Greta Thunberg calls on world leaders to listen to young activists

[Nigel Garvie]

29 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

All dentists recommend Colgate!

Colgate is a toothpaste, all dentists recommend toothpaste. Therefore "All dentists recommend Colgate!"

......................and Macleans, Sensodyne etc etc etc 

 

[mokwit]

Just now, Nigel Garvie said:

Colgate is a toothpaste, all dentists recommend toothpaste. Therefore "All dentists recommend Colgate!"

......................and Macleans, Sensodyne etc etc etc 

 

I don't think that is what it says. It says ' All dentists recommend Colgate!'

[VocalNeal]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Colgate is a toothpaste, all dentists recommend toothpaste. Therefore "All dentists recommend Colgate!"

......................and Macleans, Sensodyne etc etc etc 

 

Dentists recommend whatever free samples they are given?

[Eric Loh]

Merkel’s keynote address at Davos deserved applause.

 
“Governments were obliged to act on the younger generation’s concerns over climate change. Older politicians has to use the positive manner and constructive impatience of young people who have a completely different horizon in terms of time”. 
 

By contrast we have Mnuchin juvenile attack on Greta to study economic. What with Trump’s men who not only denying climate change but going after a teen. Inappropriate and shameful antics. 

[Nigel Garvie]

6 hours ago, mokwit said:

97% of scientists don't agree on it, just 97% of a carefully selected subset.

Rubbish. Which subset, selected by who? 

This is an absurd way to try and discredit a well established fact about climate scientists. 

[Tulak]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Older people know more about what happened in the past than youths do, which is certainly relevant. It's why I, though not being a scientist, can call "rising sea levels in the Pacific a threat to humanity" a hoax, as I remember when sea levels on NZ's Pacific coast were more or less at the same level as now. A young person has no past benchmarks to judge the authenticity of pronouncements by and is more likely to agree with the propaganda than us oldies, IMO.

Go to the past (even only a little) Forth Denison sea level measuring station in Sydney Harbor. It is interesting reading.

 

https://www.newsmax.com/davidnabhan/climate-change-sea-levels-fort-denison/2019/01/03/id/896742/

Edited January 24, 2020 by Tulak

[brokenbone]

12 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Rubbish. Which subset, selected by who? 

This is an absurd way to try and discredit a well established fact about climate scientists. 

no, the 97% consensus lie is creative statistics from start to finish,

if the creator of the statistic had understood statistics,

the answer would be 2%. as it is the only thing this statistic show

is the bias of the statistic

 

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?

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[RickBradford]

16 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Rubbish. Which subset, selected by who? 

This is an absurd way to try and discredit a well established fact about climate scientists.

Actually, the subset was chosen by the actual researchers who first produced the "97% of scientists" claim.

 

The researchers received 3,146 responses from 'earth scientists' to their two questions on the climate, and winnowed that down to a subset of 77, of whom 75 agreed that humans can affect the climate. 75/77 = 97%. Aah, climate science.

 

The paper in question is Doran & Zimmermann (2008). Read it and learn how climate science is done.

[Nigel Garvie]

5 hours ago, brokenbone said:

no, the 97% consensus lie is creative statistics from start to finish,

if the creator of the statistic had understood statistics,

the answer would be 2%. as it is the only thing this statistic show

is the bias of the statistic

 

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,
(snip)
 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Actually, the subset was chosen by the actual researchers who first produced the "97% of scientists" claim.

 

The researchers received 3,146 responses from 'earth scientists' to their two questions on the climate, and winnowed that down to a subset of 77, of whom 75 agreed that humans can affect the climate. 75/77 = 97%. Aah, climate science.

 

The paper in question is Doran & Zimmermann (2008). Read it and learn how climate science is done.

It looks like you have both done your research on you favourite CT deniers website, where the "How to deny the 97% figure for dummies" article or some such can be found.

 

The evidence is much much wider and stronger than this one article alone.

 

start with Anderegg et al 2010.  https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

 

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

"These results suggest that scientists who are climate change skeptics are outliers and that the majority of scientists surveyed believe in anthropogenic climate change and that climate science is credible and mature."

 

then NASA Showing that serious science is still alive and well in the US (They put a man on the moon you know!). It is enlightening to follow the links in the article and see how many science organisations all over the world believe ACT to be a fact.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

and. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

 

Heavens it must be hard work being a climate change denier, so much evidence to attempt to discredit, ????  maybe being a flat Earther would be more fun.

 

[brokenbone]

52 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

 

It looks like you have both done your research on you favourite CT deniers website, where the "How to deny the 97% figure for dummies" article or some such can be found.

