Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Tuisceanch

I'm posting the following link for the interest of people who might not be familiar with the opposing views regarding scientific consensus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyNCl7NzjaM

On June 12, 2018 renowned experts, Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. David Titley, Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry met in Charleston, West Virginia to discuss climate change from varying perspectives. The panelists were asked to address two specific questions: To what extent is the use of fossil fuels affecting climate change? What can and should be done to offset those effects?

The people highlighted in bold represent the contrarian point of view. I don't know if their arguments represent the best in class of the contrarian position but it's not my field of expertise. In all honesty I have to say I found their argument entirely unconvincing.

Professor Moriarty

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I'm posting the following link for the interest of people who might not be familiar with the opposing views regarding scientific consensus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyNCl7NzjaM



The people highlighted in bold represent the contrarian point of view. I don't know if their arguments represent the best in class of the contrarian position but it's not my field of expertise. In all honesty I have to say I found their argument entirely unconvincing.

Check out their bios. Then you will understand why you find their arguments unconvincing.

Tuisceanch

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Check out their bios. Then you will understand why you find their arguments unconvincing.

Their arguments on their own, in my opinion, are unconvincing. What you are suggesting is that they don't actually believe in their arguments either for the reasons you are implying. I'm afraid on that point I can find no room for disagreement, which is unfortunate because I think that's supposed to be the purpose of this thread. However all is not lost! Greta Thunberg's coat is hideous so take that!

KyussB

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I'm posting the following link for the interest of people who might not be familiar with the opposing views regarding scientific consensus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyNCl7NzjaM



The people highlighted in bold represent the contrarian point of view. I don't know if their arguments represent the best in class of the contrarian position but it's not my field of expertise. In all honesty I have to say I found their argument entirely unconvincing.

Ya and what's more, when they came up earlier in the thread, it was short work identifying Conflicts of Interest with these authors (as Prof. Moriarty alludes to) - which was nearly always the case with every prominent 'skeptic'.

Micky 32

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A child with spectrum was chosen to spokes, so no one can criticise without being accused like you do. Very cynical.

Reminds me of Boris and the dog stunt, awwww isn’t he lovely and cute how can we not vote for him now lol

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

Ya and what's more, when they came up earlier in the thread, it was short work identifying Conflicts of Interest with these authors (as Prof. Moriarty alludes to) - which was nearly always the case with every prominent 'skeptic'.

Well that's what I find as well but leaving that aside, I honestly do not understand for instance,and this is only one example, how any scientist would suggest that the lagging effect of co2 to temperature in the ice core samples was somehow proof that there was no correlation between the two, when the mechanism that is playing out today is that co2 emissions are the dominant forcing element. You know what I'm talking about. The only credible explanation, that I can see, for presenting an argument like that is because they decided that lining their pockets was more important than their career as a scientist. To me that is of far more concern than anything Greta Thunberg has said, since as far as I know the only thing she has said is that politicians need to heed the advice of the scientific community and take action. People might not want to hear that from a 16th year old or question why she has risen to prominence but essentially isn't that all she is saying? I don't follow everything she does so maybe she has said other things that have caused some people offense but I don't know what they are which is why I'm following this thread but I'm still none the wiser.

Plumbthedepths

Someone needs a scriptwriter....

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/greta-thunberg-apologises-for-against-the-wall-comment-970491.html

Micky 32

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Someone needs a scriptwriter....

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/greta-thunberg-apologises-for-against-the-wall-comment-970491.html

Ah she was just throwing a tantrum, bless her......

Tuisceanch

https://apnews.com/dcab6ef42181e4a9ae6094f290346a5a

Disagreement drags UN climate talks into a 2nd extra day

“I’ve been attending these climate negotiations since they first started in 1991, but never have I seen the almost total disconnection we’ve seen here ... in Madrid between what the science requires and the people of the world demand, and what the climate negotiators are delivering,” said Alden Meyer, a climate policy special at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Among the main issues still being discussed in Madrid are rules for international carbon markets and a system for channeling money to help poor countries cope with the economic impact of climate change.

Nathaniel Keohane, of the Environmental Defense Fund, said it was critical for countries to resist attempts by Brazil and others to keep large piles of carbon credits amassed under a now-discredited system.

Many are urging that politician's feet should be held to the fire ('att ställa någon mot väggen' in Swedish apparently and ' jemanden auf etwas festnageln' in German) until they honor their pledges. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Kijk de kat uit de boom.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

A fairly literal application of the 'Pooh Pooh' fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh

Ah I see your confusion. Not 'pooh-pooh' Simply just a large singular pile of 'pooh.' And sorry to burst your bubble - It doesn't amount to any type of Wikipedia sourced fallacy for the very simple reason that the endless peddling of an utopian GND has no substance of an argument whatsoever. As pointed out you've provided no backup that any of the various daft ideas detailed are in anyway realistic or even provided any proof of the basic concepts of same.
So yup it remains as described. . But there we are ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Ah I see your confusion. Not 'pooh-pooh' Simply just a large singular pile of 'Pooh.' And sorry to burst your bubble - It doesn't amount to any type of Wikipedia sourced fallacy for the very simple reason that the endless peddling of an utopian GND has no substance of an argument whatsoever. So yup it remains as described. . But there we are ...

