Greta Thunberg seeks to trademark her name to stem misuse

[faraday]

Some comments remind me of the inscription on a hypochondriacs gravestone.

 

It read:

'I told you I was dying'.

 

All a bit too apocalyptic really.

 

 

[pikao]

This is an edited re-post:

 

When this became popular I wanted to know more about the 97.1 % consensus amongst scientists. So I, naively, started a Google search: "how many climate scientists are there worldwide" or "number of climate s....." etc.

First page always shows: 97.1 % consensus, climate change etc. and the Wiki list gives you names of climate scientists over the centuries. Not my question. Anyway, I went a little deeper and came across the cook et al study (the study that's officially used) and the categories it's based on. If you want to know what it says exactly, look it up yourself. I make it a bit shorter

Categories:

1. Humanity is responsible for climate change (more than 50% human influence)

2. Humanity is responsible (without quantification)

3. Implies humans as a cause (without stating it)

4. No position/Uncertain (studies only on climate itself)

5. Implies humans have a minimal impact (proposing)

6. Explicit rejection (without quantification)

7. Explicit rejection (humans are less than 50% responsible)

 

The study was based on 11944 scientific articles. The percentages, numbers and grafics vary somewhat from platform to platform.

Numbers of articles that stated:

 

Cat.1      64 = 0.54%

Cat.2     922 = 7,72%

Cat.3     2910 = 24.36%

Cat.4     7970 = 66.73%

Cat.5     54 = 0.45%

Cat.6     15 = 0.13%

Cat.7      9 = 0.08%

 

2 and 3 are overlapping with 5 and 6 and should have been taken out of consideration as they do not say much.

What was taken out is Cat.4 as it tells nothing about human influence. Non voters are not counted.

Now we have 3896 articles out of 3974 that refer to Cat.1-3 and 78 to Cat.5-7. As said before the numbers vary in studies but here you got the  95+ % consensus (could be 97.1 as aggreed on). Is this science or an election?

I think we should do everything possible to save our planet. Best for us

I do certainly not believe in statistics of any kind.

 

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, faraday said:

Some comments remind me of the inscription on a hypochondriacs gravestone.

 

It read:

'I told you I was dying'.

 

All a bit too apocalyptic really.

Actually it was Spike Milligan poking fun at his own demise.

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

You may chose to accept or discard these reasons.

Likewise you with the...

[Number 6]

How to stay slavishly stay in the news - by Greta Thunberg

 

I think the forum could just ban news about her. This campaign is about her. And now we have it GRETA INCORPORATED.

 

Her 15 minutes are about up.

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Number 6

[Airbagwill]

17 hours ago, Tulak said:

according NASA - and somehow I find it difficult to believe that NASA scientists are biased.

Please read:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/30214-nasa-sees-climate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

It is amazing how climate deniers misinterpret good science to their own jaundiced views. You seem to fail to understand the significance and holistically of the science and try to erroneously cherry=pick instead.

In your childlike nativity, you don't even realise you are not quoting NASA.

The definition of ice age is quite clear and not disputed.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Airbagwill

[Airbagwill]

Let's face it, all this thread amounts to is an outing for ephebiphobics.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Airbagwill

[Tulak]

On 2/1/2020 at 7:03 PM, pikao said:

This is an edited re-post:

 

When this became popular I wanted to know more about the 97.1 % consensus amongst scientists. So I, naively, started a Google search: "how many climate scientists are there worldwide" or "number of climate s....." etc.

First page always shows: 97.1 % consensus, climate change etc. and the Wiki list gives you names of climate scientists over the centuries. Not my question. Anyway, I went a little deeper and came across the cook et al study (the study that's officially used) and the categories it's based on. If you want to know what it says exactly, look it up yourself. I make it a bit shorter

Categories:

1. Humanity is responsible for climate change (more than 50% human influence)

2. Humanity is responsible (without quantification)

3. Implies humans as a cause (without stating it)

4. No position/Uncertain (studies only on climate itself)

5. Implies humans have a minimal impact (proposing)

6. Explicit rejection (without quantification)

7. Explicit rejection (humans are less than 50% responsible)

 

The study was based on 11944 scientific articles. The percentages, numbers and grafics vary somewhat from platform to platform.

