Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

On 10/20/2019 at 2:21 PM, RideJocky said:

 

Why don’t you quit trading with them?

 

Do the customers not bear any responsibility?

 

 

You're right customers contributing to the demand and market for such production need to become better aware. However, I would say this is quite shallow and lacking of the overall bigger picture. (Smells of corporate talking points, IMO) Which is there needs to be not only more regulations but in fact the companies themselves are the culprits. They produce them. Sure, you could argue both ways and we could continue that. But I believe our faith in good governance along with our tax dollars should be used for the betterment of society not the decay.

 

My take away point is simply saying the customers bear all the responsibility is short-sided if unthoughtful regarding the bigger picture not to mention how to deal with it. The poor can't be to blame for the wealthys' greed coupled with unregulated capitalistic cannibalism, ultimately hurting our environment.

 

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

Share this post


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

 That is, the production of more CO2.    

How are they "optimum" levels?

 

greenhouse owners say optimum co2 levels are 1500 ppm,

after that its diminishing returns.

below 200 ppm plants no longer grow and if co2 fall below 150 ppm plants die.

note that at the bottom of last ice age, atmospheric co2 fell to 180 ppm,

a historic low and very close to wipe out life on earth surface.

and due to the continuous sequestration of co2,

it can be expected that if we humans do not intervene and recycle co2

back into the atmosphere where it belong,

next ice age will drop below 150 ppm co2 and end life on earth surface,

that is, the plants and every specie above in the food chain, like you for example

Share this post


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

 

 

My take away point is simply saying the customers bear all the responsibility is short-sided if unthoughtful regarding the bigger picture not to mention how to deal with it. The poor can't be to blame for the wealthys' greed coupled with unregulated capitalistic cannibalism, ultimately hurting our environment.

 

 

i'd say each human should do what in is his ability to recycle the vital co2

back into the atmosphere where it belong.

it goes without saying that wealthy people have a greater ability

and therefore responsibility to recycle co2 back into the atmosphere,

simply because fossils cost money to recycle.

 

no one is blaming the poor for not recycling enough, they do what little they can

for if for no other reason to stay alive.

 

"unregulated capitalistic cannibalism" wut mighty ?

it was the various forms of shell life forms in the sea that took the vital co2 with them

into their grave over millions upon millions of years, that eventually

led to the risk of extinction of life on earth.

if you want to blame anything on hurting environment, blame those life forms,

and praise sheer fluke that is the human discovery that

recycling fossils back into the atmosphere can be done at a profit,

or it wouldnt have been done at all

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 6:42 AM, Solinvictus said:

I like your post until this quote. I would respectfully disagree. My reasoning is due to the poor outnumbering the rich. The poor will benefit from the new 'industry' or 'market' along with other 'green' new services/jobs. Halting or slowing long established sources of dirty pollution will be of course hurt some and who are they? The wealthy. 

The poor are set to get poorer. Poor people work in factories or suchlike ( sweatshops in LOS etc ). All those jobs are going to disappear with AI / robotics. 3D printing is going to eliminate millions of factory jobs.

 

People working will be those like mechanics, electricians, plumbers etc and those in services like medical. Apprenticeships were destroyed long ago in NZ, so to get qualifications, one has to be wealthy enough to be able to afford the education. I assume it's the same in many western countries.

 

How will the poor benefit from green technology? Everything will be built in automated factories and delivered by self driving trucks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Solinvictus said:

The poor can't be to blame for the wealthys' greed coupled with unregulated capitalistic cannibalism, ultimately hurting our environment.

True, but it's nothing to do with the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

 

download.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

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...