Is it climate change or climate ideals, the climate has been changing since the world began and will continue to do so till we are no longer here and it doesn't matter what you do about it you wont stop it , what you can stop is the pollution hovering over Hong Kong from the kind courtesy of China.

The Team behind her run a Mio $ business. Clever idea and model. Not sure they will get as rich as AL Gore. Not denying the fact of action needed. Why not make a few Mio on the way. MS>

On 12/11/2019 at 9:17 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Influencer gets Time ‘Person of the Year 2019’.

She is the messenger, yet is being "attacked" by posters here because they say that she doesn't really understand what she saying, just that she is a puppet for someone else?

 

Well, "blow me down with a feather" (as Blackadder might say).......there are countless examples out there of people in the front line not knowing what they are saying (trump for example, even if coached) or just spouting nonsense because of the beliefs of someone else, but as long as the messenger can be shot, the message won't get out whether right or wrong.

 

I just loved this excerpt from the daily New Zealand Herald newspaper........ 

 

 

6 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Well, "blow me down with a feather" (as Blackadder might say).......there are countless examples out there of people in the front line not knowing what they are saying (trump for example, even if coached) or just spouting nonsense because of the beliefs of someone else, but as long as the messenger can be shot, the message won't get out whether right or wrong.

All roads have to lead to Trump, don't they? 

 

Well, he is the president of the US, one of the most important people on the planet, and therefore has a legitimate mandate to speak. Greta is a 16-year-old school truant, not by any means one of the most important people on the planet, and has no legitimate mandate to speak. She has been thrust into the spotlight by her handlers, a group of professional activists.

 

And why would you want a wrong message to get out?

 

Because that's what Greta (or more likely her team) is peddling. What she rants about is so far removed from what the scientists are saying that it falls under the head of pure political propaganda, with a bit of emotional blackmail thrown in.

 

It really comes down to whether you prefer to listen to facts or to feelings. Supporters of Greta adore her displays of emotion, her "passion" for the climate topic, and ignore the fact that much of what she says is rubbish or standard Green/Left puppet-babble.

 

I think we would be far better off dealing with the facts on climate rather than submitting to hysteria, though I sometimes get the impression that that is a minority opinion.

 

 

29 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It really comes down to whether you prefer to listen to facts or to feelings. Supporters of Greta adore her displays of emotion, her "passion" for the climate topic, and ignore the fact that much of what she says is rubbish or standard Green/Left puppet-babble.

Well that is your point of view and you are entitled to it.

 

As for all roads leading to trump (lol) well I have to say that at least she is able to stick to the script and is probably more intelligent than him, aspergers et al!

Greta is now in Turin, advocating policy following the failure of the UN climate talks in Madrid.

 

Quote

"World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities but we have to make sure they cannot do that. We will make sure that we put them against the wall and they will have to do their job to protect our futures."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2btUjLPiSQc

 

It seems likely that she, or whoever wrote her speech, did not understand what that actually means in English and it was not meant to suggest executing world leaders.

 

But there are plenty of people less charitable than myself who will probably attempt to make a meal out of this. And if she had been a climate skeptic making a remark like that, that would have been the end of her. Period. No comebacks.

 

Still, as we know, the Green/Left is rigorous at applying double standards, so I expect the mainstream media will give her a free pass on this rather than piling on as they would if it were anyone with a conservative viewpoint.

 

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Because that's what Greta (or more likely her team) is peddling. What she rants about is so far removed from what the scientists are saying that it falls under the head of pure political propaganda, with a bit of emotional blackmail thrown in.

 

 

 

Really? The IPCC issued a report written by scientists warning of the consequences of an average global temperature of 2.0 degrees over the pre industrial average global temperature vs. 1.5 degrees centigrade. Here's a graphic created bu WRI to illustrate the IPCC's predictions:

1.5 degrees is bad enough. And of course, as of now, the world is on track to surpass the 1.5 degree limit in 2030. And to surpass the 2 degree limit in 2049.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/according-new-ipcc-report-world-track-exceed-its-carbon-budget-12-years

 

It must be true. They made a graphic!

Excuse me, but I don't see anything in that graphic (itself a kind of Jill & John caricature of the original report) to support Greta's declaration that we are facing "the end of civilization as we know it", "a chain reaction of unravelling ecosystems" or even that "our house is on fire".

