Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

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.

QED

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

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).

 

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%.

The FOURTH reference to an alleged 97% consensus is - unbelievably enough - again made by John Cook in a paper published by IOP 2016 (John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T Doran, William R L Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W Maibach, J Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew G Skuce, Sarah A Green, Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming). In this paper, they are making references to the three papers I've mentioned earlier and are basically reusing the results in those three reports to support their own agenda.

 

The abstract, again, shows that these papers are is more or less a statistic trickery:

Quote

Abstract

 

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. 

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Forethat said:

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).

 

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%.

 

 

yes, i found him earlier, the way he make up result is a bit distressing,

John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

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.

 

i sure wouldnt spend my time going through all the abstracts,

so i only read this abstract he is referring to as "endorsement of co2 theory",

(which, do note, is the very premise of this survey)

but the fact is that abstract does not ever mention co2 nor man made,

they simply expect temperature to rise another 0.5%C or so over the course of

the next 100 years.

but what ever, john cook and fellow enthusiastic amateurs happily add

it to the 'scientific literature that think climate is largely driven by man'

so to recap, he takes an abstract that does not ever mention

co2 or otherwise man made global warming, and declare that very same

abstract support the theory of man made global warming through

co2 recycling ! adding to the much vaunted 97 consensus,

even when it doesnt add

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
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?


Another mind-numbed robot regurgitating the 97% lie.

Shocking
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This little clip summarises how climate activists use stats and "research" to prove that CO2 causes global warming.

"Correlation is not causation".

 

Beautiful!

 

 

there is also the reverse fact causation, the eco-anxiety brigade

often brings up how co2 levels causes more natural disasters

like wildfires, tornados etc, but data show that during 1900 to 2000,

weather has become less extreme in the latter half.

out of 15 level 4 or higher tornados, only 3 came after 1960,

and those 3 occurred 1960-1969.

using eco-anxiety logic, you could then argue that co2

is the salvation versus natural disaster,

or, low atmospheric co2 levels causes natural disasters

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-2001-3.pdf

wildfires.jpg

tornados 1900-2000.jpg

Edited by brokenbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its quite funny reading posys on here trying to discredit the settled science.

 

Consensus was reached by about 1200 of the most eminent climate scientists who studied all the for and against.

 

But tv posters know better. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...