Activist Thunberg denounces "creative PR" in climate fight

[Lacessit]

Just now, brokenbone said:

what is positive about carbon-free energy ?

If you look at the trend in carbon dioxide levels, it's broken through the 400 ppm mark.

When carbon dioxide dissolves in water ( i.e. the oceans), it lowers the ambient pH. That can result in coral extinction, disrupting entire food chains.

Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas. Contributes to global warming.

We generate electricity and power our vehicles by burning fossil fuels. That generates heat, the other aspect of the climate change problem.

Electricity generated with solar and wind power does not produce heat as a by-product. That's what is positive about carbon-free energy, although nuclear has the same problem. Heat.

 

[brokenbone]

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If you look at the trend in carbon dioxide levels, it's broken through the 400 ppm mark.

When carbon dioxide dissolves in water ( i.e. the oceans), it lowers the ambient pH. That can result in coral extinction, disrupting entire food chains.

Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas. Contributes to global warming.

We generate electricity and power our vehicles by burning fossil fuels. That generates heat, the other aspect of the climate change problem.

Electricity generated with solar and wind power does not produce heat as a by-product. That's what is positive about carbon-free energy, although nuclear has the same problem. Heat.

 

the corals uses co2 as a building block, and (surprise surprise) evolved during the cambrian era,

when co2 had broken the 2000 ppm mark, and climate was 8 degree celcius higher then today.

 higher co2 and higher temperature has been beneficial to biomass.

 

the thing you should worry about is if co2 breaks the 150 ppm mark,

that marks the end of plant and algae, and with it

every other life form.

it came close to that at the end of last ice age,

when co2 dropped to an all time low 180 ppm,

a hair short of extinguish all life on earth,

-we better increase safety margin

 

co2 has been on a slippery slope downward trend for a very long time

and is projected to drop to extinction levels in 2-3 million years

if we do not act and counter this threat

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

What makes you think I want to read absolute BS concocted to appeal to denialists? It's about as well researched as phlogiston, with accompanying spurious detail.

Come up with an explanation of the  laws of thermodynamics without resorting to Google, and I might give you a bit more credence. As of now, you have none with me.

I am no expert on laws of thermodynamics, but I can discern a case of lost intellectual equilibrum when I come across it.

 

Your description the recommended article as "denialist" indicates you either haven't read it, or - like the phlogiston cultists you reference - come to the wrong conclusion.

 

Either way, your loss.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

I am no expert on laws of thermodynamics, but I can discern a case of lost intellectual equilibrum when I come across it.

 

Your description the recommended article as "denialist" indicates you either haven't read it, or - like the phlogiston cultists you reference - come to the wrong conclusion.

 

Either way, your loss.

Do you ever turn those powers of discernment on yourself?

I'll try to cope with the loss you feel I have had, if omphaloskepsis intrudes.

[Krataiboy]

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If you look at the trend in carbon dioxide levels, it's broken through the 400 ppm mark.

When carbon dioxide dissolves in water ( i.e. the oceans), it lowers the ambient pH. That can result in coral extinction, disrupting entire food chains.

Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas. Contributes to global warming.

We generate electricity and power our vehicles by burning fossil fuels. That generates heat, the other aspect of the climate change problem.

Electricity generated with solar and wind power does not produce heat as a by-product. That's what is positive about carbon-free energy, although nuclear has the same problem. Heat.

 

Carbon dioxide is only one of many complex factors affecting the climate. The fixation with CO2. to the exclusion of these other influences, explains why so many distinguished scientists are sceptical about the IPCC's claim that climate debate is "settled". It is not. Nor should it be.

[Krataiboy]

Just now, Lacessit said:

Do you ever turn those powers of discernment on yourself?

I'll try to cope with the loss you feel I have had, if omphaloskepsis intrudes.

It won't. Try gazing at the article I recommend instead of your navel.

[Lacessit]

12 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

 

co2 has been on a slippery slope downward trend for a very long time

and is projected to drop to extinction levels in 2-3 million years

if we do not act and counter this threat

Really. I suppose that explains why it is trending up ever since the Industrial Revolution.

Where on earth do you get your projections from? A Weeties packet,perhaps?

2 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Carbon dioxide is only one of many complex factors affecting the climate. The fixation with CO2. to the exclusion of these other influences, explains why so many distinguished scientists are sceptical about the IPCC's claim that climate debate is "settled". It is not. Nor should it be.