 

There are only two explanations for this kind of ridiculous hyperbole. One, Greta's handlers are desperately pushing their ideological barrow in the face of continued failure. Two, Greta herself has become overwhelmed by what she is being told about the climate, not an uncommon reaction in children. I think the former is more likely, though.

On 12/13/2019 at 7:37 AM, stevenl said:

Sure thing, temperature readings were much more reliable in the 19th century than they are now 

so 52  was  probably really   only 25c?

On 12/14/2019 at 2:08 PM, RickBradford said:

All roads have to lead to Trump, don't they? 

 

Well, he is the president of the US, one of the most important people on the planet, and therefore has a legitimate mandate to speak. Greta is a 16-year-old school truant, not by any means one of the most important people on the planet, and has no legitimate mandate to speak. She has been thrust into the spotlight by her handlers, a group of professional activists.

 

And why would you want a wrong message to get out?

 

Because that's what Greta (or more likely her team) is peddling. What she rants about is so far removed from what the scientists are saying that it falls under the head of pure political propaganda, with a bit of emotional blackmail thrown in.

 

It really comes down to whether you prefer to listen to facts or to feelings. Supporters of Greta adore her displays of emotion, her "passion" for the climate topic, and ignore the fact that much of what she says is rubbish or standard Green/Left puppet-babble.

 

I think we would be far better off dealing with the facts on climate rather than submitting to hysteria, though I sometimes get the impression that that is a minority opinion.

 

 

Most of the hysteria seems to be coming from the denial camp, which is a tad short on facts. The vast majority of scientists are in agreement. That's being ignored by the vast majority of politicians. Anything for business as usual. They are wedded to the fallacy of unending economic growth.

Call me a lefty if you like. The fact remains there are 60-odd multi-billionaires in the world who have as much money as the poorest 50% of the world's population, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

According to Time magazine, she is important, and Trump is not happy about being supplanted.

SBF

45 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The vast majority of scientists are in agreement.

That has been debunked so many times, IMO, it's not even worth repeating them again.

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That has been debunked so many times, IMO, it's not even worth repeating them again.

In your opinion. Mine is different, and I do have the training as a scientist.

Debunking via Breitbart or Fox news is not debunking. It's lying.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/greta-thunberg-tweets-photo-sitting-on-overcrowded-train-floor-but-railway-says-she-travelled-first-class/news-story/82b69713ab128fcdb2e8787d441abaa7

 

Greta Thunberg tweets photo sitting on ‘overcrowded’ train floor — but railway says she travelled ‘first class’

Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg has been caught out in an embarrassing fib after posting this photo of her train journey.

 

 

greta.jfif

11 hours ago, Lacessit said:

In your opinion. Mine is different, and I do have the training as a scientist.

Debunking via Breitbart or Fox news is not debunking. It's lying.

 

On 12/16/2019 at 8:26 AM, Lacessit said:

The vast majority of scientists are in agreement.

Given that you say "scientists" rather than "climate scientists", please inform us as to how many scientists there are in the whole world, and link to a creditable source that proves a vast majority of them agree with man made climate change.

 

6 hours ago, White Christmas13 said:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/greta-thunberg-tweets-photo-sitting-on-overcrowded-train-floor-but-railway-says-she-travelled-first-class/news-story/82b69713ab128fcdb2e8787d441abaa7

 

Greta Thunberg tweets photo sitting on ‘overcrowded’ train floor — but railway says she travelled ‘first class’

Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg has been caught out in an embarrassing fib after posting this photo of her train journey.

 

 

greta.jfif 68.08 kB · 3 downloads

Seems Greta likes a bit of creative PR herself. Poor little Greta sat on the floor (for a quick picture before returning to her support team in first class).

 

What a hero. 

Whether or not there is a CC crisis or whatever it's called, there too much manipulation of this child; she might be willing, but she's not an adult. I doubt she is bright enough to realise how she's being used for this -in my opinion, phony campaign.

 

Anyway she's gone back home to be with her wealthy, middle class family.

 

Nice & safe: a hero.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, faraday said:

Whether or not there is a CC crisis or whatever it's called, there too much manipulation of this child; she might be willing, but she's not an adult. I doubt she is bright enough to realise how she's being used for this -in my opinion, phony campaign.

 

Anyway she's gone back home to be with her wealthy, middle class family.

 

Nice & safe: a hero.

 

 

 

 

Indeed. If her team really wants to make people use green modes of transport you'd think they'd try to promote it and make it look as convenient as possible. Not encourage her to leave her first class seat to make herself look as uncomfortable as possible for a quick Twitter pic. 