What does this mean? I mean, what context do you think you are using it?
And why do you feel the need to keep repeating it irrespective of the points being made to you.

The rest of the post is wrong as well, but it's Saturday night here and I just couldn't be ar&ed getting in to it. Particularly when someone is already explaining it to you and you refuse to listen.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

What does this mean? I mean, what context do you think you are using it?And why do you feel the need to keep repeating it irrespective of the points being made to you.The rest of the post is wrong as well, but it's Saturday night here and I just couldn't be ar&ed getting in to it. Particularly when someone is already explaining it to you and you refuse to listen.

I can provide a fairly good dictionary source if you like? Its a fairly simple statement on the constant repetition of the same old stuff without any substance of argument again and again as described.

But if indeed 'it's Saturday night here and you just couldn't be ar&ed getting in to it' why bother posting at all? Or is it like much of the thread where you propose arguments simply because they are contrarian?

KyussB

There's a difference between you 'pooh pooh'ing something, and it not having any backing.

As other posters saw at the time, I had substantive answers to pretty much every challenge to the GND - and then all posters opposing it just devolved into shrill "Communist!" screeching, because they had no valid arguments against it - to the point that youd think we were living in the McCarthyite US period.

Yellow_Fern

Sonics2k wrote: »

Well, also Japan in recent years.

But all that aside, I do find the sheer amount of abuse and vitriol aimed at Greta to be baffling.

Even on this very thread people are directly attacking a teenage girl because of her message about climate change. It's crazy.

In the Japanese incident radiation didnt kill anyone. The evacuation killed a few old people.

It is not baffling. People are attacking her ideas, not her because she was so critical of western society, gov and the very nature of our incredible economic system. I dont blame her. She is very young. I wasnt much wiser when I was 16, but her ideas are very stupid and spread fear. I dont accept that she can escape criticism if she so forcefully criticizes our way of life.

Akrasia

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

In the Japanese incident radiation didnt kill anyone. The evacuation killed a few old people.

It is not baffling. People are attacking her ideas, not her because she was so critical of western society, gov and the very nature of our incredible economic system. I dont blame her. She is very young. I wasnt much wiser when I was 16, but her ideas are very stupid and spread fear. I dont accept that she can escape criticism if she so forcefully criticizes our way of life.

The reality of our situation is that we are in a crisis because the 16 year olds of our generation did not speak out or were not listened to by the ‘pragmatic’ adults of our parents generation

The scientific consensus is (more or less) that we need to reach net negative carbon emissions within 3 decades to have a 50 50 chance of avoiding runaway climate change

If our emissions had begun to fall 20 years ago, this would be very achievable (and we would also have had more time to act) but because our pollution continued to increase it gives us a steeper hill to climb with less time to do it

It’s not much different to a smoker who chooses to not try to quit out of fear for the discomfort of mild withdrawal effects developing lung cancer and facing debilitating cancer treatment with a low chance of survival

And you’re like the useful idiots cheerleading psychopath tobacco lobbiests trying to milk a few more decades of profit before they need to admit that their product is toxic and they knew about it all along

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

There's a difference between you 'pooh pooh'ing something, and it not having any backing.As other posters saw at the time, I had substantive answers to pretty much every challenge to the GND - and then all posters opposing it just devolved into shrill "Communist!" screeching, because they had no valid arguments against it - to the point that youd think we were living in the McCarthyite US period.

You see there the thing - you've provided no credible backing whatsoever. You believe that GND is unicorn poop and fairy dust - I and many other posters clearly do not and remain utterly unconvinced despite the constant posturing and screaming, even when posters pointed out the many many flaws and what was being presented as the magic solution was in effect without any substance of argument whatsover. Sorry if you dont like that.

jackboy

Akrasia wrote: »

The scientific consensus is (more or less) that we need to reach net negative carbon emissions within 3 decades to have a 50 50 chance of avoiding runaway climate change.

There is no scientific consensus for that.

KyussB

Again, merely stating that the GND was not backed up, does not mean it was not backed up - it was vociferously backed up and elaborated on in detail - and the only argument posters had against it was ideological.

What you mean, is that you feel it wasn't backed up to your satisfaction - but even that is dishonest, because your disagreements with it are ideological, you 'pooh pooh' it as 'Communism' - which means you have no honest opening to being 'convinced' of it, you only have an interest in trying to shut it down, resorting to the lowest and most facile level of argument you can, because you have open disdain for discussion of the whole issue of climate change (indeed, you tried to brand it as 'off topic' here, to get it restricted).

