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

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

I believe what you quoted is a summary of the old Doran and Zimmerman results from a paragraph within the AMS publication, and not a summary of the actual AMS study results. I don't know if this is what you intended.

 

What I have quoted I’d a direct extract from the ‘Comments’

section of the linked report.

[grollies]

There is a rare head-to-head debate on AGW/ACC here:

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, grollies said:

No, this is a quote fom the document, the first paragraph of the discussion section.

 

However, at the start of the document, this is what they said about Doran-Zimmerman:

 

"Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%)."

 

Links previously posted on this page, above (do we have to post links each time? - ah, I suppose so: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1)

 

I don't have much faith in these surveys, it's like walking into a KFC and taking a survey of how many people eat chicken.

You seem not to know how academic reports are structured.

 

Where the subject of the study is outlined and where the conclusions are drawn.

 

 

This might help:

 

https://www.wordy.com/writers-workshop/writing-an-academic-report/

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, grollies said:

 

I don't have much faith in these surveys, it's like walking into a KFC and taking a survey of how many people eat chicken.

That’s an odd thing to say given that only a couple of days ago in this thread you were presenting this as your argument:

 

On 11/4/2019 at 7:51 AM, grollies said:

This chart (re-posted with link) is from an article published by the Friends of Science, Calgary, 2014

 

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

 

It demonstrates the same point that @bristolboy is making. In the same vein that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is not caused by human activity, the graph below shows that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is caused by human activity.

 

From these graphs posted here and by BB the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no consensus on AGW or ACC or whatever they call it now.

 

 

 

 

 

[grollies]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You seem not to know how academic reports are structured.

 

Where the subject of the study is outlined and where the conclusions are drawn.

 

 

This might help:

 

https://www.wordy.com/writers-workshop/writing-an-academic-report/

LOL - these two documents are not Scientific Papers/Academic reports, rather surveys.

 

In any case I don't understand your post. I checked out your link (wordy.com? Really?)

 

The site states " The sections that are usually included in an academic report are as follows:

 

Introduction

Literature Review/Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion"

 

Here is the accepted structure of a Scientific Paper:

Abstract

Introduction

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

 

Maybe Wordy.com is not the place people should go for advice on structuring a scientific paper?

 

[grollies]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s an odd thing to say given that only a couple of days ago in this thread you were presenting this as your argument:

 

 

No it isn't. The green circle is the KFC outlet.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, grollies said:

No it isn't. The green circle is the KFC outlet.

I think we’ve established beyond question that your arguments blow with the wind.

 

You go from presenting failed surveys you believe support your views to telling us you don’t have much faith in these surveys when they don’t support the arguments you make.

 

 

[grollies]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think we’ve established beyond question that your arguments blow with the wind.

 

You go from presenting failed surveys you believe support your views to telling us you don’t have much faith in these surveys when they don’t support the arguments you make.

 

 

Excellent.

 

My view is there is no scientific consensus and I lean towards the skeptical side of the AGW/ACC debate.

 

I'm glad you believe these surveys are 'failed', as do I.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, grollies said:

Excellent.

 

My view is there is no scientific consensus and I lean towards the skeptical side of the AGW/ACC debate.

 

I'm glad you believe these surveys are 'failed', as do I.

As recorded in this thread, you posted a hopelessly failed survey to bolster your argument and then declared you ‘don’t have much faith in these surveys’ in response to a survey undermining your arguments.

 

I do not believe, as you wish to tell me I do, that ‘these surveys are failed’, I did however explain the failings of the survey you were relying on.

 

Again, no need to argue or assign me beliefs I do not hold., refer to the record of this thread.

[grollies]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As recorded in this thread, you posted a hopelessly failed survey to bolster your argument and then declared you ‘don’t have much faith in these surveys’ in response to a survey undermining your arguments.

 

I do not believe, as you wish to tell me I do, that ‘these surveys are failed’, I did however explain the failings of the survey you were relying on.

 

Again, no need to argue or assign me beliefs I do not hold., refer to the record of this thread.

You seem to be getting hopelessly lost in your comments and reasoning.

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You go from presenting failed surveys

From your post #2506 above, your words, not mine.

 

And again in your post #2508 Quote: "you posted a hopelessly failed survey" again, your words, not mine.

 

You have twice expressed the opinion that you think the surveys are failed and then say Quote:  "I do not believe, as you wish to tell me I do, that ‘these surveys are failed’. Confusion reigns.

 

 

Personally, I am not relying on these surveys to prove anything except a lack of consensus, so, yes, I have no faith in the reliability of the surveys, especially those of Zimmerman et al, Cook, etc.

