Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pegman said:

97% of  actively publishing climate scientists agree that there is man made climate change but fools on here know better. Can't trust those smart educated types I guess. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

no, NASA is parroting an imbecile called john cook,

its amazing NASA is so sloppy as to just referring

to this ozzie on a topic that touches science,

cause cook has no clue at all how to make

a meaningful statistic, or are just trolling.

 

 

here is john discussing with fellow enthusiasts

on their blog when they came up with the theory of 97% approve TM

[[John Cook] When I read an abstract like this:

Spatial And Temporal Projected Distribution Of Four Crop Plants In Egypt

... It is projected that there will be increased air temperature throughout all four seasons in the coming 100 years, from the southern towards the northern parts of Egypt...

We can be confident that this statement is based on the fact of AGW. So is it not appropriate to rate it as 'implicit endorsement'? Not all 'predictions of future warming' tip over the line into endorsement but the stronger the prediction, the more the likelihood of implicit endorsement, methinks.]

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

 

and here is the abstract, that, do note, does not mention

co2 or man as cause of the expected temperature increase

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00205.x

its kindergarten drivel behind the 97% consensus,

in the abstracts they 'investigated' was among other

entirely irrelevant stuff like 'white males',

im embarrassed to be rated the same specie as these

imbeciles, and how NASA can refer to this 'statistic' is unbelievable.

 

here is some evaluation of john cooks drivel

that the rumor of 97% scientists approve TM comes from

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/a-psychologists-scathing-review-of-john-cooks-97-consensus-nonsensus-paper/

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

someone that bothered to actually go through the abstracts concluded

less then 1% actually wrote co2

or otherwise man made was behind earth warming and rising sea levels

 

Edited by brokenbone
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Even more unattributed ripped content.

 

Please provide a link to where you got these images.

you could always google milankovitch cycles,

temperature through history

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

What you say I evaded was precisely my point.

 

Which was, man's use of fossil fuels increasing CO2 may end or at least moderate current ice age glaciations.(freeze ups)

 

Your proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period

Work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[8] The amount of heat trapping (greenhouse) gases being emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere may delay the next glacial period by an additional 50,000 years.

 

but if you look at the trend of the milankovitch cycles,

it sure looks like we are now at the peak of warmth,

and it will plummet in a few thousands of years

Share this post


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

you could always google milankovitch cycles,

temperature through history

You could always provide a link to the source of images you post.

 

Why don’t you do that?!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You could always provide a link to the source of images you post.

 

Why don’t you do that?!

god only know how many pages on this topic i have plowed through, it would be as much of a workload for me as for you to google it all over again

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

You guys still going on about this.

 

The UN gathered the best climate scientists in the world. They investigated all the evidence and made their decision. 

 

The science is settled and no amount of posturing from pundits on here will change that.

And the science that the UN scientists decided on, bears almost no relation to the apocalyptic nonsense that Greta Thunberg has been spouting all around the globe.

 

As an informed supporter of UN science, can you link to the bit where the UN scientists state - or endorse the idea - that "Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."?

 

That was one of the most prominent statements in Greta's address to the UK parliament, and I would appreciate your help in finding out where UN scientists said that, or anything like it.

Edited by RickBradford
Spelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Yes!  and not so accidental. Picture evolving humanoids periodically forced to migrate, learning technology to stay alive, hunt, keep warm, and the invention of fire and fuel. Man's intelligence increases and voila, more CO2 and the ice age retreats. 

 

BINGO! Since the dawn of man, men have adapted to their circumstances. The more technology advances, the more humans can adapt. We are now more able to adapt to the ever-changing climate than any time in history. Yet liberals are more hysterical about the ever-changing climate, even when just a easy look at temperature trends over time indicates what we already know: the only constant with climate is that it's always changing.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

97% of  actively publishing climate scientists agree that there is man made climate change but fools on here know better. Can't trust those smart educated types I guess. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

No, that's not what it says at that link. It states (emphasis added):

 

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

 

Your statement is false. Facts matter. And it appears "fools on here" certainly know better about what was stated. Maybe we're not the fools you accuse us of being after all, sir?

Edited by Crazy Alex
deleted unnecessary content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Frankly, I am fascinated by how so many people believe the hysteria about climate change despite so many times the same climate change cult's predictions haven't come true. They're 0 for 41.

 

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

And we're supposed to keep believing the same people who have been caught manipulating data again and again after being caught in so many other lies?

 

And the people who doubt the rantings and dire warnings of the constant liars are the "deniers"????

 

Wow.

its sad that NASA of all people jumped on this bandwagon,

it used to be a respected entity.

i predict '97% scientists approve' will become a verb

in the future, and this junk science is casting a dark shadow on science and scientists, and our entire generation

as imbecilic, they are ridiculing science for the sake of

getting more funding, there is zero dignity and ethics in it

 

edit: here, take a look at cook and

the half a dozen enthusiasts

chatting on how to create this consensus

project

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

Edited by brokenbone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that's not what it says at that link. It states (emphasis added):
 
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
 
Your statement is false. Facts matter. And it appears "fools on here" certainly know better about what was stated. Maybe we're not the fools you accuse us of being after all, sir?


Yeah, they love regurgitating the 97% lie.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Even worse, proposing things like moving people to higher ground, retrofitting building and eliminating aviation are flat out INSANE.

Have to disagree on the aviation. The current policy of increasing air travel over and above the levels of the 90s is what is INSANE.

Mass cheap air travel is destroying Thailand beaches, and destroyed Boracay beach in the Phillipines and no doubt thousands of other once beautiful places around the planet.

It's not even as if it's for a good cause. Mass tourism doesn't care about the environment- it's all about staying in a big beauty destroying concrete box and getting a sun tan, with a lot of drinking and displays of local dancing tarted up for the tourists.

Local transport should be by hi speed rail, and mass international air transport for recreation needs to be scaled back severely. It's destroying too many places to be continued, without even considering air pollution.

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...