Pick any part of it that wasn't backed up, and state it. You'll balk at this, because you don't have any challenge to it, and you know every bit of it can be backed up.

gozunda

alastair wrote: »

Well - it’s all a matter of priorities - it’s small change compared to many other activities, and there’s not too many people suggesting that reading matter on paper should be done away with - it’s pretty eco-friendly once it’s made it’s way into the world - lasts a long time, 100 percent recyclable with relatively low energy overhead, doesn’t require any ongoing power sources, educates people, etc.

Only getting back to this. Despite the humourous meme regardings greta's (see thread title) contribution to paper use etc - I see there is the idea that things like paper use are somehow 'eco-friendly'.

https://i.imgur.com/nqTyZ3y.jpg?1

Far from it. Firstly dealing with the felling of trees and the loss of carbon to the atmosphere:

The harvesting of trees for the manufacture of paper etc results in the removal of foliage, bark, roots (roots alone make up 20% of the tree) etc with approx 50 % of the trees carbon being lost as emissions following felling and that's before further carbon emissions from processing such as drying and transport over long distances. 



The wood which is harvested from a felled tree (approx 50% of the whole tree) must be kiln dried using large amounts of energy to reduce the moisture level to approx 20% before further processing.

The problem with things like magazines is that they are designed to be disposable and whilst some may certainly be recycled, a vast number end up in landfill where once again they contribute to waste pollution and the release of carbon to the atmosphere.

The industrial manufacture of paper which uses bleach and solvents is also extremly energy intensive and a dirty industry. And that's even before we consider the issues of minerals being mined for the production of glossy paper (frequently used in high end magazines) and the toxic materials used in inks.

https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/Environmental_Impact_of_Paper_Production

https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/paper-manufacturing-and-air-pollution

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Again, merely stating that the GND was not backed up, does not mean it was not backed up - it was vociferously backed up and elaborated on in detail - and the only argument posters had against it was ideological.What you mean, is that you feel it wasn't backed up to your satisfaction - but even that is dishonest, because your disagreements with it are ideological, you 'pooh pooh' it as 'Communism' - which means you have no honest opening to being 'convinced' of it, you only have an interest in trying to shut it down, resorting to the lowest and most facile level of argument you can, because you have open disdain for discussion of the whole issue of climate change (indeed, you tried to brand it as 'off topic' here, to get it restricted).Pick any part of it that wasn't backed up, and state it. You'll balk at this, because you don't have any challenge to it, and you know every bit of it can be backed up.

Thats the thing there though - it was not backed up. The whole thing was repeated ad nauseam without any credible sources or back up whatsoever.

Check out your initial and subsequent posts on GND ad infinitum - no credible sources whatsover and when requested to provide some - you gave a link to Bernie Sanders party political election website. Oddly you do seem to have an obsession with 'communism though - you keep bringing it up every time someone mentions GND. Not just me who pointed all this out btw. Though I'd agree with the 'vociferously' bit for sure lol. But yup I'm not going to derail this thread for the benefit of even more party political type shenanigans - thanks all the same. My opinion stands. If you are so sold on the Idea - simply start a dedicated thread about it and include sources and proper backup.

Micky 32

I believe the COP25 climate summit didn’t go too well.

KyussB

You mean this link, outlining almost 28 pages worth of detailed description and backing of the Green New Deal - which I also put plenty of effort voicing in my own words:
https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/

So basically pointing out exactly the thing which proves you wrong - the whole lot of Sanders/AOC's version of the GND being detailed there, plus a shit ton of debate in the thread further backing it.

You and other posters don't have a single argument that stands against it, neither do you have any alternatives to it - you personally, along with others, just reverted to screeching about Communism - i.e. you don't have any arguments against it, only ideological objections to it - ideological objections that are just made up and don't even apply to it.

Micky 32

KyussB wrote: »

You and other posters don't have a single argument that stands against it..

Give it a rest, I know this is aimed at me too but i’ll just clarify something for you. I DON’T care about alarmism or climate change. So i couldn’t be arsed even trying to come up with any single or multiple argument whether there is one or not because i don’t care. I’m just a skeptic that doesn’t believe that climate change is mostly down to humans especially when there are natural factors and history to consider and not to mention the scientist predictions in the past that never happened. I don’t believe in God either but that’s for another thread. BTW regarding Tell Me Now’s comment of Jesus Wept earlier in the thread, no he didn’t because he never existed.

