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

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

Human activities are ESTIMATED.

estimated
[ verb es-tuh-meyt; noun es-tuh-mit, -meyt ]
SEE DEFINITION OF estimated
adj.supposed
Synonyms for estimated

predicted
approximated
guessed at

So, are you saying they are wrong?
Have you a similar number of professionals who agree with you?

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

Yep. As long as the scientific community are in support of it, I will be happy to do so.

What do you want to use?

They’re not, did you not read that the information was flawed and that the report that the IPCC report was based on was withdrawn?

They literally came out and said that the information was incorrect. Literally. The scientists.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

So, are you saying they are wrong?
Have you a similar number of professionals who agree with you?

I’m saying that there is no definitive evidence that man is causing increased global warming. That’s all. Nothing else.

weldoninhio

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

They’re not, did you not read that the information was flawed and that the report that the IPCC report was based on was withdrawn?

They literally came out and said that the information was incorrect. Literally. The scientists.

They must be deniers.

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

I’m saying that there is no definitive evidence that man is causing increased global warming. That’s all. Nothing else.

Cool. And there is way more evidence that man is having a negative impact than he is not, so let's go with that.

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

They’re not, did you not read that the information was flawed and that the report that the IPCC report was based on was withdrawn?

They literally came out and said that the information was incorrect. Literally. The scientists.

BS.

The IPCC report was not based on a single document.

MiNdGaM3

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Still using that flawed report as your single source of scientific research?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111457977&postcount=5537

So one paper incorrectly cited among thousands renders the whole report flawed

You furnish that brilliant analysis with some commentary from one of the biggest, most buffoonish AGW denier sites on the internet, WUWT, which claims the IPCC isn't real science. Any hint of irony there?

If we're going to disregard modern climate science (which forms the basis of the IPCC reports) then perhaps we need to define what real science is. Might it be in the form of blogs? Bible verses? Feelings?

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

BS.

The IPCC report was not based on a single document.

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

So one paper incorrectly cited among thousands renders the whole report flawed

You furnish that brilliant analysis with some commentary from one of the biggest, most buffoonish AGW denier sites on the internet, WUWT, which claims the IPCC isn't real science. Any hint of irony there?

If we're going to disregard modern climate science (which forms the basis of the IPCC reports) then perhaps we need to define what real science is. Might it be in the form of blogs? Bible verses? Feelings?

The report that was used extensively for the IPCC report was withdrawn by the authors. As in the scientists who wrote it, they withdrew it.

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The report that was used extensively for the IPCC report was withdrawn by the authors. As in the scientists who wrote it, they withdrew it.

There's 17 pages of references in the IPCC report with about 45 references per page.

But yeah, keep talking about a single report.

Beasty

Some examples of the "quality" of posting in this thread today alone

gozunda wrote: »

This ^^^

Well said.

Tell me how wrote: »

Is nonsense. Yes.

gozunda wrote: »

Incorrect. Simply agreeing with the posters comment. The poster has provided a well thought our and reasoned arguement regarding much of the frankly lazy commentary that has been posted in this thread. Seems not much change there then tbh.

Deleted User wrote: »

folks, quick question


why is greta thunberg getting a platform worth tens of millions, who is making it happen, what influence are they seeking and what influence are they getting over democratically elected government structures?

just asking- for a friend, like.

Tell me how wrote: »

Let's just see what snoopsheeps friend comes back with. I suspect plenty more Monty Python phrases will be appropriate.

Maybe something from the skit of the Judean Peoples Front. A lot of people are very aggrieved at the attention a 17 year old girl is getting.

Tell me how wrote: »

Is that your opinion?

What does your friend say?

Deleted User wrote: »

firstly, "^^^ nonsense"


secondly, you didnt answer my friend's question.

who is platforming greta, and what influence over democratically elected governments are they seeking?

i dont need the back of her book regurgitated. possibly the question is better answered from someone not in her PR dept, idk....?

edit: response 404'd on me previous, hence repost/delete

apologies to tell me how, who i would hate to inconvenience in having them respond without any point :-)

gozunda wrote: »

No that's the equivalent of attempting to claim stuff like Mein Kampf are serious pieces of literature

Deleted User wrote: »

lol

you are doing it again

your beliefs are noted, you think greta has done it all herself because she is a pure being of light and energy

my friend's question remains open, my friend will probably decide for themselves when its been answered- as pointed out, they wont be consulting with you about it.

