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

20Cent

jackboy wrote: »

No. What I am saying is both the accuracy and integrity of data in science is critical.

Our ability to measure temperature around the world is far more accurate now than 50 or 100 years ago. Was there thousands of scientists around the world taking temperature measurements 100 years ago?

The integrity of the data should not be taken for granted either. That does not mean thousands of scientists are lying.

Yes there was.

They can also calculate temperatures from the past using tree rings and ice cores.

CalamariFritti

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

If you can’t comprehend that overpopulation is the biggest threat to the environment then I suggest you read up on it. If you still can’t comprehend it then perhaps you shouldn’t comment on things you can’t understand.

No it was more like I didn't quite grasp which way your post was going. Were you trying to be flippant or sarcastic or ignorant or serious? I dont know. I have an idea now but it wasnt evident at the time.

jackboy

20Cent wrote: »

Yes there was.

They can also calculate temperatures from the past using tree rings and ice cores.

What kind of equipment did these thousands of scientists use 100 years ago? Was the equipment calibrated to modern standards?

Tree rings and ice cores are not as accurate as current measurements.

20Cent

jackboy wrote: »

Was kind of equipment did these thousands of scientists use 100 years ago? Was the equipment calibrated to modern standards?

Tree rings and ice cores are not as accurate as current measurements.

Thermometers.
They have been around for hundreds of years.

Mortelaro

20Cent wrote: »

Yes there was.

They can also calculate temperatures from the past using tree rings and ice cores.

That's debatable
The retrospective equivalent to the universal measurements of today do not exist
Which is why I'm not as worried about my grand children being frozen out of it as the tax gatherers are of replacing taxes on oil as the band wagon rolls on...

Harry Palmr

jackboy wrote: »

What kind of equipment did these thousands of scientists use 100 years ago? Was the equipment calibrated to modern standards?

Tree rings and ice cores are not as accurate as current measurements.

What the feck? A tree ring is a tree ring, it's not more or less accurate as a measurement - it is what it is, the manifestation of one years growth.

You're like that fella on question time who didn't get percentages when demanding he was not part of the top 5% of income earners.

20Cent

Mortelaro wrote: »

That's debatable
The retrospective equivalent to the universal measurements of today do not exist
Which is why I'm not as worried about my grand children being frozen out of it as the tax gatherers are of replacing taxes on oil as the band wagon rolls on...

Not debatable at all very accurate measurements of the atmosphere including temperature can be gotten from trees. This can be triangulates with other methods like ice cores, soil samples, fossilised pollen grains etc to confirm.

Your grand children can use wind, solar, wave or some other renewable source of energy to keep warm. If you really care about them you'd be against using fossil fuels.

jackboy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What the feck? A tree ring is a tree ring, it's not more or less accurate as a measurement - it is what it is, the manifestation of one years growth.

You're like that fella on question time who didn't get percentages when demanding he was not part of the top 5% of income earners.

A tree ring is as accurate as an accurate calibrated thermometer measurement???

Oh man.

20Cent

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What the feck? A tree ring is a tree ring, it's not more or less accurate as a measurement - it is what it is, the manifestation of one years growth.

You're like that fella on question time who didn't get percentages when demanding he was not part of the top 5% of income earners.

Yes a manifestation of one years growth is a tree ring.
We know the rate the tree grows and can see the different widths of the rings telling us if it was a wet warm year or a cold dry year.

This is well established science. Like I said the calculations can then be compared to other sources to confirm.

Harry Palmr

jackboy wrote: »

A tree ring is as accurate as an accurate calibrated thermometer measurement???

Oh man.

Are you drunk? Where did I say that. I'm talking about your definition of a tree ring, not accurately calibrated measurement

We seem to be at cross purposes

jackboy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Are you drunk? Where did I say that. I'm talking about your definition of a tree ring, not accurately calibrated measurement

We seem to be at cross purposes

You really need to read the last couple of pages. You are making a show of yourself.

Beasty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hahaha! You just can't fix stupid.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I could but you're not here so it would be pointless. Crayons aren't good for you so don't eat them anymore. Good boy.

Professor Moriarty - do not post in this thread again

Harry Palmr

It's a pretty poor quality last few pages to be fair - transgenderism, "peak Greta", citing of articles that are decades old, and wondering if measured truth is in political eye of the beholder.

Mortelaro

20Cent wrote: »

Not debatable at all very accurate measurements of the atmosphere including temperature can be gotten from trees. This can be triangulates with other methods like ice cores, soil samples, fossilised pollen grains etc to confirm.

Your grand children can use wind, solar, wave or some other renewable source of energy to keep warm. If you really care about them you'd be against using fossil fuels.

You simply cannot compare those with realtime instrument recordings worldwide and every few Kim's as exists today
You can only guess
That's good enough for exaggeraters these days it seems

20Cent

Mortelaro wrote: »

You simply cannot compare those with realtime instrument recordings worldwide and every few Kim's as exists today
You can only guess
That's good enough for exaggeraters these days it seems

If you don't know how it works why comment?

Do people who know nothing about football comment on football matches?

Climate change seems to be the only science totally ignorant people feel qualified to comment on with zero knowledge about it.

Mortelaro

20Cent wrote: »

If you don't know how it works why comment?

Do people who know nothing about football comment on football matches?

