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

[canuckamuck]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This right here is why you need to post a link, you’ve pulled information from a Blog, posted on the website of a neoconservative lobby group funded by the Koch brothers and ExxonMobile.

 

Not news, a Blog.

 

 

 

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.

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Socialism isn't going  far enough. It leaves far too much wiggle room for those horrible backward peasants to do things that the self-appointed elites have decided are harmful or "problematic".

 

That's why prominent Left activists are forever fantasizing about the world being put "on a war footing", and the masses "mobilized" as they supposedly were for World War II.

 

You have to wonder about the characters of people who constantly dream about wielding that level of power and control over other people's lives.

Actually you have to wonder about those who having lost the argument about renewable energy now resort to caricatures and personal vilification. 

[RideJocky]

I made a post just above in which I explained everything.
Getting developing nations into line will is phase 2. I think we all agree they need to be kept under reasonable control. You agree on that, right? Right?
Fail to answer, lose the argument.

Wrong.

I don’t agree developing countries should be “...kept under reasonable control.”

Who are you to decide what’s best for another country?

[canuckamuck]

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Are you keeping track? Are you sure it was 500 climate scientists? Or just 500 people from various professions? Not all of them even being scientists. Here's a link from a group that backed the petition. 

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

So, no. It wasn't 500 climate scientists.

 

I will allow that they did say experts.

Here is the beginning of the list of signatories. I have only included those from Belgium, but I can get you all 500 if you wish to be pedantic.

SCIENTISTS AND PROFESSIONALS FROM BELGIUM

1. Rob Lemeire, Publicist on Environmental and Climate Issues, ECD Ambassador

2. Eric Blondeel, retired Civil Engineer.

3. Emiel van Broekhoven, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Antwerp

4. Christophe de Brouwer, MD, Honorary Professor of Environmental and Industrial Toxicology, Former President of the School of Public Health at the Université Libre de Bruxelles

5. Christian Dierick, Lead Expert, Energy Technology Solutions

6. Ferdinand Engelbeen, Former chemical process automation engineer, Akzo Nobel Chemicals

7. Samuel Furfari, Professor of Energy Geopolitics at the Free University of Brussels

8. Georges Geuskens, Emertitus Professor of Chemistry, Free University of Brussels and Expert Publicist on Climate Science

9. Drieu Godefridi, PhD in Law, author of several books

10. Jan Jacobs, Science Journalist Specializing in Climate and Energy Transition

11. Raymond Koch, Retired Research director at Lab. Plasma Physics, RMA Brussels and Fellow Lecturer at UMons.

12. Henri A. Masson, Emeritus Professor Dynamic System Analysis and Data Mining, University of Antwerp

13. Ferdinand Meeus, Retired Research Scientist, IPCC expert Reviewer AR6

14. Jean Meeus, Retired Meteorologist, Brussels Airport, Author of the Best Seller Astronomical Algorithms

15. Ernest Mund, Honorary Research Director, FNRS, Nuclear Engineering

16. Bart Ooghe, Geologist & Geophysicist, Independent Scientist

17. Jozef Verhulst, Author

18. Jean van Vliet, Retired Specialist in Space Weather

19. Appo van der Wiel, Senior Development Engineer

 

It seems to me rich collection of academics from various fields. and there is 481 more from all over the world.

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, RickBradford said:

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin.

 

And we've seen young schoolgirls being used as propaganda pawns by some very unsavory people in the 20th century.

And in this century, the 21st,  we've seen some ad hominem attacks unbacked by evidence. From parties who have lost the scientific and economic wars and now resort to scurrilous attacks. Because you don't need evidence to do that. 

[RideJocky]

"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%^[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change....The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science".
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Yes, most everyone making a living off publishing global warming agree.

So what percentage of “science” are people making a living publishing global warming papers?

That you guys regurgitate this same lie over and over suggests you actually believe it.

[RideJocky]

Actually you have to wonder about those who having lost the argument about renewable energy now resort to caricatures and personal vilification. 

I have six air conditioners in my home, and if my lot was covered entirely with solar panels it would not run one of them.

Lost the argument, hilarious.

[bristolboy]

17 minutes 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.

And here's the 1st paragraph from that Breitbart article:

"More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change."