Tell me how wrote: »

Thanks for such a concise example of your inability to accept an answer you don't like.

Your friends question has been answered. You don't like it, tough.
Now, it's your friends turn.

Deleted User wrote: »

golly, my friend will continue to ask the question regardless, thanks.

oh, your question? my friend has no problem with Greta. just wonders about the platform.

Tell me how wrote: »

Yep, nothing. As always.

Now I appreciate we don't apply strict posting rules like many other fora on Boards. It would be appreciated though if posters (and the above are prime examples of the sorts of posters I am thinking of) would, rather than simply batting backwards and forwards on the same points, demanding sources and the like, please consider the title of the forum. The "IMHO" bit is quite important. This is a topic where people have differing opinions, which is what healthy debate is often all about. However it can reach a state where people say things again and again simply because they think more "noise" will win the argument. Please debate the points, but not endlessly in a completely unconstructive manner. Please have respect for other posters. It's quite clear there will not be consensus (certainly not in the lifespan of this thread), so make your point. Debate it succinctly. Then move on. Please do not fall into the trap of posting nonsense like the above quotes (and to be clear this warning is not limited to the posters quoted above - many "contributors" to this thread seem to have resorted to this sort of posting at some stage

Any questions PM me

Tell me how

Climate change has Australian wildfires 'running out of control,' experts say

One of the people referenced in the report.

https://twitter.com/DrKateMarvel/status/1214225003450978304

ForestFire

So Kate, who is a climate scientist, fully believes that the only thing contributing to the 1 degree rise in Aus is human emmisons and nothing else is having any effect whatsoever?

Is there some sort of data behind this claim?

Again... Its like previous headlines - the worst flood in Venice in 50 years headline, which it was incorrect by the way, and nobody here addressed, why a city built 1m above sea level and sinking could have an impact on increased flooding (no its all human climate change, with no other factors)

It's like the RTE headlines and doctored photos of floods in Ireland and family's in boats, lead by youths and the elders shamed in the back.

It's all headline attention grabbing and this sensationalised approach will turn more people away from making change.

Promote change for the better, not just with the benifits of climate, but less wasteful, more efficient, cheaper solutions and make people proud to change, instead of trying to shame them and impose taxes only.

How dare you... Will not work! Especially when the youth strike on Fridays, but will not give up their prised luxuries, walk to school, designer goods, years out for world wide trips that every graduate seems to disappear for after 1-2 years work.

Thelonious Monk

ForestFire wrote: »

How dare you... Will not work! Especially when the youth strike on Fridays, but will not give up their prised luxuries, walk to school, designer goods, years out for world wide trips that every graduate seems to disappear for after 1-2 years work.

Who buys them these things? Who drives them to school? Who brainwashed them into the consumers that they are? You can't blame the kids.

ForestFire

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Who buys them these things? Who drives them to school? Who brainwashed them into the consumers that they are? You can't blame the kids.

Another how dare you... Perfect

Who demands them?
Even if they don't demand they happily accept?

Who drives them to school! Can they not make a choice for themselves and decide to walk? , I did when I was young, but for a completely different reason, from a school bus.

And now the poor kids are brainwashed! , so they are going to blame their elders, even for their own actions on climate that they protest against?

AlekSmart

gozunda wrote: »

Christ give poor greta a break. You have her worn out with the constant blatherings of - if greta this and greta the other.

Fact is greta is a kid who reckons the civilisation is going tits up quite shortly and that all the adults in the room runed her childhood or wtte. She repeats information she has no understanding of whatsoever. She's about much use to the issues of climate change as a chocolate teapot -- neither have the potential too last too long and are without substance

A question - if greta is so great at making people being woke - how come her ardent fans are apparently clueless regarding these issues?

