Activist Thunberg denounces "creative PR" in climate fight

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

[evadgib]

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 ???? 

[brokenbone]

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

[xylophone]

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.

 

 

 

[xylophone]

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.

[brokenbone]

*Deleted post removed*

 

the very nasa site you linked are referencing john cook

for the 97 consensus, i even used to have the forum where he and fellow amateurs were discussing how to rate abstracts, but for some weird reason its gone from my bookmarks.

i have linked to that forum as well as my analysis of that joke of a statistic here on thaivisa forum, but i have written so many posts i cant find it.

 

on your point on how other surveys

came to the 97 conclusion, i do have data handy, note how if this had been done without bias, she would have divided total yes answers with total responses and reached a 2% consensus,

as it is, the only thing this survey prove is the bias of the author.

 

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

“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?

 

[xylophone]

23 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

she would have divided total yes answers with total responses and reached a 2% consensus,

as it is, the only thing this survey prove is the bias of the author.

Or the fact that she only wanted to include those people who had extensive knowledge in that field?

 

And also this would seem to indicate that we've got a problem (read the full quote in my previous post)............

 

Things are getting worse," said Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, 

[RickBradford]

35 minutes ago, xylophone said:

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.

It's also the end.

 

Governments around the world have clearly demonstrated - not least at the just-finished COP25 climate talking shop in Madrid - that they are not prepared to do anything beyond posturing and virtue signalling.

 

Even the more sensible and rational activists have cottoned on to this.

[brokenbone]

23 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Or the fact that she only wanted to include those people who had extensive knowledge in that field?

 

And also this would seem to indicate that we've got a problem (read the full quote in my previous post)............

 

Things are getting worse," said Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, 

sea levels arent rising any faster now then 200 years ago,

its a steady rate ever since 8000 years ago,

and glaciers arent melting at all, unlike 80 years ago

[Scott]

Posts, including those violating Fair Use Policy have been removed.  

 

[Lacessit]

On 12/17/2019 at 8:42 AM, 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.

Unfortunately, common sense is not all that common. I don't pretend to be God, just better informed and aware of what really matters as a result of my training.

The propositions that economic growth is eternal, and can come with no cost to the environment, or that mankind can go on adding heat to the world's oceans indefinitely without consequences, are so ridiculous they defy all common sense.

It's ironic climate scientists are accused of cherry-picking data, when the denier camp on these pages are hard at it. Plus, of course, the time-honored practice of shooting any messenger.

Go and look at what has happened in Australia over the last 72 hours. Or are record temperatures on an entire continent cherry-picking data too?

[RickBradford]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Go and look at what has happened in Australia over the last 72 hours. Or are record temperatures on an entire continent cherry-picking data too?

In this case, it seems so, yes.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxJTZvRl13Q

 

[xylophone]

17 hours ago, brokenbone said:

sea levels arent rising any faster now then 200 years ago,

its a steady rate ever since 8000 years ago,

and glaciers arent melting at all, unlike 80 years ago

This whole thing gets confusing, because on the one hand we have reputable organisations such as NASA and the World Meteorological Organisation, who have the ability to call on any number of other reputable organisations and contacts to be able to supply them with information, but this information is, by many, disputed.

 

So those that dispute these data then supply other graphs and data which they say represent the true picture, but then again one could point to these and say they are also in dispute because if one set can be "manipulated", then so can the other!

 

To prove the point I attach some graphs related to global warming and climate change, with a few comments on them, and also to back up the data some facts about the sea level rising and threatening Pacific islands, for example, and these contradict the previous set of graphs/statistics??

 

Reminds me of the old Thunderclap Newman song, "Call out the instigator, because there's something in the air, we've got to get together sooner or later, because the revolution's here, and you know that it's right....".
 

 

And the following from Wikipedia and National Geographic......

 

Global average temperatures declined for thousands of years, until fossil fuel-based industrialization beginning roughly 200 years ago reversed the decline. Global warming has intensified in recent decades.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded, "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."[8] The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Iceland has marked its first-ever loss of a glacier to climate change as scientists warn that hundreds of other ice sheets on the subarctic island risk the same fate.

As the world recently marked the warmest July ever on record, a bronze plaque was mounted on a bare rock in a ceremony on the barren terrain once covered by the Okjökull glacier in western Iceland.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/rising-seas-force-marshall-islands-relocate-elevate-artificial-islands/ 
 

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

In this case, it seems so, yes.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxJTZvRl13Q

 

Typical denialist deception.. Here's an alleged map of what this denialist claims are all the high quality temperature reporting sites in australia:

 

This is nonsense. Here's a map from the Australian Meterology service of the High Quality Acorn Sat stations:

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

Notice the difference. There are in fact over 700 stations in Australia reporting temperature. Most likely the unproven claims touted by the above video come from this person:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/27/climate-sceptics-see-a-conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, xylophone said:

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.

Any <deleted> can run around shouting that something should be done about almost anything at all. Without having at least a suggestion as to what should be done it's just shouting.

If she hasn't a clue about what to do about it, she should go back to school and learn some stuff, so she can come up with a solution.

