Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JimmyJ said:
13 hours ago, DrTuner said:

It's got to be true if Sudan Academy of Sciences says so.

Nice bit of racism there.

 

I'm sure you don't have a clue of the academic standards/members/achievements, but nonetheless you are instantly dismissive because it is not part of the "white" world.

 

Science is facts, not skin color.

Sudan is a country, not a race!

 

A country heavily dependent on petroleum. Dr. Tagwa Ahmed Musa of the Sudan University 3 weeks ago received the Regional Service Award of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) for Middle East and North Africa. http://www.sustech.edu/news/detail/2019/09/25/21212199-SPE-Award

 

Race:0 Science:1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You go girl hold their feet to the fire make them face what’s happening so all of us can start making responsible changes and grow into a more sustainable world I’m proud of you kiddo!

And first of all make her shut up. 

Small point that needs clarifying. It was Greta's parents that filled her head with confusion, hate and panic, ergo they "stole her dreams". Textbook child abuse really. When she gets bored of this cl

Posted Images

8 hours ago, Solinvictus said:

My post was #2080 with a great opinion piece by Lee Camp from Truthdig.com

 

Your post in #2080 is a foul mouthed, anti-society rant by a comedian actor with no understanding of science. He works for RT America part of Russia's anti-Western propaganda state media RT. He is working for Putin to destabilize western petroleum industry.

 

https://www.truthdig.com/author/lee_camp/

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, brokenbone said:

no, the 97% TM is abstracts that john cook & fellow enthusiastic amateurs subjectively decided concluded his agenda.

mark my words, future generations are going to use the 97% TM

as a verb to ridicule science and older generations in a belittling manner

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

Ah...brokenbone the master of climate science and false syllogism. 

I have to conclude that 97% of the world's scientists are wrong and he is right?

Yet according to his post he doesn't even understand the principles of elementary school science .... Bit of an oxymoron there?

Edited by Airbagwill
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Ah...brokenbone the master of climate science and false syllogism. 

I have to conclude that 97% of the world's scientists are wring and he is right?

Yet according to his post he doesn't even understand elementary school science .... Bit of an oxymoron their?

the question that maggie zimmerman posed was:

do you believe climate has increased since 1800 ?

well, as anyone who is aware of that earth has been recovering

from the minor ice age since 1800, it would seem a pointless question,

but she doubled up by drawing the conclusion that man made recycling of co2

for the past few decades somehow caused unusual low solar activity 1600-1800

in a reverse way of time continuum.

 

most of the recipients of the survey couldnt (bother) to respond,

but out of those who did, many questioned her unscientific approach.

worse still, she sherry picked out of the 3146 responses she did get,

and used only 79 responses to further her agenda,

so from the proper statistic of 79/3146 =2.5%,

she arrived at 97% by taking away 2 opinions from those 79 responses she liked

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c9c8/0585cb18c23c1eb604659501fa95c6b7564e.pdf?_ga=2.250007425.668095861.1571774302-1952811878.1571774302

https://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=748:what-did-global-warming-poll-respondants-say&catid=14:text

https://fcpp.org/2012/11/06/climate-scientists-consensus-based-on-a-myth/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DrTuner said:

It's got to be true if Sudan Academy of Sciences says so. 

 

Actually first time I saw such a list. Not impressed.

I think that perfectly encapsulates a denier's thinking on climate change .... QED. There isn't even an argument made.

 

Perhaps he'd line to give us his thoughts on the rest? Should be hysterical.

Edited by Airbagwill
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Have you noticed how there are hardly any jokes about the reality of climate change but loads about MMCC deniers? Maybe climate deniers cant think of one or draw?

 

With all due respect, and said with true admiration, that that is possibly the dumbest thing to have been posted on the internet, ever.. Analyze your statement and take a bow.

 

 

Edited by Nyezhov
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Forethat said:

Exactly. I have previously provided details regarding the 97%.

 

The first mentioning of the 97% is an old survey performed by University of Illinois 2009 (Doran/Zimmerman, Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, 2009). Two questions were sent by post to 10,257 members of the American Geophysical Union, AGU. 3,146 replied. Every single respondent but 77 (!) was removed for arbitrary reasons, and out of the remaining 77, there were 75 who agreed with the theory. That's 97% of 77, but only 0.07% of the 10,257 who received the question. 

 

 

The second reference to 97% (or close to that number) I believe is a paper published by PNAS 2010 (William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, Expert credibility in climate change). In this case, 1,372 scientists were asked if they believed that global warming is the result of human activities. 50 of the respondents had previously published papers on anthropogenic global warming and got selected. 49 of the selected 50 agreed that humans are causing global warming. That's 98% of 50, but only 2.3% of the 1,372 who replied.

 

With the above in mind, the abstract becomes almost humorous (I have been careful to stick to the fair use policy):

 

Quote

 

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC.