Btw my suggestion is not that "there is no point" :rolleyes: so do try at least once and not misinterpret absolutely everything you read ok ...

Over time,the structure of the Greta Thunberg "thing" is beginning to emerge from the mists...

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-strikes-un-conference-madrid-by-greta-thunberg-et-al-2019-11

And yet the politicians let the profiteers continue to exploit our planet’s resources and destroy its ecosystems in a quest for quick cash that threatens our very existence.

The science is crying out for urgent action, and still our leaders dare to ignore it. So we continue to fight.

That action must be powerful and wide-ranging. After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.

We have learned that, if we do not step up, nobody will. So we will keep up a steady drumbeat of strikes, protests, and other actions. We will become louder and louder. We will do whatever it takes to persuade our leaders to unite behind science so clear that even children understand it.

When one's adolescent associations are with the likes of Greenpeace activists, German Green Party activists,and Chilean activists then one can be reasonably satisfied that the message will follow a set pattern...;)

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

So Kate, who is a climate scientist, fully believes that the only thing contributing to the 1 degree rise in Aus is human emmisons and nothing else is having any effect whatsoever?

Is there some sort of data behind this claim?

Again... Its like previous headlines - the worst flood in Venice in 50 years headline, which it was incorrect by the way, and nobody here addressed, why a city built 1m above sea level and sinking could have an impact on increased flooding (no its all human climate change, with no other factors)

It's like the RTE headlines and doctored photos of floods in Ireland and family's in boats, lead by youths and the elders shamed in the back.

It's all headline attention grabbing and this sensationalised approach will turn more people away from making change.

Promote change for the better, not just with the benifits of climate, but less wasteful, more efficient, cheaper solutions and make people proud to change, instead of trying to shame them and impose taxes only.

How dare you... Will not work! Especially when the youth strike on Fridays, but will not give up their prised luxuries, walk to school, designer goods, years out for world wide trips that every graduate seems to disappear for after 1-2 years work.

Again with the taxes...
US, UK, irish and Australian governments have all been slow to implement such taxes in a meaningful way so who exactly is advocating for it?

And suggesting you make people proud to change while lambasting those proud to advocate for change just doesn't compute.

You'll be glad to hear that applications for environmental type courses rose in recent CAO applications so I guess at least some kids are doing what they can.

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

Again with the taxes...
US, UK, irish and Australian governments have all been slow to implement such taxes in a meaningful way so who exactly is advocating for it?

And suggesting you make people proud to change while lambasting those proud to advocate for change just doesn't compute.

You'll be glad to hear that applications for environmental type courses rose in recent CAO applications so I guess at least some kids are doing what they can.

After the last election we where told of the green wave and Leo would respond to the people, based on inaccurate polls, even though there was actually no green wave at all. Even you saying we are slow to implement sughest you advocate faster increase in taxes?

Did I lambasted anyone? I simply suggested their strategy and the way they deliver their message, and the media hype that goes with it, with false exageraged statements(media) is not the best approach.

Good to see kids getting I to these courses and hopefully there will be meaningful jobs at the end of it, and by that I mean, not all research and doctors, but jobs that make an impact, new recycling, new technology, new materials, etc.

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

After the last election we where told of the green wave and Leo would respond to the people, based on inaccurate polls, even though there was actually no green wave at all. Even you saying we are slow to implement sughest you advocate faster increase in taxes?

Did I lambasted anyone? I simply suggested their strategy and the way they deliver their message, and the media hype that goes with it, with false exageraged statements(media) is not the best approach.

Good to see kids getting I to these courses and hopefully there will be meaningful jobs at the end of it, and by that I mean, not all research and doctors, but jobs that make an impact, new recycling, new technology, new materials, etc.

Pointing out they haven't rushed to implementing taxes does not equate to saying we need more taxes.

But, we have people proud of the fact that they don't recycle or adamant that they won't change their mode if transport and so the evidence us that many people will not advocate for change or try to adopt of their own free will.