 

The evidence is much much wider and stronger than this one article alone.

 

start with Anderegg et al 2010.  https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

 

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

"These results suggest that scientists who are climate change skeptics are outliers and that the majority of scientists surveyed believe in anthropogenic climate change and that climate science is credible and mature."

 

then NASA Showing that serious science is still alive and well in the US (They put a man on the moon you know!). It is enlightening to follow the links in the article and see how many science organisations all over the world believe ACT to be a fact.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

and. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

 

Heavens it must be hard work being a climate change denier, so much evidence to attempt to discredit, ????  maybe being a flat Earther would be more fun.

 

i saw the nasa reference to john cook, and it is as much drivel as the first one,

cook & fellow enthusiastic amateurs voted on what could be interpreted as

suggesting human cause. now i wont be arsed to read all publications,

but the one i did read concerned anticipated temperature in egypt,

not a single word in that publication for agriculture in egypt mentioned

co2 or global warming, but that didnt stop cook & fellow enthusiastic amateurs

to vote a resounding "YES its human caused" cc (TM).

like the rest of the consensus propaganda, it only ever prove the bias of the

statistician

 

there is a website forum where you can read their strive for propaganda,

i had it on my bookmarks but it looks like the bookmarks are spilling into trashcan

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

It looks like you have both done your research on you favourite CT deniers website, where the "How to deny the 97% figure for dummies" article or some such can be found.

In fact, I read the original scientific paper. Did you?

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

 

<snip>

 

Heavens it must be hard work being a climate change denier, so much evidence to attempt to discredit, ????  maybe being a flat Earther would be more fun.

 

No, just keep denying, facts don't matter.

[observer90210]

1) Greta .... please no more...she is getting on everybodys nerves and the awareness to climate change will dwindle plainly out of irritation to this freak

 

2) Stop hassling Mr and Mrs Commoner on climate change control with special C02 taxes all over, trying to enforce guilt..... Start tackling the majors in the Ship brokering leagues...cargo or leisure cruise ships are far more polluting and ressource consuming then Mr Dick over the street,  driving to the local soapy for a happy end mouthwashed therapy session....

 

3) Stop giving out plastic bags - Stop those multiple layer plastic wraps on fruits and vegetables.

 

And this will be a fine start.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed.  A post using a source as a YouTube channel has been removed as well as the replies.

[bristolboy]

On 1/23/2020 at 2:19 PM, RickBradford said:

^^

As the US is the major economy that has had the greatest success in reducing CO2 emissions, why would it bother with "targets"?

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#154441fb3535

Just one slight problem with that article.. 

"The biggest absolute emissions come from China and the United States. In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is ranked only ranked 47th, at 7.5 metric tonnes per capita. The US is ranked 11th at 16.5 per capita and amongst countries with sizeable populations, has the highest CO2 emissions per capita."

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Just one slight problem with that article.. 

"The biggest absolute emissions come from China and the United States. In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is ranked only ranked 47th, at 7.5 metric tonnes per capita. The US is ranked 11th at 16.5 per capita and amongst countries with sizeable populations, has the highest CO2 emissions per capita."

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

What is never mentioned is that most of the world's population that lives in poor countries want to live like they do in the US.

Only way to actually reduce human input into climate is to reduce number of humans, IMO.

[rabas]

22 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Just one slight problem with that article.. 

"The biggest absolute emissions come from China and the United States. In terms of CO2 emissions per capita, China is ranked only ranked 47th, at 7.5 metric tonnes per capita. The US is ranked 11th at 16.5 per capita and amongst countries with sizeable populations, has the highest CO2 emissions per capita."

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

The effect on the Earth is not 'per capita'. 

 

 It's per ton, same as micro-plastics, toxic materials, and all waste.

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What is never mentioned is that most of the world's population that lives in poor countries want to live like they do in the US.

Only way to actually reduce human input into climate is to reduce number of humans, IMO.

Why do anyone want to live like the Americans. They have a lower life expectancy, more obesity, high gun crimes and a much divided nation.  

[evadgib]

This myth is being debunked despite MSM being complicit in the continued deception.

[Chomper Higgot]

56 minutes ago, evadgib said:

This myth is being debunked despite MSM being complicit in the continued deception.

Rebel News, Canada’s own far-right ‘news’.

[DannyCarlton]

11 hours ago, evadgib said:

This myth is being debunked despite MSM being complicit in the continued deception.

The world according to Tommy Islam and his crew. You cannot be serious!

[evadgib]

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Rebel News, Canada’s own far-right ‘news’.