Numbers of articles that stated:

 

Cat.1      64 = 0.54%

Cat.2     922 = 7,72%

Cat.3     2910 = 24.36%

Cat.4     7970 = 66.73%

Cat.5     54 = 0.45%

Cat.6     15 = 0.13%

Cat.7      9 = 0.08%

 

2 and 3 are overlapping with 5 and 6 and should have been taken out of consideration as they do not say much.

What was taken out is Cat.4 as it tells nothing about human influence. Non voters are not counted.

Now we have 3896 articles out of 3974 that refer to Cat.1-3 and 78 to Cat.5-7. As said before the numbers vary in studies but here you got the  95+ % consensus (could be 97.1 as aggreed on). Is this science or an election?

I think we should do everything possible to save our planet. Best for us

I do certainly not believe in statistics of any kind.

 

Thank you.

Lots of people will be doing lots of thinking after reading this - and if they don't do (lots of thinking after reading this), they can't be helped.

[faraday]

On 2/2/2020 at 5:05 AM, Airbagwill said:

Let's face it, all this thread amounts to is an outing for ephebiphobics.

Ohhh William, such a big word!

 

You are a clever young man.

 

And no, it isn't.

[Curt1591]

On 1/30/2020 at 2:21 PM, DoctorG said:

Surprise, surprise. Glacial ice is melting in the Southern summer.

 

Arctic ice is refusing to melt despite numerous predictions,

That's why the change, from "Global Warming", to "Climate Change" - any way the wind blows ....

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies removed.   Continue and face a suspension.

 

[Airbagwill]

On 1/30/2020 at 2:21 PM, DoctorG said:

Arctic ice is refusing to melt despite numerous predictions,

Absolute nonsense........ ever heard of the NorthWest Passage?

[DoctorG]

3 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

Absolute nonsense........ ever heard of the NorthWest Passage?

Yes, but do you have any information that might be relevant?

[Airbagwill]

7 hours ago, DoctorG said:

Yes, but do you have any information that might be relevant?

QED - you really don't understand???

[bristolboy]

On 2/1/2020 at 3:03 PM, pikao said:

This is an edited re-post:

 

When this became popular I wanted to know more about the 97.1 % consensus amongst scientists. So I, naively, started a Google search: "how many climate scientists are there worldwide" or "number of climate s....." etc.

First page always shows: 97.1 % consensus, climate change etc. and the Wiki list gives you names of climate scientists over the centuries. Not my question. Anyway, I went a little deeper and came across the cook et al study (the study that's officially used) and the categories it's based on. If you want to know what it says exactly, look it up yourself. I make it a bit shorter

Categories:

1. Humanity is responsible for climate change (more than 50% human influence)

2. Humanity is responsible (without quantification)

3. Implies humans as a cause (without stating it)

4. No position/Uncertain (studies only on climate itself)

5. Implies humans have a minimal impact (proposing)

6. Explicit rejection (without quantification)

7. Explicit rejection (humans are less than 50% responsible)

 

The study was based on 11944 scientific articles. The percentages, numbers and grafics vary somewhat from platform to platform.

Numbers of articles that stated:

 

Cat.1      64 = 0.54%

Cat.2     922 = 7,72%

Cat.3     2910 = 24.36%

Cat.4     7970 = 66.73%

Cat.5     54 = 0.45%

Cat.6     15 = 0.13%

Cat.7      9 = 0.08%

 

2 and 3 are overlapping with 5 and 6 and should have been taken out of consideration as they do not say much.

What was taken out is Cat.4 as it tells nothing about human influence. Non voters are not counted.

Now we have 3896 articles out of 3974 that refer to Cat.1-3 and 78 to Cat.5-7. As said before the numbers vary in studies but here you got the  95+ % consensus (could be 97.1 as aggreed on). Is this science or an election?

I think we should do everything possible to save our planet. Best for us

I do certainly not believe in statistics of any kind.

 

Got a link? Looks to me like some highly massaged data taken from a denialist website. 

And are you aware that virtually all of modern science depends on statistics? How would it be possible to tell if the results of research were significant if not for statistics? And statistics are just as crucial for business,

Edited February 4, 2020 by bristolboy

[Salerno]

18 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Got a link?

Possibly a bastardised version of this?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

[bristolboy]

On 1/30/2020 at 2:21 PM, DoctorG said:

Surprise, surprise. Glacial ice is melting in the Southern summer.

