Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

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.

You should have read the Yahoo article, it is not supporting your argument.

 

And Breitbart - enough said!  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Yes of course, that is true. But my complaint is that left side of the debate will always seize upon the the credibility of the site and entirely disregard the point of the post. Even if it is just hot linked there and its source is NASA or the BBC. It is a tactic that shows great insincerity towards listening in any way to what is being said. Just adds to the polarization.

I should not have said they were all scientists I'll own that. Most of them have careers directly related to climate science though. Some of them are engineers and various other PhD's and some lawyers and authors are in there. It's not like they got signatures at a BBQ.

We can’t have people questioning the credibility of overtly biased sources can we.

 

The reason why links to the source of where a member gets information that they post on the forum is important is so the rest of us can go check the information in the context it is being presented.

 

A website might, for example, publish a conspiracy theory and lace its theory with data from a reputable source but while doing so present the data out of context.

 

So please if you quote data or information from a source, provide a link to the source where you found it.

 

Credit to you though where you admitted a mistake, not many do that, fewer still when the issue is emotive.

 

 

Edited by Chomper Higgot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are confusing ‘Significant’ with ‘Significance’.

 

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

I correctly used the adjective significance. If you are comparing the two as nouns, then 'significant' may carry even less weight than 'significance'. As in

 

As nouns the difference between significance and significant is that significance is the extent to which something matters; importance, while significant is that which has significance; a sign; a token; a symbol. As an adjective, significant is signifying something; carrying meaning.

 

Oh, yeah, you need a link. https://wikidiff.com/significance/significant

 

Share this post


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

We can’t have people questioning the credibility of overtly biased sources can we.

 

The reason why links to the source of where a member gets information that they post on the forum is important is so the rest of us can go check the information in the context it is being presented.

 

A website might, for example, publish a conspiracy theory and lace its theory with data from a reputable source but while doing so present the data out of context.

 

So please if you quote data or information from a source, provide a link to the source where you found it.

 

Credit to you though where you admitted a mistake, not many do that, feet still when the issue is emotive.

 

 

Overtly biased sources like CNN MSN...

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

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

No, a clearly incongruent juxtaposition. Please, go back and read the wiki link, that's why it's there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Overtly biased sources like CNN MSN...

 

I’m curious about one thing.

 

You associate environmentalism

and acceptance of the scientific consensus on climate change is being ‘left wing’.

 

I know a number of people who are definitely on the right of the political spectrum but who are also pro environmentalism and accept the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

Why do you associate these issues as the reserve of the left?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

In fact, very few are climatologists. Here's a link to someone who did their own private tally of the qualifications of the cosigners.

"I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists... Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one."

He goes on to say that the 2 biggest groups were geologists at 19% and engineers at 21%.  

So why should we pay any attention to this petition?

All respectable academics, all capable of making the statements that they signed.

The models are inadequate

The warming is much less than predicted

There is no emergency.

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

I correctly used the adjective significance. If you are comparing the two as nouns, then 'significant' may carry even less weight than 'significance'. As in

 

As nouns the difference between significance and significant is that significance is the extent to which something matters; importance, while significant is that which has significance; a sign; a token; a symbol. As an adjective, significant is signifying something; carrying meaning.

 

Oh, yeah, you need a link. https://wikidiff.com/significance/significant

 

Explain to me how the following statement can be understood to be referring to a ‘statistical significance’.

 

“... agree humans are making a significant contribution”.

 

Over to you.

Share this post


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

In fact, very few are climatologists. Here's a link to someone who did their own private tally of the qualifications of the cosigners.

"I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists... Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one."

He goes on to say that the 2 biggest groups were geologists at 19% and engineers at 21%.  

So why should we pay any attention to this petition?

Maybe because it's starting to sound strange that one faction of science suddenly seems to be in agreement with something other factions look at very suspiciously. The entire climatology segment needs a good, hard looking into. Fishy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Maybe because it's starting to sound strange that one faction of science suddenly seems to be in agreement with something other factions look at very suspiciously. The entire climatology segment needs a good, hard looking into. Fishy.

Oh, you think those 500 plus people are actually representative of the scientific community? Maybe you've got some polling data to support your contention? In fact, from the polling data I've seen, the only scientists that have a high level of doubt about the role CO2 plays in global warming are  geologists working for the fossil fuel industry.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Oh, you think those 500 plus people are actually representative of the scientific community? Maybe you've got some polling data to support your contention? In fact, from the polling data I've seen, the only scientists that have a high level of doubt about the role CO2 plays in global warming are  geologists working for the fossil fuel industry.

Well, any automation engineer f.ex. would immediately start questioning the input signals, like the fact that the sea surface temperature probes have only recently been deployed and the rest of the data is guesswork. Seeing as this is what has been used to create climate models. 

 

Climate is connected to a great number of disciplines from farming to nuclear physics. Yet their input will be categorically ignored because the überhuman climatologists, a fairly new addition to the scene, suddenly had an eureka moment and figured it out? Meh.

Edited by DrTuner
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Well, any automation engineer f.ex. would immediately start questioning the input signals, like the fact that the sea surface temperature probes have only recently been deployed and the rest of the data is guesswork. Seeing as this is what has been used to create climate models. 

 

Climate is connected to a great number of disciplines from farming to nuclear physics. Yet their input will be categorically ignored because the überhuman climatologists, a fairly new addition to the scene, suddenly had a heureka moment and figured it out? Meh.

there is over a hundred years of sea surface temperature records. And the current argo system is already recording rises in temperatures.

As for "climate being connected to a great number of disciplines". What does that even mean? Farmers depend on climate. Are farmers or agricultural scientists actually researching climate change? Because that would make them climatologists. But are they doing that? There has been some research connecting solar cycles to climate change. You might by stretching definitions a bit connect that to nuclear physics.  But the connection is a weak one and actually argues in favor of anthropogenic climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say it ain't so!!!

Florida GOP leaders finally utter ‘sea level rise,’ lament ‘lost decade’

 

For the first time in a decade, a Florida Senate committee scheduled a meeting Monday to discuss the impact of climate change on the peninsula state.

What did senators learn?

“We lost a decade,’’ said Sen. Tom Lee, the Thonotosassa Republican who chairs the Committee on Infrastructure and Security.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article236215368.html

Share this post


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

there is over a hundred years of sea surface temperature records. And the current argo system is already recording rises in temperatures.

As for "climate being connected to a great number of disciplines". What does that even mean? Farmers depend on climate. Are farmers or agricultural scientists actually researching climate change? Because that would make them climatologists. But are they doing that? There has been some research connecting solar cycles to climate change. You might by stretching definitions a bit connect that to nuclear physics.  But the connection is a weak one and actually argues in favor of anthropogenic climate change.

Farmers are able to see changes very quickly due to the greening effect of CO2. It's another input that should be used to validate any climate models and crop yields are a clear measurable, yet it too must be adjusted for other variables that they would know, like changing into GMO and like. Just about anything that is connected to the atmosphere provides data, which makes creating a workable model that is basically chaotic just about impossible. Yet that's the base of saying CO2 is the steering power of climate change. Meh. 

 

Argo itself says it best: 

 

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Uses_of_Argo_data.html

Quote

The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 10-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.

 

Using guesstimated data to develop models is just a case of GiGo, Garbage in, Garbage out.

Edited by DrTuner

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...