If you read my previous posts without prejudice, you may observe I am talking about heat and thermodynamics as well.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

It won't. Try gazing at the article I recommend instead of your navel.

I see. The powers of discernment you claim remain unanswered with respect to yourself.

I've gazed at the article, and concluded fake news and alternate research is alive and well.

[brokenbone]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Really. I suppose that explains why it is trending up ever since the Industrial Revolution.

Where on earth do you get your projections from? A Weeties packet,perhaps?

If you read my previous posts without prejudice, you may observe I am talking about heat and thermodynamics as well.

yes, we, the humans broke the downward spiral,

without us recycling co2 back into atmosphere where it belong,

life on earth is destined to go extinct.

more heat you say ? about time say i,

i have had it with living in an eternal ice age, inter glacial or not

 

[nauseus]

47 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If you look at the trend in carbon dioxide levels, it's broken through the 400 ppm mark.

When carbon dioxide dissolves in water ( i.e. the oceans), it lowers the ambient pH. That can result in coral extinction, disrupting entire food chains.

Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas. Contributes to global warming.

We generate electricity and power our vehicles by burning fossil fuels. That generates heat, the other aspect of the climate change problem.

Electricity generated with solar and wind power does not produce heat as a by-product. That's what is positive about carbon-free energy, although nuclear has the same problem. Heat.

 

So what would you say is the source of energy used to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels and all their parts and spares?

[nauseus]

37 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the corals uses co2 as a building block, and (surprise surprise) evolved during the cambrian era,

when co2 had broken the 2000 ppm mark, and climate was 8 degree celcius higher then today.

 higher co2 and higher temperature has been beneficial to biomass.

 

the thing you should worry about is if co2 breaks the 150 ppm mark,

that marks the end of plant and algae, and with it

every other life form.

it came close to that at the end of last ice age,

when co2 dropped to an all time low 180 ppm,

a hair short of extinguish all life on earth,

-we better increase safety margin

 

co2 has been on a slippery slope downward trend for a very long time

and is projected to drop to extinction levels in 2-3 million years

if we do not act and counter this threat

Cambrian Man again!

[brokenbone]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Cambrian Man again!

those were the days when a man could just shake his beer glass

to get appropriate amount of tickling bubbles in the beer

[Krataiboy]

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I see. The powers of discernment you claim remain unanswered with respect to yourself.

I've gazed at the article, and concluded fake news and alternate research is alive and well.

My powers of discernment, such as they are, were honed by a lifetime in journalism as a writer and researcher and editor.

 

And you?

 

Seriously, I am intrigued to know what you discern is "denialist" in the article I cited. The author is on youir side, rather than mine, when  it comes to manmade global warming!

[Lacessit]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

So what would you say is the source of energy used to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels and all their parts and spares?

lose-lose,lose-win, or win-win? it's not all that hard to understand.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

those were the days when a man could just shake his beer glass

to get appropriate amount of tickling bubbles in the beer

Three things were missing in them good ol' days:

 

Men, beer and glasses.

[nauseus]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

lose-lose,lose-win, or win-win? it's not all that hard to understand.

 

The climate is changing. CO2 levels are increasing. But the scientific link between the two remains unsettled.

 

If you want a bit of perspective, try and understand this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMfYjKauHbs

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

My powers of discernment, such as they are, were honed by a lifetime in journalism as a writer and researcher and editor.

 

And you?

 

Seriously, I am intrigued to know what you discern is "denialist" in the article I cited. The author is on youir side, rather than mine, when  it comes to manmade global warming!

You're a journalist? I was a research scientist. Not top-level, but good and respected in my field.

The denialism I detect is the proposition environmental bodies are in a conspiracy to maximize research funding for climate change. It's the common thread in the attempt to discredit science which does not suit our desire for business as usual.

Science has several branches. One is observation of what is happening as we speak. Another is explaining that in terms of well-established laws of physics and chemistry. Yet another is creating models of what will happen in the future. That is the most common venue of attack by denialists, although the first is also a target when data is cherry-picked.

The data is in. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting. The Greenland ice cap is shrinking. Iceland and New Zealand are losing glaciers. Australia has had unprecedented heat cells in its arid interior over the past few years, temperatures similar to Death Valley. Check out current bushfires.

