean like claiming that the report represented that the 97.4 percent number was for all scientists when it explicitly stated that it was only for actively publishing climatologist who had published at least 50 percent of their paper on climate change in peer-reviews journals?

Don't need a degree or to publish anything to go down to the beach and see that it's basically the same as when I was a lad, many decades ago.

The problem with the fallacy that only scientists are capable of understanding what is going on, is that what some say just isn't backed up by personal experience. Till it is, it's all just irrelevant to most people, who are just carrying on without a mind to it at all. No one I know is going to buy an electric car, because they're rubbish in real life, unless one lives in a city, and most of us don't.

 

[Airbagwill]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't need a degree or to publish anything to go down to the beach and see that it's basically the same as when I was a lad, many decades ago.

The problem with the fallacy that only scientists are capable of understanding what is going on, is that what some say just isn't backed up by personal experience. Till it is, it's all just irrelevant to most people, who are just carrying on without a mind to it at all. No one I know is going to buy an electric car, because they're rubbish in real life, unless one lives in a city, and most of us don't.

 

I think the fact someone doesn't have a degree contributes to a lack of observational skills and consequently understanding of global  warming. 

A degree, if its any good teaches critical thinking and the ability to understand the extreme limitations of casual observation.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

I think the fact someone doesn't have a degree contributes to a lack of observational skills and consequently understanding of global  warming. 

A degree, if its any good teaches critical thinking and the ability to understand the extreme limitations of casual observation.

 

It must really PO those with degrees, a huge student loan, and the only job they can find is "do you want fries with that" to see brickies and plumbers minting it ( and no student loan ).

 

Back to the topic. Being only 16, our heroine can't have a degree, yet every politician thinks the sun shines. Given that they are the ones pushing the fallacy that a degree is somehow necessary for a happy life, how do they reconcile the fact that their degree less heroine is telling everyone that they have to do something, though she does seem to be a bit short on what we actually should do.

Never mind, after she gets a degree, I'm sure she find something that we should actually do.

[Airbagwill]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

It must really PO those with degrees, a huge student loan, and the only job they can find is "do you want fries with that" to see brickies and plumbers minting it ( and no student loan ).

 

Back to the topic. Being only 16, our heroine can't have a degree, yet every politician thinks the sun shines. Given that they are the ones pushing the fallacy that a degree is somehow necessary for a happy life, how do they reconcile the fact that their degree less heroine is telling everyone that they have to do something, though she does seem to be a bit short on what we actually should do.

Never mind, after she gets a degree, I'm sure she find something that we should actually do.

As I said, clearly no idea of the benefits of a degree.

I think you'll find the the girl is well capable of degree-level critical thinking........ its just that some will never recognise it.

 

 

[grollies]

40 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Just to point out, I brought this paper up for discussion because several posters referred to it in reference to the 97% consensus. 

 

WHat the climate alarmists have done is to build up a series of papers that make incorrect statistical conclusions. The second one refers to the second one, the third one refers to the second and so on. Finally IPCC refers to ALL of them and claims that there are several papers making the same conclusion - that there is a 97% consensus. There isn't. it's a fib, just as you point out.

 

First post

 

Second post

 

Third post

 

 

Forth post

 

 

That someone can argue against this is pretty explanatory for the debate - people simply refuse to admit that they are wrong.  

I don't understand how John Cook gets away with his consensus argument.

 

His 2013 paper (here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf) summarises thus:

 

"Among papers expressing a position on AGW,an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings,97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientificconsensus on AGW".

 

So I looked at the text and his figures and I summarise as follows:

 

The survey consists of 11,944 papers and 29,286 authors (of the papers surveyed).

 

Part 1

Out of the 11,944 papers

3896 (32.6%) endorse AGW

7930 (66.4%) hold no position on AGW

78 (0.7%) reject AGW

40 (0.3%) uncertain on AGW

 

Out of the 29,286 authors

10,188 (34.8%) endorse AGW

18,930 (64.6%) hold no position on AGW

124 (0.4%) reject AGW

44 (0.2%) uncertain on AGW

 

He then emailed 8547 authors (from the 10,188 authors who endorse AGW? - he doesn't say) to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate).