 

I was pointing out that out of all the surveys out there, probably the most reliable are those of the AMS and even then they don't prove definitive consensus i.e. the 97% touted by Obama, Mann, Gore, etc.

 

For the reasons above that is the end of our discussion. Thanks.

 

 

[DrTuner]

I think 97% of TVF is in consensus bickering scientists are not entertaining. Where's the wine, bread & gladiators? Didn't Greta tell the apocalypse should be here by now? Action!

[grollies]

2 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

I think 97% of TVF is in consensus bickering scientists are not entertaining. Where's the wine, bread & gladiators? Didn't Greta tell the apocalypse should be here by now? Action!

Maybe the SV Regina Maris (taking a bunch of 'changemakers' from Europe to the now-cancelled COP summit) can pop over to pick up Greta and take her home?

 

I find the bickering of scientists entertaining and at the same time depressing.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/4/2019 at 4:14 AM, bristolboy said:

compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t:

Only a blind person that lives in a fridge would deny that the planet is getting ( slightly ) warmer. The point is whether we caused it and if we did can we change it to??????????????????

 

Tell me if I'm wrong, but mankind's contribution to atmospheric carbon is well under 5%, the rest coming from natural sources. Sooooo, even if humans were capable of reducing our contribution to zero ( and there is absolutely no possibility of anywhere near that sort of reduction ) our efforts would have probably no effect at all.

 

I'm all for a cleaner, greener planet, as pollution is a terrible thing, and kills probably millions of other animals every year, but the idea that we can stop climate changing is just, IMO, barking.

 

The very best thing people can do to reduce pollution, atmospheric carbon etc is to have less children.

 

 

[brokenbone]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Only a blind person that lives in a fridge would deny that the planet is getting ( slightly ) warmer. The point is whether we caused it and if we did can we change it to??????????????????

 

Tell me if I'm wrong, but mankind's contribution to atmospheric carbon is well under 5%, the rest coming from natural sources. Sooooo, even if humans were capable of reducing our contribution to zero ( and there is absolutely no possibility of anywhere near that sort of reduction ) our efforts would have probably no effect at all.

 

I'm all for a cleaner, greener planet, as pollution is a terrible thing, and kills probably millions of other animals every year, but the idea that we can stop climate changing is just, IMO, barking.

 

The very best thing people can do to reduce pollution, atmospheric carbon etc is to have less children.

 

 

if you are all for a greener planet, then you are all for an increase in co2 recycling into atmosphere, it is a fact that biomass increases with increased co2,

and the result of our effort is already proven, - a greener planet.

if it add a degree warmer, then thats just the icing of the cake,

but nothing will take us back to the good ole cambrian era

with 3000 ppm co2 and 5 degree warmer when even the arctic

was in full bloom, the core of the planet has gotten old and cold

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, brokenbone said:

if you are all for a greener planet, then you are all for an increase in co2 recycling into atmosphere, it is a fact that biomass increases with increased co2,

and the result of our effort is already proven.

if it add a degree warmer, then thats just the icing of the cake

I'm all for anything that makes it less cold.

I'm also for reducing if not eliminating waste and pollution, which can be achieved by reducing population.

[brokenbone]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm all for anything that makes it less cold.

I'm also for reducing if not eliminating waste and pollution, which can be achieved by reducing population.

yes, the plastic waste bothers me too, i think the western population & states are handling it well enough, but the lack of large trash cans and emptying of them here is an 'in the face' occurrence, it especially bothers me that its going into the oceans

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

yes, the plastic waste bothers me too, i think the western population & states

are handling it well enough, but the lack of large trash cans and emptying

of them here is an 'in the face' occurrence, it especially bothers me that its

going into the oceans

Yes, if the climate warriors could focus on getting rid of plastic, they would have my support, and i dare to say, the support of 97% of the population, but one can only hope.

[rabas]

48 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, if the climate warriors could focus on getting rid of plastic, they would have my support, and i dare to say, the support of 97% of the population, but one can only hope.

No profit. Big loss to industries that force huge amounts of low quality disposable products on the world. Reducing disposablism would also lower CO₂ but you can't demand $100 trillion from people to make less stuff. Better to demand $100 trillion or face death by climate.

 

My own pet peeve is disposable razors that defy all attempts to increase their lifetime. I often wonder how many years of research it took to achieve that. 

 

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

No profit. Big loss to industries that force huge amounts of low quality disposable products on the world. Reducing disposablism would also lower CO₂ but you can't demand $100 trillion from people to make less stuff. Better to demand $100 trillion or face death by climate.

 

My own pet peeve is disposable razors that defy all attempts to increase their lifetime. I often wonder how many years of research it took to achieve that. 