The conservative climate models are saying by 2050, flows of water from the Tibetan plateau to the major river systems such as the Ganges and Mekong will be halved. The current wave of economic refugeeism will look like a tea party if that is halfway accurate.

[Lacessit]

10 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Maybe Greta will lend you her bucket she took on her translantic yacht trip. Hopefully, she will have emptied it by now.

 

Or, more like, recycled it.

Jealous? Somehow, I don't think you are on the shortlist for the Pulitzer Prize.

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You're a journalist? I was a research scientist. Not top-level, but good and respected in my field.

The denialism I detect is the proposition environmental bodies are in a conspiracy to maximize research funding for climate change. It's the common thread in the attempt to discredit science which does not suit our desire for business as usual.

Science has several branches. One is observation of what is happening as we speak. Another is explaining that in terms of well-established laws of physics and chemistry. Yet another is creating models of what will happen in the future. That is the most common venue of attack by denialists, although the first is also a target when data is cherry-picked.

The data is in. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting. The Greenland ice cap is shrinking. Iceland and New Zealand are losing glaciers. Australia has had unprecedented heat cells in its arid interior over the past few years, temperatures similar to Death Valley. Check out current bushfires.

The conservative climate models are saying by 2050, flows of water from the Tibetan plateau to the major river systems such as the Ganges and Mekong will be halved. The current wave of economic refugeeism will look like a tea party if that is halfway accurate.

Economic refugees doesn't ring right somehow.

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Economic refugees doesn't ring right somehow.

Time will tell.

[sunnyboy2018]

On 12/11/2019 at 12:53 PM, melvinmelvin said:

wouldn't think that opera singers and actors in Sweden normally were wealthy people,

parents perhaps inherited a heap or won the lottery . . . .

 

They would be taxed at a minimum 50%. I thought she got her money, travel expenses etc from powerful,  shadowy eco alarmist groups.

[Krataiboy]

28 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You're a journalist? I was a research scientist. Not top-level, but good and respected in my field.

The denialism I detect is the proposition environmental bodies are in a conspiracy to maximize research funding for climate change. It's the common thread in the attempt to discredit science which does not suit our desire for business as usual.

Science has several branches. One is observation of what is happening as we speak. Another is explaining that in terms of well-established laws of physics and chemistry. Yet another is creating models of what will happen in the future. That is the most common venue of attack by denialists, although the first is also a target when data is cherry-picked.

The data is in. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting. The Greenland ice cap is shrinking. Iceland and New Zealand are losing glaciers. Australia has had unprecedented heat cells in its arid interior over the past few years, temperatures similar to Death Valley. Check out current bushfires.

The conservative climate models are saying by 2050, flows of water from the Tibetan plateau to the major river systems such as the Ganges and Mekong will be halved. The current wave of economic refugeeism will look like a tea party if that is halfway accurate.

Neither of us are climate scientists, but we are both clearly capable of studying both sides of the debate and coming up with logical conclusions. We could kick the "science" of global warming back and forth for ever, or at least until we are all toast or shivering in another ice age.

 

However, some time before either of these catastrophes occurs I would urge you to explore Morningstar's series, which in my view brilliantly and surgically (scientifically, I am tempted to say) unravels the complex narrative of how the climate change movement has been hijacked, by whom and for what nefarious purpose. 

 

I suspect it will be as much as an eyeopener for you as it was for me.

 

 

[sunnyboy2018]

56 minutes ago, Chazar said:

I think im about to vomit

Powerful PR of the type she does not object to!

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Time will tell.

Refugees do not qualify to be such, purely due to "economics".

[Krataiboy]

28 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Jealous? Somehow, I don't think you are on the shortlist for the Pulitzer Prize.

Neither is Greta. But at least I've got a sense of humour.

[Krataiboy]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You're a journalist? I was a research scientist. Not top-level, but good and respected in my field.

The denialism I detect is the proposition environmental bodies are in a conspiracy to maximize research funding for climate change. It's the common thread in the attempt to discredit science which does not suit our desire for business as usual.

Science has several branches. One is observation of what is happening as we speak. Another is explaining that in terms of well-established laws of physics and chemistry. Yet another is creating models of what will happen in the future. That is the most common venue of attack by denialists, although the first is also a target when data is cherry-picked.