 

Makes you wonder about the motivation behind this. Are they really encouraging people to use green modes of transport or simply trying to make Greta look as vulnerable/benevolent as possible? An amusing comeback from the rail company though...

 

And poor Greta, on the floor for 30 seconds before heading back into 1st class.

 

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

And poor Greta, on the floor for 30 seconds before heading back into 1st class.

 

 

But don't you dare say anything about fake news. Only conspiracy theorists imagine such things.

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

In your opinion. Mine is different, and I do have the training as a scientist.

Debunking via Breitbart or Fox news is not debunking. It's lying.

what kind of science accept this cherry picking as legit statistics ?

on a 2nd thought, dont tell, only ever climate science

have such abysmal mathematical and analytical qualifications.

go back and finish your math lessons, for gods sake.

if you want to extract any data beside bias of the author out of this,

try divide 75 with 3146 for the consensus aspect. (2% consensus)

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009eo030002

In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of
10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded.
That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article,
all but 79 of the respondents were excluded. They wrote:

“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as
their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change
(79 individuals in total).
Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen”
to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

The basis for the “97% consensus” claim is this excerpt:

[of] “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change)… 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

 

 Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   
76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

 Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
in changing mean global temperatures?”   75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that
mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
 
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in
changing mean global temperatures?  
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
 
Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer
(or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)?
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think
human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
 
Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in
the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
 
Q6. Age
 
Q7. Gender
 
Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
 
Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?

16 hours ago, Lacessit said:

<snip> . . . and I do have the training as a scientist.

<snip>

Good for you.  Doesn't make you god, though.  Some scientists like to think that they have powers that no one else possesses.  We were all born with common sense, though.  Granted, not everyone makes use of it.  I would not be surprised that some scientists fail to use their god-given common sense as well.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Good for you.  Doesn't make you god, though.  Some scientists like to think that they have powers that no one else possesses.  We were all born with common sense, though.  Granted, not everyone makes use of it.  I would not be surprised that some scientists fail to use their god-given common sense as well.

the fundamental flaw is the orwellian math climate scientists use,

scientists have a 95.3% confidence this math was originally developed by

neanderthals, it quickly fell out of fashion as it was not applicable for anything,

but made a comeback 1975 as perfect fit for climate science

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eaxODT0oA0

 

 

On 12/14/2019 at 6:12 PM, bristolboy said:

Really? The IPCC issued a report written by scientists warning of the consequences of an average global temperature of 2.0 degrees over the pre industrial average global temperature vs. 1.5 degrees centigrade. Here's a graphic created bu WRI to illustrate the IPCC's predictions:

1.5 degrees is bad enough. And of course, as of now, the world is on track to surpass the 1.5 degree limit in 2030. And to surpass the 2 degree limit in 2049.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/according-new-ipcc-report-world-track-exceed-its-carbon-budget-12-years

 

1] arctic didnt have any ice at all until 3 million years ago

2] twas 16 degree higher temperature 50 million years ago,

and every data to date suggest vertebrates thrive at higher then todays average. in addition to that, every single

plant require a bare minimum of 150 ppm,

and by extension the vertebrates that eat the plants too, as otherwise they would go extinct along with the plants

3] loss of plants you say ??!

where does it grow better, thailand or greenland ?

4] insects: just the other day ipcc warned us

of malaria if mosquitoes no longer freeze to death due to, you guessed it, climate change [sic],

in this graph they took a 180 degree turn and say

mosquitoes will lose their range if they dont freeze to death

5] crop yields: plants thrive at higher temperature and higher co2, especially more co2, they are starving as of todays 400 ppm

6] corals and all other marine species that build shells

wouldnt have evolved at all without co2,

co2 is a building block for their shells,

they evolved at a time when co2 was over 5 times higher then today, 2000+ ppm, strongly indicating that is the optimum for them.

 

data does not support the hypothesis

that higher temp & co2 is negative for life,

on contrary it indicates an additional 16 degree celsius

and an additional 1500 ppm on top of todays values

promote life, range, and biomass.

 

the only logical explanation how ipcc could

come up with these dumb statements

would be if their mandate and their existence at all hinges on articulating human caused climate change and negative effects thereof.

oh wait ????

 

Most important fact about climate change: If it is proven to be natural and not a threat, the IPCC would no longer exist. Therefore the IPCC mandate is to prove that it is unnatural and a threat to humanity.