 

After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors.

 

So we are really drilling-down here into a pool of authors (who already endorse AGW?).

 

Of those who self-rated,

 

Part 2

Out of the 2,142 papers

1342 (62.7%) endorse AGW

761 (35.5%) hold no position on AGW

39 (0.7%) reject AGW

 

Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Well, they would, wouldn't they?

 

Out of the 1189 authors

746 (62.7%) endorse AGW

415 (34.9%) hold no position on AGW

28 (2.4%) reject AGW

 

Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus

 

Once again, they would.

 

Because it's 97.2% of the 32.6% (of papers not authors from Part 1) and 97.1% of the 62.7% (of papers not authors from Part 2)

 

So, out of 14,086 papers it's actually only 5,238 that endorse AGW - 37.2%

and, out of 30,475 authors it's actually only 10,934 that endorse AGW - 35.9%

 

Hardly consensus.

 

[rabas]

10 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

As I said, clearly no idea of the benefits of a degree.

I think you'll find the the girl is well capable of degree-level critical thinking........ its just that some will never recognise it.

So you confirm neither a degree nor experience (she is 16) is required for degree-level critical thinking. Thank you.

 

[Airbagwill]

5 minutes ago, grollies said:

I don't understand how John Cook gets away with his consensus argument.

 

His 2013 paper (here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf) summarises thus:

 

"Among papers expressing a position on AGW,an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings,97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientificconsensus on AGW".

 

So I looked at the text and his figures and I summarise as follows:

 

The survey consists of 11,944 papers and 29,286 authors (of the papers surveyed).

 

Part 1

Out of the 11,944 papers

3896 (32.6%) endorse AGW

7930 (66.4%) hold no position on AGW

78 (0.7%) reject AGW

40 (0.3%) uncertain on AGW

 

Out of the 29,286 authors

10,188 (34.8%) endorse AGW

18,930 (64.6%) hold no position on AGW

124 (0.4%) reject AGW

44 (0.2%) uncertain on AGW

 

He then emailed 8547 authors (from the 10,188 authors who endorse AGW? - he doesn't say) to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate).

 

After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors.

 

So we are really drilling-down here into a pool of authors (who already endorse AGW?).

 

Of those who self-rated,

 

Part 2

Out of the 2,142 papers

1342 (62.7%) endorse AGW

761 (35.5%) hold no position on AGW

39 (0.7%) reject AGW

 

Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Well, they would, wouldn't they?

 

Out of the 1189 authors

746 (62.7%) endorse AGW

415 (34.9%) hold no position on AGW

28 (2.4%) reject AGW

 

Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus

 

Once again, they would.

 

Because it's 97.2% of the 32.6% (of papers not authors from Part 1) and 97.1% of the 62.7% (of papers not authors from Part 2)

 

So, out of 14,086 papers it's actually only 5,238 that endorse AGW - 37.2%

and, out of 30,475 authors it's actually only 10,934 that endorse AGW - 35.9%

 

Hardly consensus.

 

Get up to speed - there is consensus.

[grollies]

5 minutes ago, rabas said:

13 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

As I said, clearly no idea of the benefits of a degree.

I think you'll find the the girl is well capable of degree-level critical thinking........ its just that some will never recognise it.

So you confirm neither a degree nor experience (she is 16) is required for degree-level critical thinking. Thank you.

You kind of shot yourself in the foot here @Airbagwill that must hurt a bit?

[grollies]

5 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Get up to speed - there is consensus.

Yes, I totally agree, it's 97% consensus among those who already agree with each other. Forget the rest?

[grollies]

Just now, Airbagwill said:

 

I don’t get it. What’s the problem with climate change, ice bergs melting and the sea level rising?

I mean the excess water just flows down the edge of the Earth.

Er, ok. There are some of us here (pro and con) who are putting up observation, opinion, quoting sources where necessary and generally having a debate.