[Lacessit]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Any <deleted> can run around shouting that something should be done about almost anything at all. Without having at least a suggestion as to what should be done it's just shouting.

If she hasn't a clue about what to do about it, she should go back to school and learn some stuff, so she can come up with a solution.

Give us the benefit of what you think we should do about it, then. Oh, I forgot - denialists don't need to do that, there is no problem, therefore thinking about what to do is superfluous.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Give us the benefit of what you think we should do about it, then. Oh, I forgot - denialists don't need to do that, there is no problem, therefore thinking about what to do is superfluous.

Most posters that contribute to the climate threads probably know the solutions I have suggested. Perhaps you don't read many climate threads, or just don't read all the pages. Either way, my solutions are written on many climate threads for you to read, but don't expect me to repeat them if you can't be bothered to look them up.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Give us the benefit of what you think we should do about it, then. Oh, I forgot - denialists don't need to do that, there is no problem, therefore thinking about what to do is superfluous.

Most posters that contribute to the climate threads know the solutions I have suggested. Perhaps you don't read many climate threads, or just don't read all the pages. Either way, my solutions are written on many climate threads for you to read, but don't expect me to repeat them if you can't be bothered to look them up.

[RickBradford]

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Typical denialist deception.. Here's an alleged map of what this denialist claims are all the high quality temperature reporting sites in australia:

As always, taking any opportunity to use your favourite meaningless lame insult, 'denialist'. Your personal opinion of the creator of that video is worthless.

 

His evidence, especially the newspaper clips from throughout the 20th century, suggest that the BOM is over-egging the pudding with this claim. It may have been the hottest day, it may not.

 

The demand for climate catastrophe stories has risen since the failure of the COP25 stories, so it is no surprise that the media has been quick to increase the supply with breathless Australian horror stories.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Typical denialist deception.. Here's an alleged map of what this denialist claims are all the high quality temperature reporting sites in australia:

 

This is nonsense. Here's a map from the Australian Meterology service of the High Quality Acorn Sat stations:

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

Notice the difference. There are in fact over 700 stations in Australia reporting temperature. Most likely the unproven claims touted by the above video come from this person:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/27/climate-sceptics-see-a-conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat

You must read and understand his data and arguments before making yours. He clearly states he chose those stations that had accurate long term temperature records for the purpose of his arguments. You show mostly new stations which are useless for this purpose. Apples and oranges. Thus you present no scientific argument (yet).

 

I was sceptical at first but after bearing through the full 10 minutes, he is 100% correct.  A recommended video and good example how the media capitalizes on alarmism. 

 

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

This whole thing gets confusing, because on the one hand we have reputable organisations such as NASA and the World Meteorological Organisation, who have the ability to call on any number of other reputable organisations and contacts to be able to supply them with information, but this information is, by many, disputed.

 

So those that dispute these data then supply other graphs and data which they say represent the true picture, but then again one could point to these and say they are also in dispute because if one set can be "manipulated", then so can the other!

 

To prove the point I attach some graphs related to global warming and climate change, with a few comments on them, and also to back up the data some facts about the sea level rising and threatening Pacific islands, for example, and these contradict the previous set of graphs/statistics??

 

Reminds me of the old Thunderclap Newman song, "Call out the instigator, because there's something in the air, we've got to get together sooner or later, because the revolution's here, and you know that it's right....".
 

 

And the following from Wikipedia and National Geographic......

 

Global average temperatures declined for thousands of years, until fossil fuel-based industrialization beginning roughly 200 years ago reversed the decline. Global warming has intensified in recent decades.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded, "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."[8] The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Iceland has marked its first-ever loss of a glacier to climate change as scientists warn that hundreds of other ice sheets on the subarctic island risk the same fate.

As the world recently marked the warmest July ever on record, a bronze plaque was mounted on a bare rock in a ceremony on the barren terrain once covered by the Okjökull glacier in western Iceland.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/rising-seas-force-marshall-islands-relocate-elevate-artificial-islands/ 
 

yo phil, wazzup ?

been thinking bout something:

the 1910-1940 temp increase dont fit our narrative

that only ever co2 causes temp increase,

in fact the cyclical nature of climate ruin our narrative,

what if we tamper historical data and smooth out

not just 1940 blip but all cycles, medieval warm period,

little ice age, you name it we tamper or hide it,

and then we ask our man mann to make a hockey stick graph that coincide with our narrative that the only time in earth history that climate changed was when we can blame co2 for it.

shame ipcc already uploaded graphs acknowledging

cycles before but we just tell them to take down those earlier mistakes and present mann aka ipcc v2.0

u see where im coming from ?