The data is in. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting. The Greenland ice cap is shrinking. Iceland and New Zealand are losing glaciers. Australia has had unprecedented heat cells in its arid interior over the past few years, temperatures similar to Death Valley. Check out current bushfires.

The conservative climate models are saying by 2050, flows of water from the Tibetan plateau to the major river systems such as the Ganges and Mekong will be halved. The current wave of economic refugeeism will look like a tea party if that is halfway accurate.

Oh, is that all? What a relief! You mean we are not all going to be toast in ten or twelve years as the climate apocalypse cult keeps telling us?

 

I do wish the IPCC would have a word with these doomsday loonies. Their hyperbolic hysteria is undermining the credibility of more realistic projections and giving science a bad name.

[tgw]

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

And Trump was not elected via a Russian plot. Threads about climate change are a great playground for the conspiracy theorists.

At a rough guess, I'd say 99% of the population know diddly squat about thermodynamics, and another 99% are equally knowledgeable about Asperger traits. Two of which are total honesty, and no interest in manipulating other people.

I know a great deal about asperger traits, and I can guarantee your "traits" don't apply to many aspergers, except maybe the most impaired.

[NanLaew]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You are referring, of course, to the energy and material used in the construction of said facilities, while ignoring the positive output of carbon-free energy.

Of course I am. Until they invent something that can turn sand, sea water and BS into non-polluting and 100% recyclable energy for the burgeoning masses, stuff still needs to be dug from the earth or pumped to the surface by diesel-burning equipment, converted using electricity from coal-burning power plants and molded into gigantic bits of metal or reinforced man-made materials that are not bio-degradable.

 

Here's a fair and balanced, well-researched and unbiased assessment of the smoke and mirrors game that the less than altruistic 'save the planet' club member is touting. You know, the ones with huge vested commercial interests and a fat bank account that they want to get fatter, be it a government, corporate entity or private individual.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328

 

"Engineers joke about discovering “unobtanium,” a magical energy-producing element that appears out of nowhere, requires no land, weighs nothing, and emits nothing. Absent the realization of that impossible dream, hydrocarbons remain a far better alternative than today’s green dreams."

 

If one is to be truly serious about saving the environment, one has to commit to begin somewhere and not just parrot the knee-jerk stress monkeys with their vague science and questionable reasoning. However, in their mad rush to blame everything on fossil fuels and tout totally unsustainable and mostly incompatible alternatives, the mass hysteria of the stop CO2 emission band of deluded finger-pointers don't appreciate that for the time being, fossil fuels are a still much needed stepping stone to this carbon-neutral nirvana. Until we get there, your car wont run without it and your fridge won't keep your beer cold either.

 

https://www.rystadenergy.com/newsevents/news/press-releases/big-ep-spending-still-needed-but-fields-with-break-even-above-$60-are-priced-out/

 

"Energy projects that need oil prices above $60 per barrel in order to break even risk being uncommercial going forward, according to Rystad Energy. However, massive investments in exploration and sanctioning are still needed to meet growing global demand."

 

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

A red herring, which is to be expected from someone of your background.

"...someone of your background..." Spare us your pontifical posturing. Next you'll have us believing you've signed up to the Extinction Rebellion.

 

BTW, when I'm not out raping mother earth, I ride a push bike, grow rice, recycle poop and vote Green. Now what's your raison d'être?

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

The data is in. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting. The Greenland ice cap is shrinking. Iceland and New Zealand are losing glaciers. Australia has had unprecedented heat cells in its arid interior over the past few years, temperatures similar to Death Valley. Check out current bushfires.

The conservative climate models are saying by 2050, flows of water from the Tibetan plateau to the major river systems such as the Ganges and Mekong will be halved. The current wave of economic refugeeism will look like a tea party if that is halfway accurate.

greenland has over the past 3 years added 250 billion ton ice mass,

and a million years ago was practically ice free. todays fluctuations

are within the normal parameters since 1980.

no comment on NZ & iceland, but arctic ice was 7 ft thick 60 years ago

and is 8.3 ft thick today

australia has unfortunately not as good data base as US,

but theres plenty of newpapers articles woeing about bushfires

going back over 100 years, its not beyond reason that it follow the

pattern of US record, i'e bushfires decreasing

http://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/greenlandworkshop/NSF_greenland_stability_whitepaper.pdf

 

[brokenbone]

here is sea rise, i presume thats what your angst is all about