Their credibility is entirely nullified by their conflict of interest. The same can be said for other groups as well.

On 12/11/2019 at 10:38 PM, seajae said:

she is a hypocrite, she is told what to say as can be seen when she was asked a basic question and could not answer it, she has no real idea of the world and only what she has been told.

There are other posters on this thread who have, to some degree or another, denigrated the young lady calling her ideas part of the "loony left/tree huggers", "having an agenda", etc, and it may be true that she is not up to speed 100% on the actual message, but as far as I can tell, the message is correct, and that's what puzzles me about this whole thing........

 

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ 

 

If 97% of the scientists who study this topic agree that we are causing global warming and climate change, how is it that there are still some very vocal deniers out there, and indeed on this thread??

I would think 97% of scientists would know a damn sight more than everyday TV posters?

3 hours ago, xylophone said:

as far as I can tell, the message is correct, and that's what puzzles me about this whole thing........

What "message" would that be? Perhaps the message that we have stolen her dreams? That's not a message at all. That's a sound bite.

If she proposed a solution to her perceived climate crisis I missed it.

How did she get permission to play hookey from school? If she is old enough not to go to school, she ain't a child.

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Greta has a lot of young supporters

She has a fair number of geriatrics too if this board is to be believed ???? 

4 hours ago, xylophone said:

There are other posters on this thread who have, to some degree or another, denigrated the young lady calling her ideas part of the "loony left/tree huggers", "having an agenda", etc, and it may be true that she is not up to speed 100% on the actual message, but as far as I can tell, the message is correct, and that's what puzzles me about this whole thing........

 

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ 

 

If 97% of the scientists who study this topic agree that we are causing global warming and climate change, how is it that there are still some very vocal deniers out there, and indeed on this thread??

I would think 97% of scientists would know a damn sight more than everyday TV posters?

the nasa reference is john cook, 

its not counting scientists raising a hand,

its counting peer reviewed articles that had key words

like 'climate' in them, and then cherry picking and creative

accounting to reach the pre determined 97% answer.

somewhere i have written about john cook et al

and their modus operandi, i cant find it without hassle but i can ensure you its drivel from start to finish,

i bothered to actually read one of the abstracts they agreed on going into the 97%,

but it was not a single word in that abstract that mentioned co2 or man made, it was merely about an expected  small temperature increase in north africa,

for farmers

59 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the nasa reference is john cook, 

its not counting scientists raising a hand,

its counting peer reviewed articles that had key words

like 'climate' in them, and then cherry picking and creative

accounting to reach the pre determined 97% answer.

somewhere i have written about john cook et al

and their modus operandi, i cant find it without hassle but i can ensure you its drivel from start to finish,

i bothered to actually read one of the abstracts they agreed on going into the 97%,

but it was not a single word in that abstract that mentioned co2 or man made, it was merely about an expected  small temperature increase in north africa,

for farmers

The m o you describe seems to be at odds with this,,,,,,

https://skepticalscience.com/97-consensus-study-hits-million-downloads.html 

 

Our paper immediately began receiving attacks from climate science deniers. It started with blog posts, then conservative politicians such as Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum began criticizing it, then the attacks spread to Fox News and conservative media. Probably our favourite criticism came from Senator Ted Cruz who claimed the 97% consensus was based on one discredited study.

 

The fact that the 97% consensus has been replicated in multiple studies is a key feature of the scientific consensus.

 

 

OOPS, nearly forgot........

 

 "Things are getting worse," said Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, which Tuesday issued its annual state of the global climate report, concluding a decade of what it called exceptional global heat. "It's more urgent than ever to proceed with mitigation."

 

But reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight climate change will require drastic measures, Taalas said. "The only solution is to get rid of fossil fuels in power production, industry and transportation," he said.

 

Seas are warming and rising faster, putting more cities at risk of tidal flooding or worse. Glaciers are melting at a pace many researchers did not expect for decades. The amount of Arctic sea ice has declined so rapidly that the region may see ice-free summers by the 2030s.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What "message" would that be? Perhaps the message that we have stolen her dreams? That's not a message at all. That's a sound bite.

If she proposed a solution to her perceived climate crisis I missed it.

How did she get permission to play hookey from school? If she is old enough not to go to school, she ain't a child.

Well, let's start with the fact that her message is regarding the fact that something needs to be done about global warming and climate change – – that's a start.

So rather than focusing on this message you decide to focus on her playing hooky from school??

Sad indeed.