 

there is also the fact that ipcc mandate is to find a link to man that is harmful, if they do not they go extinct,

and with them the whole pile of filth of propaganda

and scientists getting paid $850.000 for studying

boulder prairie dogs reaction to climate change [sic],

im starting to believe nasa added climate division

just to milk money from the state through FUD

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Typical denialist deception.. Here's an alleged map of what this denialist claims are all the high quality temperature reporting sites in australia:

 

This is nonsense. Here's a map from the Australian Meterology service of the High Quality Acorn Sat stations:

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

Notice the difference. There are in fact over 700 stations in Australia reporting temperature. Most likely the unproven claims touted by the above video come from this person:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/27/climate-sceptics-see-a-conspiracy-in-australias-record-breaking-heat

 

 

you left out the 'long term' bit,

and he didnt even present the data 1880-1906

when it was warmer in australia then ever in recorded history

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

As always, taking any opportunity to use your favourite meaningless lame insult, 'denialist'. Your personal opinion of the creator of that video is worthless.

 

His evidence, especially the newspaper clips from throughout the 20th century, suggest that the BOM is over-egging the pudding with this claim. It may have been the hottest day, it may not.

 

The demand for climate catastrophe stories has risen since the failure of the COP25 stories, so it is no surprise that the media has been quick to increase the supply with breathless Australian horror stories.

Really? I post a map that shows the location of 112 highly advanced Acorn-Sat temperature reporting sites. A map the comes from the Australian government's website.  A map that clearly demonstrates the video you linked to is based on a lie.

And newspaper clippings are your idea of scientific evidence?

Where is your BS detector? Do you seriously  believe that the Australian Government's meteorology bureau is going to have so few temperature inputs? And why is it you rely on a video that sources of which can't be checked? But maybe that's the point. It's a lot easier to expose lies if they're composed of text and graphics on a web page with links that can be checked.

[rabas]

50 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really? I post a map that shows the location of 112 highly advanced Acorn-Sat temperature reporting sites. A map the comes from the Australian government's website.  A map that clearly demonstrates the video you linked to is based on a lie.

Can you explain clearly how the acorn-sat map demonstrates that the point made in the video is a lie?

 

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, rabas said:

Can you explain clearly how the acorn-sat map demonstrates that the point made in the video is a lie?

 

The image I copied from the video shows very few temperature reporting stations.  The image I copied from the australian government website shows a lot more. A lot more.

[brokenbone]

Nils-Axel Mörner: “These Researchers Have A Political Agenda”

I then published a paper on the influence of the sun on the sea level, which was supported by 19 recognized experts. However, the IPCC attacked the paper with outrageous claims and caused the scientific journal, in which it was published, to be discontinued.

https://www.thegwpf.com/nils-axel-morner-these-researchers-have-a-political-agenda/

[RickBradford]

Mathematicians are pretty much done by the time they are 35; female gymnasts retire at 20; climate saviors are past their sell-by date at the age of 16, it seems.

 

Activists have now paraded a 13-year-old girl, Izzy Raj-Seppings, as the face of climate activism in Australia. She has become an instant new darling of the "progressive" media.

 

She's mastered the crying, and the Greta-style hysteria (" I’m tired of watching my future, my friends’ and family’s futures, all of our futures, burn before our very eyes") and she has a similar - near identical, in fact - polished editorial style to Greta.

 

How long before the activists wheel out new-born babies in strollers to tell us how we have stolen their future?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2019/dec/21/im-the-13-year-old-police-threatened-to-arrest-at-the-kirribilli-house-protest-this-is-why-i-did-it

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most posters that contribute to the climate threads know the solutions I have suggested. Perhaps you don't read many climate threads, or just don't read all the pages. Either way, my solutions are written on many climate threads for you to read, but don't expect me to repeat them if you can't be bothered to look them up.

I think you'll find I read all the climate threads and contribute to them with solutions and knowledge. Which is more than I can say for shrill denialists. You're right - I can't be bothered to  look them up. If I remember correctly, I expressed surprise a person of your experience in the Antarctic could be in that camp.

 

[toast1]

Oh dear, those 'Shrill denialists'.

 

Traitors, apostates, doubters!

 

Off to the re-education camp with them.

 

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, brokenbone said:

yo phil, wazzup ?

been thinking bout something:

the 1910-1940 temp increase dont fit our narrative

that only ever co2 causes temp increase,

in fact the cyclical nature of climate ruin our narrative,

what if we tamper historical data and smooth out

not just 1940 blip but all cycles, medieval warm period,

little ice age, you name it we tamper or hide it,

and then we ask our man mann to make a hockey stick graph that coincide with our narrative that the only time in earth history that climate changed was when we can blame co2 for it.

shame ipcc already uploaded graphs acknowledging

cycles before but we just tell them to take down those earlier mistakes and present mann aka ipcc v2.0

u see where im coming from ?

 

there is also the fact that ipcc mandate is to find a link to man that is harmful, if they do not they go extinct,

and with them the whole pile of filth of propaganda

and scientists getting paid $850.000 for studying

boulder prairie dogs reaction to climate change [sic],

im starting to believe nasa added climate division

just to milk money from the state through FUD

So one side is supposedly manipulating the data to suit their agenda, but those that deny climate change aren't??

 

I can't buy that, and try telling your story to the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands or the inhabitants of Greenland who have seen a major glacier disappear.

 

PS. And who is, "Yo, Phil"??