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/24/500-scientists-write-u-n-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

Which is why links should be included. So that overzealous posters don't misrepresent what they claim to have read.

[RideJocky]

So that overzealous posters don't misrepresent what they claim to have read.

You mean like when overzealous climate change alarmists regurgitate the 97% lie?

That kind of misrepresentation?

[canuckamuck]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And here's the 1st paragraph from that Breitbart article:

"More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change."

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/24/500-scientists-write-u-n-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

Which is why links should be included. So that overzealous posters don't misrepresent what they claim to have read.

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.

[bristolboy]

32 minutes 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.

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?

[bristolboy]

51 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

You mean like when overzealous climate change alarmists regurgitate the 97% lie?

That kind of misrepresentation?

 

Nonsense.You make assertions but you don't back them up with links. 

[Chomper Higgot]

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!  

[Chomper Higgot]

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.

 

 

[rabas]

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

 

[canuckamuck]

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...

 

[rabas]

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.

[Chomper Higgot]

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?

[canuckamuck]

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.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

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.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

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.

 

slightly more than 500 people of whom only a few are climatologists. Why should I care what they think any more than I would care about a climatologists opinion about theories in particle physics or neurology? The question you should be asking is why they could get so few climatologists to sign on to this. Maybe next time you get a diagnosis from your doctor you can ask a geologist for a second opinion.

[DrTuner]

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.

[bristolboy]

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.

 

 

[DrTuner]

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.

[bristolboy]

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.

[bristolboy]

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

[DrTuner]

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.

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

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 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

 

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

You should check the date of that argo link. It's 10 years old.

 

As for farmers, they are reporting big changes and mostly suffering from them. Except in the far north where climate change has made planting temperate climate crops possible. Except in the tundra regions where it's been a disaster for agriculture.

 

Europe’s Winemakers Break With Tradition as Temperatures Rise

Vineyards adapt by growing vines at higher altitudes or using new varieties of grape; traditionalists chafe at changes

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-winemakers-break-with-tradition-as-temperatures-rise-11567245600

 

How Climate Change in Iowa is Changing U.S. Politics

 

https://time.com/5669023/iowa-farmers-climate-policy/

 

Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground

 

For the 5.4 million people who live in Russia’s permafrost zone, the new climate has disrupted their homes and their livelihoods. Rivers are rising and running faster, and entire neighborhoods are falling into them. Arable land for farming has plummeted by more than half, to just 120,000 acres in 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

 

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You should check the date of that argo link. It's 10 years old.

 

As for farmers, they are reporting big changes and mostly suffering from them. Except in the far north where climate change has made planting temperate climate crops possible. Except in the tundra regions where it's been a disaster for agriculture.

 

Europe’s Winemakers Break With Tradition as Temperatures Rise

Vineyards adapt by growing vines at higher altitudes or using new varieties of grape; traditionalists chafe at changes

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-winemakers-break-with-tradition-as-temperatures-rise-11567245600

 

How Climate Change in Iowa is Changing U.S. Politics

 

https://time.com/5669023/iowa-farmers-climate-policy/

 

Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground

 

For the 5.4 million people who live in Russia’s permafrost zone, the new climate has disrupted their homes and their livelihoods. Rivers are rising and running faster, and entire neighborhoods are falling into them. Arable land for farming has plummeted by more than half, to just 120,000 acres in 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

 

I decided to check how bad it actually is. And when I say CHECK I mean analyse some real data rather than trust media and look at whatever pictures they post for you guys to see.

It actually doesn't look too bad. At least the weather isn't claiming more casualties than they did 100 years ago. I'll dig around a little to see if I can find any D-A-T-A regarding crops and populations as well.

 

Data is king!

 

*All data from CRED (https://www.emdat.be/database)

 

One question: is this when I can expect posters to try to discredit the source and accuse me of lies (as well as accusations of not posting a link to the data)...?

 

[bendejo]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

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

 

Well, that's it for him!  A few years back Florida passed a law that said words like "climate change" could not be used in relation to state matters.  This fellow was governor at the time

His name is Rick Scott.  He'll go far (he's a US Senator now), he's a model Republican and can lick boots with the best of them, right up there with Kevin McCarthy.

 

There are some suspicious state laws throughout the US.  E.g. "the laws involving gun ownership cannot be altered" or something to that effect.