Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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
21 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.

You are confusing ‘Significant’ with ‘Significance’.

 

The technical use of the latter in no way excludes use of the former.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody stating they disagree with an opinion is not evidence that they employed any thought on the matter.
 
They might simply believe stating they disagree gives an impression of being smart or perhaps they wish to signal their affiliation with others who they know disagree on the matter.
 
To indicate thought on the matter, considered counter opinions are needed, preferably offered in the absence of ad hominem attacks on the person holding the views that are being contested.


So disagreeing is much the same as agreeing yes?
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

 

 

Childish distractions again. Here is the same story on Yahoo news

Here it is on Breitbart

 

Of course you won't accept those links again because its not msn or cnn.

But guess what they don't cover all the news. They only cover that which promotes their bias. So it is rather difficult to talk about news when you have limited yourself to such a narrow band of information. But it does explain why you always seem so confused.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Socialism isn't going  far enough. It leaves far too much wiggle room for those horrible backward peasants to do things that the self-appointed elites have decided are harmful or "problematic".

 

That's why prominent Left activists are forever fantasizing about the world being put "on a war footing", and the masses "mobilized" as they supposedly were for World War II.

 

You have to wonder about the characters of people who constantly dream about wielding that level of power and control over other people's lives.

Actually you have to wonder about those who having lost the argument about renewable energy now resort to caricatures and personal vilification. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I made a post just above in which I explained everything.
Getting developing nations into line will is phase 2. I think we all agree they need to be kept under reasonable control. You agree on that, right? Right?
Fail to answer, lose the argument.


Wrong.

I don’t agree developing countries should be “...kept under reasonable control.”

Who are you to decide what’s best for another country?
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Are you keeping track? Are you sure it was 500 climate scientists? Or just 500 people from various professions? Not all of them even being scientists. Here's a link from a group that backed the petition. 

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

So, no. It wasn't 500 climate scientists.

 

I will allow that they did say experts.

Here is the beginning of the list of signatories. I have only included those from Belgium, but I can get you all 500 if you wish to be pedantic.

SCIENTISTS AND PROFESSIONALS FROM BELGIUM

1. Rob Lemeire, Publicist on Environmental and Climate Issues, ECD Ambassador

2. Eric Blondeel, retired Civil Engineer.

3. Emiel van Broekhoven, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Antwerp

4. Christophe de Brouwer, MD, Honorary Professor of Environmental and Industrial Toxicology, Former President of the School of Public Health at the Université Libre de Bruxelles

5. Christian Dierick, Lead Expert, Energy Technology Solutions

6. Ferdinand Engelbeen, Former chemical process automation engineer, Akzo Nobel Chemicals

7. Samuel Furfari, Professor of Energy Geopolitics at the Free University of Brussels

8. Georges Geuskens, Emertitus Professor of Chemistry, Free University of Brussels and Expert Publicist on Climate Science

9. Drieu Godefridi, PhD in Law, author of several books

10. Jan Jacobs, Science Journalist Specializing in Climate and Energy Transition

11. Raymond Koch, Retired Research director at Lab. Plasma Physics, RMA Brussels and Fellow Lecturer at UMons.

12. Henri A. Masson, Emeritus Professor Dynamic System Analysis and Data Mining, University of Antwerp

13. Ferdinand Meeus, Retired Research Scientist, IPCC expert Reviewer AR6

14. Jean Meeus, Retired Meteorologist, Brussels Airport, Author of the Best Seller Astronomical Algorithms

15. Ernest Mund, Honorary Research Director, FNRS, Nuclear Engineering

16. Bart Ooghe, Geologist & Geophysicist, Independent Scientist

17. Jozef Verhulst, Author

18. Jean van Vliet, Retired Specialist in Space Weather

19. Appo van der Wiel, Senior Development Engineer

 

It seems to me rich collection of academics from various fields. and there is 481 more from all over the world.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin.

 

And we've seen young schoolgirls being used as propaganda pawns by some very unsavory people in the 20th century.

And in this century, the 21st,  we've seen some ad hominem attacks unbacked by evidence. From parties who have lost the scientific and economic wars and now resort to scurrilous attacks. Because you don't need evidence to do that. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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


Yes, most everyone making a living off publishing global warming agree.

So what percentage of “science” are people making a living publishing global warming papers?

That you guys regurgitate this same lie over and over suggests you actually believe it.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually you have to wonder about those who having lost the argument about renewable energy now resort to caricatures and personal vilification. 


I have six air conditioners in my home, and if my lot was covered entirely with solar panels it would not run one of them.

Lost the argument, hilarious.
  • Like 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...