 

Arctic ice is refusing to melt despite numerous predictions,

 

 

Typical piece of denialist misdirection. Let's take a look at the extent of summer ice over time:

← Previous Next →

Arctic sea ice reaches second lowest minimum in satellite record

On September 18, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2019. The minimum ice extent was effectively tied for second lowest in the satellite record, along with 2007 and 2016, reinforcing the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2019/09/arctic-sea-ice-reaches-second-lowest-minimum-in-satellite-record/

And then there's the issue of old ice.

The Arctic Ocean has lost 95 percent of its oldest ice — a startling sign of what’s to come

"Over the past three decades of global warming, the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic has declined by a stunning 95 percent, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s annual Arctic Report Card.

The finding suggests that the sea at the top of the world has already morphed into a new and very different state, with major implications not only for creatures such as walruses and polar bears but, in the long term, perhaps for the pace of global warming itself.

The oldest ice can be thought of as a kind of glue that holds the Arctic together and, through its relative permanence, helps keep the Arctic cold even in long summers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/11/arctic-is-even-worse-shape-than-you-realize/

 

ANd average thickness:

Examining 42 years of submarine records (1958 to 2000), and a five years of ICESat records (2003 to 2008), the authors determined that mean Arctic sea ice thickness declined from 3.64 meters in 1980 to 1.89 meters in 2008—a decline of 1.75 meters. A study published in 2013 compared sea ice volume between two periods: 2003-2008 and 2010-2012. The researchers used data from ICESat, the Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) and the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 mission, and found that sea ice volume declined by 4,291 cubic kilometers at the end of summer, and 1,479 cubic kilometers at the end of winter (Laxon et al. 2013). CryoSat-2 continues to monitor sea ice thickness as researchers refine study methods (Ricker et al. 2014 and Kwok and Cunningham 2015).

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

[Airbagwill]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Typical piece of denialist misdirection. Let's take a look at the extent of summer ice over time:

← Previous Next →

Arctic sea ice reaches second lowest minimum in satellite record

On September 18, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2019. The minimum ice extent was effectively tied for second lowest in the satellite record, along with 2007 and 2016, reinforcing the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2019/09/arctic-sea-ice-reaches-second-lowest-minimum-in-satellite-record/

And then there's the issue of old ice.

The Arctic Ocean has lost 95 percent of its oldest ice — a startling sign of what’s to come

"Over the past three decades of global warming, the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic has declined by a stunning 95 percent, according the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s annual Arctic Report Card.

The finding suggests that the sea at the top of the world has already morphed into a new and very different state, with major implications not only for creatures such as walruses and polar bears but, in the long term, perhaps for the pace of global warming itself.

The oldest ice can be thought of as a kind of glue that holds the Arctic together and, through its relative permanence, helps keep the Arctic cold even in long summers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/11/arctic-is-even-worse-shape-than-you-realize/

 

ANd average thickness:

Examining 42 years of submarine records (1958 to 2000), and a five years of ICESat records (2003 to 2008), the authors determined that mean Arctic sea ice thickness declined from 3.64 meters in 1980 to 1.89 meters in 2008—a decline of 1.75 meters. A study published in 2013 compared sea ice volume between two periods: 2003-2008 and 2010-2012. The researchers used data from ICESat, the Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) and the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 mission, and found that sea ice volume declined by 4,291 cubic kilometers at the end of summer, and 1,479 cubic kilometers at the end of winter (Laxon et al. 2013). CryoSat-2 continues to monitor sea ice thickness as researchers refine study methods (Ricker et al. 2014 and Kwok and Cunningham 2015).

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

Bristol, Don't try and argue with a fool, hell bring you down to his level and he's much better at than yourself

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

Bristol, Don't try and argue with a fool, hell bring you down to his level and he's much better at than yourself

Actually, I find that if I persistently present them with relevant data that undercuts their arguments, eventually they retreat and disappear. Essentially, what they're perpetrating are zombie arguments. Arguments that have had a stake driven through their heart but apparently require having their heads blown off as well. Assertions that have long since been disproved - like the global temperature rise has stalled -  or become outdated as in the contention that renewables and storage are too expensive to compete with fossil fuels. Or as in DoctorG's case when data about Arctic sea ice is cherrypicked even thought the evidence is overwhelming that the extent and amount of arctic sea ice is on the decline. 