But to yourself and others like “tell me now” delight i’ll soon will be unfollowing this thread and i’ll enjoy what’s left of my life the best possible way i can :-)

Until climate action proves that it won’t affect peoples standard of living or the economy there won’t be much support worldwide for it. I think the recent summit in Madrid is begining to show that picture.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You mean this link, outlining almost 28 pages worth of detailed description and backing of the Green New Deal - which I also put plenty of effort voicing in my own words:
https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/
So basically pointing out exactly the thing which proves you wrong - the whole lot of Sanders/AOC's version of the GND being detailed there, plus a shit ton of debate in the thread further backing it.
You and other posters don't have a single argument that stands against it, neither do you have any alternatives to it - you personally, along with others, just reverted to screeching about Communism - i.e. you don't have any arguments against it, only ideological objections to it - ideological objections that are just made up and don't even apply to it.

Thats the funniest thing you've written yet :pac:
Yup that's the one I pointed out. Basically Bernie Sanders party political website in his bid to get elected over Trump was as good as you good so as the source lol? Seriously if that was an undergraduate essay you get it sent back to do again. And once again you're off on the obsession 'communism'. What is that?

As I said if your so convinced about the Democrats and US politics start a thread and use some half credible sources. Not Bernie sanders ffs. Fek all to do with greta eitherway!

:rolleyes:

Micky 32

gozunda wrote: »

. Fek all to do with greta eitherway!

:Rolleyes:

Maybe a tactic to take the spotlight off her and her car and up against the wall comments. ;-)

gozunda

Micky 32 wrote: »

Maybe a tactic to take the spotlight off her and her car and up against the wall comments. ;-)

Well tbh Its not a million miles away from the very weird speech she gave in Parliament Square in London telling the crowd that it was time for 'civil disobedience' and rebellion. She has also taken to handing out leaflets “I am doing this because you adults are ****ting on my future.”
Maybe she has in mind a French type revolution where she can get the woke mob to put all the adults / politicians up against the wall etc?

Micky 32

gozunda wrote: »

Well tbh Its not a million miles away from the very weird speech she gave in Parliament Square in London telling the crowd that it was time for 'civil disobedience' and rebellion. She has also taken to handing out leaflets “I am doing this because you adults are ****ting on my future.”
Maybe she has in mind a French type revolution where she can get the woke mob to put all the adults / politicians up against the wall etc?

If that’s her attitude it won’t end too well for her.

Akrasia

jackboy wrote: »

There is no scientific consensus for that.

1.5c above preindustrial temperatures has for decades been the target to avoid dangerous climate change because of the risks that positive feedbacks can amplify warming beyond human influences. Any warming above 1.5c increases the risk that we will trigger more of these known feedbacks and some we don’t even know about yet.

2c is the next round number to aim for and the scientific evidence is that we are on target to exceed our carbon budget required to stay below 2c so our best chance is to aim to be carbon neutral ASAP and then begin removing some carbon by becoming net carbon negative sometime in the 2nd half of this century

There is broad scientific consensus with this, it’s less certain than the unequivocal human cause of the warming, but it’s also the best available scientific hypotheses on the matter, vastly surpassing and alternative put forward by any climate skeptics

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Thats the funniest thing you've written yet
Yup that's the one I pointed out. Basically Bernie Sanders party political website in his bid to get elected over Trump was as good as you good so as the source lol? Seriously if that was an undergraduate essay you get it sent back to do again. And once again you're off on the obsession 'communism'. What is that?

As I said if your so convinced about the Democrats and US politics start a thread and use some half credible sources. Not Bernie sanders ffs. Fek all to do with greta eitherway!

So again, directly providing ample backing/description of the Green New Deal - from its main proponent - proving that you are wrong in the claim, that nothing was provided to back it.

Now you shift the goalposts, trying to claim Bernie Sanders is not a 'credible' source. A clam made without any argument - when Sanders is widely known to be one of the main sources promoting the GND...

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

So again, directly providing ample backing/description of the Green New Deal - from its main proponent - proving that you are wrong in the claim, that nothing was provided to back it.Now you shift the goalposts, trying to claim Bernie Sanders is not a 'credible' source. A clam made without any argument - when Sanders is widely known to be one of the main sources promoting the GND...

Yup I pointed out you had no credible sources to back up your claims. That stands.

Hehe i see you believe because a politician is pushing a party political agenda in his bid to get reelected - that somehow makes his website as a source somehow credible lol! Pull the other one.

Hitler used Mein Kampf to promote his ideas and was widely known to be one of the main sources promoting National Socialism - I still wouldnt use that as a credible source either.

As I said if it was an undergraduate essay - it would be sent back to do it again. Simply put a repetitious argument with no credible sources has simply failed to convince me of otherwise tbh. *shrug*

To paraphrase merely stating that the GND was backed up, does not mean it was backed up. And leaving aside our political friend - Backing yourself up by repetition doesn't count either I'm afraid. But hey that's about it. I leave you at it