A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Forethat said:

The second reference to 97% (or close to that number) I believe is a paper published by PNAS 2010 (William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, Expert credibility in climate change). In this case, 1,372 scientists were asked if they believed that global warming is the result of human activities. 50 of the respondents had previously published papers on anthropogenic global warming and got selected. 49 of the selected 50 agreed that humans are causing global warming. That's 98% of 50, but only 2.3% of the 1,372 who replied.

 

With the above in mind, the abstract becomes almost humorous (I have been careful to stick to the fair use policy):

 

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

 

 

that is strikingly similar to the first study,

i think it qualify for a pattern to state that the 'consensus' are just over 2%,

and another pattern that these 'studies' are as corrupt as it gets

when they selectively cherry pick abstracts/scientists representatives

to make it from just over 2% to 97%

Edited by brokenbone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Your post in #2080 is a foul mouthed, anti-society rant by a comedian actor with no understanding of science. He works for RT America part of Russia's anti-Western propaganda state media RT. He is working for Putin to destabilize western petroleum industry.

 

https://www.truthdig.com/author/lee_camp/

 

You're talking about a guy that consistently advocates for issues like the demonstrations at for Dakota Pipeline, Civil Liberties, stopping war, etc. Whatever bro, you need to get off that corporate tv programming you have. Hating on such a person for speaking up on social issues including poor water quality.  Wow, some folks really demonstrate how much corporate talking points enters and persuades regular folks.

 

I'm not saying you are but I find some of the most un-American folks in terms of their progressive views and ideological views are Conservative Republicans. Not to mention Evangelical Christians. You my fellow TV user seem to be in one of those boxes.

 

By the way Ed Schultz was on RT also, even Chris Hedges. They and their views are part of that Russian anti-western rhetoric too huh? Ha, wow.  Get out of hear with those mainstream talking points..God I'm glad I'm not a victim of the tv box.

Edited by Solinvictus
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Nice bit of racism there.

 

I'm sure you don't have a clue of the academic standards/members/achievements, but nonetheless you are instantly dismissive because it is not part of the "white" world.

 

Science is facts, not skin color.

Nice try with the identity politics there. Ever been to Sudan? Doesn't matter if you're rainbow colored, ain't exactly a hotbed of science in there. But let's double down and say CO2 is caused by white middle aged meat eating straight men, eh? They're responsible for all evil anyway.

 

Now that that little gem is done and Godwin's law was proved pages ago, the point: Climate "science" is starting to look more and more like women studies, where a bunch of extremists start crossreferencing each other in their papers, creating an illusion that it's all legit, when it's in fact just a <deleted> circle of buddies trying to look legit. Fillers like Climate University of Nakhon Nowhere add to the bulk and bring up percentages. 

 

It's institutions like this that can be taken a bit more seriously, although there's no guarantee of absence of bias there either: https://climate.mit.edu/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

Have you noticed how there are hardly any jokes about the reality of climate change but loads about MMCC deniers? Maybe climate deniers cant think of one or draw?

How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

 

None, there will be only candles left when they are done.

 

I'll get me coat.

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

Nice try with the identity politics there. Ever been to Sudan? Doesn't matter if you're rainbow colored, ain't exactly a hotbed of science in there. But let's double down and say CO2 is caused by white middle aged meat eating straight men, eh? They're responsible for all evil anyway.

 

Now that that little gem is done and Godwin's law was proved pages ago, the point: Climate "science" is starting to look more and more like women studies, where a bunch of extremists start crossreferencing each other in their papers, creating an illusion that it's all legit, when it's in fact just a <deleted> circle of buddies trying to look legit. Fillers like Climate University of Nakhon Nowhere add to the bulk and bring up percentages. 

 

It's institutions like this that can be taken a bit more seriously, although there's no guarantee of absence of bias there either: https://climate.mit.edu/

" Climate "science" is starting to look more and more like women studies, " - QED!

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

The second reference to 97% (or close to that number) I believe is a paper published by PNAS 2010 (William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, Expert credibility in climate change). In this case, 1,372 scientists were asked if they believed that global warming is the result of human activities. 50 of the respondents had previously published papers on anthropogenic global warming and got selected. 49 of the selected 50 agreed that humans are causing global warming. That's 98% of 50, but only 2.3% of the 1,372 who replied.

 

With the above in mind, the abstract becomes almost humorous (I have been careful to stick to the fair use policy):

 

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

 

 

The THIRD paper I've found where there are references to an alleged 97% consensus is published by IOP 2010 (John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature).

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

 

This is widely known as the paper where climate-scepticism is "debunked". They reviewed 11,944 scientific papers. 97% of the papers agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human activity has SOME effect on global warming. Here's the kicker; only 41 (!!) of the papers stated that human activity and CO2-production is the main cause for the global warming since 1950. 41 out of 11,944 is 0.3%.

 

 

Edited by Forethat
  • Like 2
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...