Then you have those who claim that more CO2 is better because it will result in more plant growth which is necessarily a good thing. You know more is better. And even if it were better, they seem to have a curious disregard of the fact that human made CO2 isn't produced as a pure product of pollution but lots of toxic substances contaminate the air along with it. Apparently, they believe it all comes from bottles of coca-cola and such. The IMF says that about 5 trillion dollars is spent per year subsiding fossil fuels with much of that being paid for by ordinary citizens in the form of medical bills.

And of course there is the conspiracy argument - that there's a worldwide movement by the scientific community to suppress contrary evidence. In other words, it's not so much an argument as it is lunacy.

[overherebc]

On 2/4/2020 at 7:31 AM, bristolboy said:

Got a link? Looks to me like some highly massaged data taken from a denialist website. 

And are you aware that virtually all of modern science depends on statistics? How would it be possible to tell if the results of research were significant if not for statistics? And statistics are just as crucial for business,

Statistics and %. 

Measure the outside dimensions of the average tree, height diameter etc and calculate its over all volume.

Now measure the volume taken up by all the branches and leaves etc.

Using the two answers calculate what % of the whole volume is 'free space'.

On average it comes out at 90% is free space.

Now imagine that tree is directly in front of you and between you and the eighteenth green. You are leading by one stroke. At 90% free space that means your ball has a 90% chance of hitting nothing on the way through and make it more likely you'll win the £500 wager. Would you take the shot?

You can argue any way you want using statistics and %

 

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by overherebc

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Statistics and %. 

Measure the outside dimensions of the average tree, height diameter etc and calculate its over all volume.

Now measure the volume taken up by all the branches and leaves etc.

Using the two answers calculate what % of the whole volume is 'free space'.

On average it comes out at 90% is free space.

Now imagine that tree is directly in front of you and between you and the eighteenth green. You are leading by one stroke. At 90% free space that means your ball has a 90% chance of hitting nothing on the way through and make it more likely you'll win the £500 wager. Would you take the shot?

You can argue any way you want using statistics and %

 

 

I just thank goodness that virtually all of science and engineering don't depend on the statistics...oh wait...

[VocalNeal]

On 1/30/2020 at 10:03 AM, RobbyXNorway said:

It's all about the money. Her father is the one running and writing on "her" Facebook by the way. Family eneterprise using an autistic child.

Not to mention I read somewhere that his income is derived from gambling in renewable energy stocks.

[overherebc]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I just thank goodness that virtually all of science and engineering don't depend on the statistics...oh wait...

Don't tell me. I'm 90% sure you took the shot.

????????????

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Don't tell me. I'm 90% sure you took the shot.

????????????

And I scored a hole in one. Thanks for making that hole in your reasoning so huge.

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Not to mention I read somewhere that his income is derived from gambling in renewable energy stocks.

I have no doubt you read it somewhere. It's the nature of the "somewhere" that's dubious.

[VocalNeal]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I have no doubt you read it somewhere. It's the nature of the "somewhere" that's dubious.

How does he make his money?

 

At the time I read it, it didn't seem important as she was only a sailor then.

Edited February 5, 2020 by VocalNeal

[norfolkc]

Everything she says is scripted by her Father and handlers the con is working as people seem to believe everything she says she wrote and now they want to trade mark it to stop other people cashing in on her the same as what they do this kid comes from a very wealthy and privileged background the school she go's on strike from is a special school for kids with her health problems she can be absent from there anytime she wants, so she is not on strike people need to wake up to what is going on here yes our climate is a problem and needs to be addressed but not by this con job which has no answer to anything 

[winslowsjardine]

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

How does he make his money?

 

At the time I read it, it didn't seem important as she was only a sailor then.

Why not try this miraculous new invention called the internet and look it up for yourself?

[winslowsjardine]

1 hour ago, norfolkc said:

Everything she says is scripted by her Father and handlers the con is working as people seem to believe everything she says she wrote and now they want to trade mark it to stop other people cashing in on her the same as what they do this kid comes from a very wealthy and privileged background the school she go's on strike from is a special school for kids with her health problems she can be absent from there anytime she wants, so she is not on strike people need to wake up to what is going on here yes our climate is a problem and needs to be addressed but not by this con job which has no answer to anything 

It seems you get your information from the same source as does VocalNeal

[faraday]

Watch out gentlemen, we have a know-all on site!

 

????