How did the content fare?

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

How did the content fare?

Who would watch it? You're wasting your time posting this far right rubbish.

[evadgib]

2 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

The world according to Tommy Islam and his crew. You cannot be serious!

Fancy you bringing him up again. I couldn't find anything wrong in what he said but wouldn't bother posting if you didn't keep dragging the boards off topic with your own biased agenda.

Edited January 29, 2020 by evadgib

[DannyCarlton]

4 hours ago, evadgib said:

Fancy you bringing him up again. I couldn't find anything wrong in what he said but wouldn't bother posting if you didn't keep dragging the boards off topic with your own biased agenda.

Him again? You mean Tommy Islam, the little racist thug, who is supported by Rebel Media and writes articles for them? As long as you keep posting extreme right wing propoganda, I'll keep calling it out.

 

BTW. How's your old mate, the neo facist Robin Tilbrook these days?

 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by DannyCarlton

[evadgib]

4 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

Him again? You mean Tommy Islam, the little racist thug, who is supported by Rebel Media and writes articles for them? As long as you keep posting extreme right wing propoganda, i'll keep calling it out.

 

BTW. How's your old mate, the neo facist Robin Tilbrook these days?

More ultra-left deflection away from your unhealthy obsession with a vulnerable manipulated & exploited under aged truant with learning difficulties which this thread was supposed to be about...?

 

"You'll be calling it out"? 

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by evadgib

[Chrysaora]

She's a fraud. Her Tesla that she traveled in was of all the things she tells you and I not to use.  Thanks to Rebel Media for reporting that with a picture of the disgusting trash filled Tesla.

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

More deflection away from your unhealthy obsession with an under aged truant with learning difficulties which this thread was supposed to be about?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/women/greta-thunberg-climate-change-crisis-strike-austism-misogyny-protest-speech-a9127971.html

 

"Thunberg obviously scares some men silly. The bullying of the teenager by conservative middle-aged men has taken on a grim, almost hysterical edge. And some of them are reaching deep into the misogynist’s playbook to divert focus from her message."

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/why-is-greta-thunberg-so-triggering-for-certain-men-1.4002264

 

"But who’s the real freak – the activist whose determination has single-handedly started a powerful global movement for change, or the middle-aged man taunting a child with Asperger syndrome from behind the safety of their computer screens?

And that, of course, is the real reason why Greta Thunberg is so triggering. They can’t admit it even to themselves, so they ridicule her instead. But the truth is that they’re afraid of her. The poor dears are terrified of her as an individual, and of what she stands for – youth, determination, change.

The reason they taunt her with childish insults is because that’s all they’ve got. They’re out of ideas. They can’t dismantle her arguments, because she has science – and David Attenborough – on her side. They can’t win the debate with the persuasive force of their arguments, because these bargain bin cranks trade in jaded cynicism, not youthful passion. They can harangue her with snide tweets and hot take blogposts, but they won’t get a reaction because, frankly, she has bigger worries on her mind."

[evadgib]

59 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/women/greta-thunberg-climate-change-crisis-strike-austism-misogyny-protest-speech-a9127971.html

 

"Thunberg obviously scares some men silly. The bullying of the teenager by conservative middle-aged men has taken on a grim, almost hysterical edge. And some of them are reaching deep into the misogynist’s playbook to divert focus from her message."

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/why-is-greta-thunberg-so-triggering-for-certain-men-1.4002264

 

"But who’s the real freak – the activist whose determination has single-handedly started a powerful global movement for change, or the middle-aged man taunting a child with Asperger syndrome from behind the safety of their computer screens?

And that, of course, is the real reason why Greta Thunberg is so triggering. They can’t admit it even to themselves, so they ridicule her instead. But the truth is that they’re afraid of her. The poor dears are terrified of her as an individual, and of what she stands for – youth, determination, change.

The reason they taunt her with childish insults is because that’s all they’ve got. They’re out of ideas. They can’t dismantle her arguments, because she has science – and David Attenborough – on her side. They can’t win the debate with the persuasive force of their arguments, because these bargain bin cranks trade in jaded cynicism, not youthful passion. They can harangue her with snide tweets and hot take blogposts, but they won’t get a reaction because, frankly, she has bigger worries on her mind."

In an interview to mark 50 years since the start of WW1 Henry Williamson (author of 'Tarka the Otter') recalled his surprise at learning that both sides believed god was on their side as he mingled with German soldiers in no mans land during the 1914 Christmas truce.

 

Think about it... 

[Scott]

A post misquoting another member has been reported and removed.