Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

How are houses heated in Sweden? (I haven't been there, totally valid question).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

The scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has passed 99%. Denial is political, not scientific.

Denial is total ignorance.

 

I pop in here once in awhile. It's grotesquely interesting.

 

Like reading a thread with Creationists, who find it impossible to believe the incontrovertible evidence of Evolution, but have no problem believing - with a total lack of evidence - that there was an ark which carried 2 of every animal species on Earth including dinosaurs.

 

Willful ignorance? Cognitive dissonance? Lack of oxygen when exiting the womb?

 

This thread should really be put in a time capsule, so that when future generations ask, "How could they have let this happen?", they can read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Since you know nothing about my views on climate science...

 

Great point.

 

If only you were posting in a thread on the climate emergency and making hundreds of posts in that and other related threads, it might have been possible to have a good idea of your views.

 

But since you aren't doing that...

Edited by JimmyJ
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

The scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has passed 99%. Denial is political, not scientific.

Are you keeping track? Are you sure you didn't miss a few? like the 500 climate scientists who just petitioned the UN saying their is no climate crisis.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Are you keeping track? Are you sure you didn't miss a few? like the 500 climate scientists who just petitioned the UN saying their is no climate crisis.

"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change....The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science".

 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change....The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science".

 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

I am sure the gatekeepers of WIKI are in consensus. But a majority is meaningless in science. How many auto workers would vote to ban cars?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

The scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has passed 99%. Denial is political, not scientific.

I'm pretty sure it'll pass 101% soon.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.  Link

 

Here are their main points

  • There is no climate emergency
  • Climate science should be less political
  • Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
  • Warming is far slower than predicted
  • Climate policy relies on inadequate models
  • CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
  • Global warming has not increased natural disasters
  • Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

From AEI.org neoconservative lobby group funded by:

 

A 2013 study by Drexel University Sociologist Robert J. Brulle noted that AEI received $86.7 million dollars between 2003 and 2010, with the single largest source being Donors Trust, which has Charles Koch and David Koch as its largest contributors.[154]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pgs said:

How are houses heated in Sweden? (I haven't been there, totally valid question).

Probably same as Finland, electric, oil furnaces, some older places use wood and in some cities there might be pipes carrying heat from power plants that circulates warm water in the heaters. Of those only electric and heat produced with nuclear, wind or hydro is "clean".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

From AEI.org neoconservative lobby group funded by:

 

A 2013 study by Drexel University Sociologist Robert J. Brulle noted that AEI received $86.7 million dollars between 2003 and 2010, with the single largest source being Donors Trust, which has Charles Koch and David Koch as its largest contributors.[154]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

This right here is why I hesitate to post links. The website didn't hire the scientists to make a petition. The website is reporting on the petition. But you will make it all about the website which is simply making a verifiable news report. A report which will never be seen on the MSM because it contradicts the narrative.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimmyJ said:

"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change....The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science".

 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

 

According to the graphic, only the 200 most frequently publishing climatologists reaches a 98% consensus. Scientists publishing on climate change is only 84%, 88% of all climatologists and only 82% of Earth Science researchers/faculty. And they only "agree humans are making a significant contribution".

 

In science, significant does not mean the biggest/most. It means

1) sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

2) having a particular meaning; indicative of something.

 

So, the science of global warming is not all known and fully understood science. Far from it.

Edited by rabas
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pgs said:

How are houses heated in Sweden? (I haven't been there, totally valid question).

I read an article somewhere about geoenergy and heat exchangers. It was mentioned that Norway is about to ban the use of oil boilers. I can't find the article now but if I recall correctly there were in the neighbourhood of 100K oil boilers still in use in Norway. Sweden, in comparison, had half that amount.

 

The most popular heating technology was electricity. The second most popular was geoenergy (they drill a hole in the ground to some 100m and pull the heat out of the ground with a ground source heat pump). Pretty cool technology.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

According to the graphic, only the 200 most frequently publishing climatologists reaches a 98% consensus. Scientists publishing on climate change is only 84%, 88% of all climatologists and only 82% of Earth Science researchers/faculty. And they only "agree humans are making a significant contribution".

 

In science, significant does not mean the biggest/most. It means

1) sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

2) having a particular meaning; indicative of something.

 

So, the science of global warming is not all known and fully understood science. Far from it.

In the same way that not all geologists publish about tectonic plate theory. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

This right here is why I hesitate to post links. The website didn't hire the scientists to make a petition. The website is reporting on the petition. But you will make it all about the website which is simply making a verifiable news report. A report which will never be seen on the MSM because it contradicts the narrative.

This right here is why you need to post a link, you’ve pulled information from a Blog, posted on the website of a neoconservative lobby group funded by the Koch brothers and ExxonMobile.

 

Not news, a Blog.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...