 

You on the other hand, where is your argument apart from calling everyone who disagrees with you a flat-earther?

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

WHat the climate alarmists have done is to build up a series of papers that make incorrect statistical conclusions. 

I mentioned this is the standard MO in humanistic circles, especially women studies. You get a gang together and start crossreferencing each other, hey presto, "consencus" and "settled science". Climate is now politics so same same.

[grollies]

1 minute ago, Airbagwill said:

You mat think you are having a debate but your aren't -  out are too dim to understand what a debate is, this is just a litany of mysogny and gainsaying.

What has misogyny got to do with a climate debate?

 

2 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

There IS NO DEBATE about climate change - that finished decades ago, this is just a comical bunch of dinosaurs rambling on about diddly.

Er, the debate on warming only started in the 90's via James Hansen from NASA. Before that the 'scientific consensus' was on an approaching Little Ice Age.

 

It's Greta, Extinction Rebellion et al who would have us all living in the dark.

 

As for the rest of your comments, I don't understand them.

[DrTuner]

13 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

There IS NO DEBATE about climate change - that finished decades ago, this is just a comical bunch of dinosaurs rambling on about diddly.

Ah, decades ago. That'd be 70's, which means we're headed for an ice age. Damn, I was hoping it'll get warmer.

 

 

[DrTuner]

8 minutes ago, grollies said:

What has misogyny got to do with a climate debate?

Climate is fickle, it must be female. We all know Mother Gaia is.

 

I'll go get me coat.

[Airbagwill]

11 minutes ago, grollies said:

What has misogyny got to do with a climate debate?

Oh dear! Absolutely nothing, that's why its not a debate!

[Airbagwill]

14 minutes ago, grollies said:

Er, the debate on warming only started in the 90's via James Hansen from NASA

oh dear oh dear - how ill informed climate deniers are! Is this really the summit of their intellect. MMCC was first mooted in the 19thC and the first serious papers appeared in the 1950s, but your comments do indicate how out of touch people can be.

[grollies]

4 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

oh dear oh dear - how ill informed climate deniers are! Is this really the summit of their intellect. MMCC was first mooted in the 19thC and the first serious papers appeared in the 1950s, but your comments do indicate how out of touch people can be.

The summit of your intellect appears to be Wikipedia.

 

I agree, climate change has been discussed amongst scientists prior to the 1970's but it was only in the 90's and the advent of the internet that AGW has become a mainstream topic.

[grollies]

24 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

I mentioned this is the standard MO in humanistic circles, especially women studies. You get a gang together and start crossreferencing each other, hey presto, "consencus" and "settled science". Climate is now politics so same same.

I believe the Climate Change debate is now too corrupted by scientists (on both sides of the argument) to enable laypersons to make an informed decision.

 

The more taxes are increased on the general populace, the sooner people will start to ask questions.

 

Chile and the cancellation of COP25 is a prime example.

[CharlieH]

Troll comment removed.

 

Keep it civil please and no personal remarks.

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

[Forethat]

What is utterly bizarre with most Climate Alarmists is that the second someone points out flaws in references to scientific work or even data (in most of the discussions here the data tend to be instrumental), you somehow become a ”climate denier”. 

 

It’s like pointing out to someone that the newly repaired front bumper on their red Ferrari has been painted green.

”Aha, a Ferrari-hater!”

 

Laughable. 

[Forethat]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Trying to get facts using google is a bit difficult now. They seem to have bought into the <deleted> completely. I tried to find how much the sea level has risen around Thailand, and didn't find any facts, only a lot of Chicken Little could be, might be type results.

Any particular area you are interested in @thaibeachlovers? Gulf of Thailand or Andaman Sea?

I can serve this data.

[Rimmer]

Troll post removed

[DrTuner]

14 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

 

By the way..how is your Malthusian/eugenics campaign going to line up millions of blacks and lead them off to sterilization?

Not well. I think I need to take the western feminist playbook and teach the African females in the militant arts. Worked a treat in the west.

 

Only way humankind can thrive is to limit heads per square kilometer. One per twenty sqkm seems alright to me.