Climate change seems to be the only science totally ignorant people feel qualified to comment on with zero knowledge about it.

I know,its as valid a tool for exaggeration as extrapolating theres life on a planet as seen through a lens trillions of light years away
Its guesswork with legs
Though guessing about the far away planet doesn't help the tax man

20Cent

Mortelaro wrote: »

I know,its as valid a tool for exaggeration as extrapolating theres life on a planet as seen through a lens trillions of light years away
Its guesswork with legs
Though guessing about the far away planet doesn't help the tax man

You should publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal like the climate scientists have, you would definitely get a nobel prize.

Mortelaro

20Cent wrote: »

You should publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal like the climate scientists have, you would definitely get a nobel prize.

Heh,you want me to swallow the exaggeration agenda hook line and sinker?
No thanks,my brain says no

20Cent

Mortelaro wrote: »

Heh,you want me to swallow the exaggeration agenda hook line and sinker?
No thanks,my brain says no

Publish how it has been exaggerated.

Blow the conspiracy wide open. Thousands o scientists coordinating across the world to exaggerate climate change for some reason. At least most conspiracy theories make some sense.

suicide_circus

Harry Palmr wrote: »

It's a pretty poor quality last few pages to be fair - transgenderism, "peak Greta", citing of articles that are decades old, and wondering if measured truth is in political eye of the beholder.

i felt the posting of the 2004 article was legitimate and pertinent in this case

rafatoni

suicide_circus wrote: »

Only a few hours left before total armageddon;

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

on the plus side at least we will have heavy snow and freezing temps with christmas deccies still up. Win Win

Harry Palmr

edit - I just saw you reply above. suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Only a few hours left before total armageddon;

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

This, unfortunately is the sort of reporting that gives everyone a bad name.

Here is the actual report https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2004/02/abruptclimatechange2003.pdf

- it is deliberately framed as a "worst case" scenario but the Guardian/Observer doesn't make that clear at all, indeed it quite obviously states that the events will happen.

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world

They should have been pulled up on this article at the time.

The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current
research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts.

The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

suicide_circus

^^^^^ that's exactly the point. the most extreme least likely predictions touted by activists continue to be published as gospel

Mortelaro

20Cent wrote: »

Publish how it has been exaggerated.

Blow the conspiracy wide open. Thousands o scientists coordinating across the world to exaggerate climate change for some reason. At least most conspiracy theories make some sense.

It's not a conspiracy though so no need
Its actually quite transparent
Exaggeration is the most useful tool in the box to get things that need to be done,done
I said that in my first post
The exaggeration is gaining more and more legs with every extra euro government's need to take in to replace whats being lost

Harry Palmr

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^^^ that's exactly the point. the most extreme least likely predictions touted by activists continue to be published as gospel

Agree and I say that as a paid up member of the climate change debate, unfortunately those who seek to make ideological capital out of this matter are greatly undermining their own cause. The article is what it is and nothing else.

Rather more pressing is the here and now rather than prognostication about the future or arguments about whether an ice core is truly representative of climate at previous juncture.

To wit - is Australia about to become the first developed economy to be made measurably poorer by climate change induced weather events. The whole continent is now tinder dry and will be until our summer/their winter at the earliest. By which point whole swaths of the most populated/income generating part of the country could be smoldering with populations uprooted and economic chains disrupted (esp with regard to the tourist trade - come to Australia and breath the smoke!)

KyussB

Nintendo Lite wrote: »

There are differing opinions in the science community.

Differing opinions among scientists, doesn't make science equivalent to religion.

suicide_circus

KyussB wrote: »

Differing opinions among scientists, doesn't make science equivalent to religion.

no but its wild doomsday prophesies and child saint have more than a slight whiff

weldoninhio

Carol25 wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I’ll bring your insights to our January meeting as I work in this area. I’m sure the parents will be relieved to know too they’re just useless & there’s actually not a condition called autism at all, that’s very difficult to get diagnosed might I add.
Oh and I’ll add in - some ill informed, ignorant boardsie decided it was ok to insult children & the parents who suffer with this condition. Would you insult children with other conditions in the same way? I am so sick of the stigma attached to ASD. It’s like an un mentionable topic. Greta has it - it’s part of her. People have it- it’s part of their lives. Get over yourself and be a better person.

Autism isn’t diagnosed anymore, but you “work” in the area so you should know this. ASD is diagnosed nowadays between two spectrums, behavioural and emotional. But again you would know this because you work in the area. Autism isn’t diagnosed at all any longer. If you are going to waffle, try to stick to the truth.

KyussB

suicide_circus wrote: »

Only a few hours left before total armageddon;

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Nothing in that report attempts to predict anything, it hypothesizes deliberately unlikely worst case scenarios - to discuss hypothetical US national security implications.

Fr_Dougal

weldoninhio wrote: »

Autism isn’t diagnosed anymore, but you “work” in the area so you should know this. ASD is diagnosed nowadays between two spectrums, behavioural and emotional. But again you would know this because you work in the area. Autism isn’t diagnosed at all any longer. If you are going to waffle, try to stick to the truth.

And it’s quite easy to get diagnosed. I think that poster was eager to tell us all that it’s the field that she worked in, and did her best to ram it into the discussion.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s fair to look at Greta as someone with autism and judge her based on that, it certainly doesn’t define her.