 

In fact the real battle humankind is facing is against the "profit at all costs" mentality, which enrich few, while making life difficult for the rest, man made global warming is a false target aimed to confuse and divide the public opinion.

[Forethat]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

In fact the real battle humankind is facing is against the "profit at all costs" mentality, which enrich few, while making life difficult for the rest, man made global warming is a false target aimed to confuse and divide the public opinion.

I beg to differ.

 

Mankind's biggest battle is the reptile brain mentality that makes people susceptible to whatever verbal excrement someone comes up with. 

If I didn't know any better I'd say the climate panic hoax is nothing but a huge psychological experiment; someone is trying to find out how much BS you can shove down someone's throat - and charge them for the privilege - before they realise they are being played. Like a banjo.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I beg to differ.

 

Mankind's biggest battle is the reptile brain mentality that makes people susceptible to whatever verbal excrementsomeone comes up with. 

If I didn't know any better I'd say the climate panic hoax is nothing but a huge psychological experiment; someone is trying to find out how much BS you can shove down someone's throat - and charge them for the privilege - before they realise they are being played. Like a banjo.

Well said, but i'm puzzled by the part i emboldened.. Care to explain ?

[brokenbone]

3 hours ago, Forethat said:

I beg to differ.

 

Mankind's biggest battle is the reptile brain mentality that makes people susceptible to whatever verbal excrement someone comes up with. 

If I didn't know any better I'd say the climate panic hoax is nothing but a huge psychological experiment; someone is trying to find out how much BS you can shove down someone's throat - and charge them for the privilege - before they realise they are being played. Like a banjo.

that thought did cross my mind, either way it grudge me that i will be

included as one of the extinction cultists 50 years from now and cant

defend myself

[brokenbone]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well said, but i'm puzzled by the part i emboldened.. Care to explain ?

its too stupid to be true.

once there was an experiment how much people would inflict pain on others on order,

this would be an experiment on a much larger scale if people

are willingly giving up heating, transportation, and food,

because 'scientists say' the gas of life can potentially increase world temperature

by 1 degree celsius, perhaps even as high as during medieval warm period

when the britts had their own wine yard.

oh, right, i forgot, there was no medieval warm period,

'temperature has never been this high for the past 2000 years !!!'

cue creative revisionism, compare ipcc v1990 vs v2010

now with no medieval warm period nor little ice age, buy NOW !

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

its too stupid to be true.

once there was an experiment how much people would inflict pain on others on order,

this would be an experiment on a much larger scale if people

are willingly giving up heating, transportation, and food,

because 'scientists say' the gas of life can potentially increase world temperature

by 1 degree celsius

Well, you can say it's too stupid to be true, yet i'm convinced that the public opinion is constantly surveyed by the governments and the various powers, just for them to know how much bs we can swallow.

..And i'm pretty sure we are served a lot of bs on daily basis by the mainstream media.

[DrTuner]

57 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, you can say it's too stupid to be true, yet i'm convinced that the public opinion is constantly surveyed by the governments and the various powers, just for them to know how much bs we can swallow.

..And i'm pretty sure we are served a lot of bs on daily basis by the mainstream media.

That's the bread & butter of social media networks. They use big data and AI to push ads, but you can do it with just I and elbow grease to push agendas like the "activists" are doing. Or as you mentioned the professional politicians have been doing since they became a thing - must've been sometime in ancient Greece. 

[Crazy Alex]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm all for anything that makes it less cold.

I'm also for reducing if not eliminating waste and pollution, which can be achieved by reducing population.

How do we reduce the population without forced sterilization and/or abortions?

[DrTuner]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

How do we reduce the population without forced sterilization and/or abortions?

Feminism has worked well. Should be a heavy correlation between militant feminism and declining birth rates.

 

Here's something a bit more PC for the mainstream: https://populationmatters.org/solutions

[Forethat]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

How do we reduce the population without forced sterilization and/or abortions?

The simplest solution would be to simply cull 50% of the population.

[faraday]

7 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

How do we reduce the population without forced sterilization and/or abortions?

Introduce diseases, perhaps; but then the Pharmaceutical industry would have less customers...?

 

 

[DrTuner]

40 minutes ago, faraday said:

Introduce diseases, perhaps; but then the Pharmaceutical industry would have less customers...?

The advances in medicine are one of the reasons population has exploded. IIRC in Roman times the average life expectancy was under 40y. Wars also took care of excess population. And there were no McDonalds in every corner so famine & co did their part. Mother nature kept the balance.

 

That, if anything, is man made climate change. By eliminating sources of early death we've paved way for human population to explode and result is deforestation, desertification, pollution in urbanized areas, etc, etc, etc. This ball ain't big enough for all of us.