Removing plastic bags at checkouts was a success but took a tax introduction to bring it about. Stopping smoking in the workplace was a good thing but took legislation to bring it about. (Please dont interpret me pointing this out as me saying 'I want taxes')

That is why we have governments, to act for the betterment of society with a view towards the future. Or at least that's what they're supposed to do.

ForestFire

Let's move on to the other points I made then... (as you only focused on 1 word in my entire initial post)

What about the 1 degree temperature rise Kate says is all emmisios based.

Do you agree with this, and is their data to show it?

What about the headline that said the flood in Venice was worst in 50 years?

Was this true? They even showed it wasn't in the immediate article that it wasn't. If they can't even get the headline right, it doesn't encourage people to belive the rest. And more frequent flooding in the last 10 years is not an excuse to lie in the headline.

What about the rte images, where they accurate, was the family in boat picture in any way suggestive in blame?

Even things like Nissan leaf with "zero emmisios" is deceptive, as we are no where near a stage where energy on the grid is high on renewables, yes there is no emmisios directly from the car, but there is emmisios produced (currently) to make the thing move somewhere.

I don't think this current movement help themselves and would be better off sticking to the facts without trying to sweeted it (or maybe that should be bitter it) in any way.

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

I don't think this current movement help themselves and would be better off sticking to the facts without trying to sweeted it (or maybe that should be bitter it) in any way.

What facts?

Like those produced by the scientists? Or, if not, what publication or record should we refer to?

cutelad

So forest fire your answer is tax it. You mention change transport from my diesel car was encouraged to buy. Well why not carrot and stick. Hybrids cars why not reduce vrt. Electric cars are 20 years off, infrastructure not there, in Kerry I believe 12 charging points. As for recycling, you need a degree now to know what to recycle. I believe we really need to stop the green tax them party getting into power. They only know about Dublin.
So here's one suggestion, it was mentioned radio to green party councillor, all the parking public servants have in cities take them away and make them use public transport.
I was in a rural pub recently and fella made a great suggestion. For solar heating or retro fitting, government gives 50 percent grant, 20 percent up front and a government loan for rest over 10 years. Now that would encourage people and not a tax

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

What facts?

Like those produced by the scientists? Or, if not, what publication or record should we refer to?

So you not actually going to address any of the points I made?

You picked one word from my initial post, that was at the end of a long sentence... taxes...and ignored everything else.

And now one word from my last post....facts...even though the rest of the posts is about how the media sensationalising the scientific facts and misrepresenting them with false headlines etc.

I gave clear examples (venice) and asked for data on the 1 degrees temp rise claim.

Is it backed up or not with data, 100% due to emissions?


I have to ask why is it you cherry pick single words?

And yes stick to the facts from the scientific reports, don't widly extrapolate from them (that is the media)

gozunda

AlekSmart wrote: »

Over time,the structure of the Greta Thunberg "thing" is beginning to emerge from the mists...

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-strikes-un-conference-madrid-by-greta-thunberg-et-al-2019-11

When one's adolescent associations are with the likes of Greenpeace activists, German Green Party activists,and Chilean activists then one can be reasonably satisfied that the message will follow a set pattern...;)

Talking of Grenpeace and environmentalism - a person of interest is Patrick Moore - a former director of Greenpeace international and radical environmentalist.

Often cited as a 'denier' by usual sources - it would appear he does not deny climate change rather the anthropomorphic element of it. "He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gasemissions would require increased use of nuclear energy to supply base load power.' He has also criticized the costs and reliability of wind farms."...

"Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement 'abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism'. He also claims that Greenpeace 'took a sharp turn to the political left and evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)

An interesting study in the politics of some of the early environmental movement. Worth taking a read tbh.

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

So you not actually going to address any of the points I made?

You picked one word from my initial post, that was at the end of a long sentence... taxes...and ignored everything else.

And now one word from my last post....facts...even though the rest of the posts is about how the media sensationalising the scientific facts and misrepresenting them with false headlines etc.

I gave clear examples (venice) and asked for data on the 1 degrees temp rise claim.

Is it backed up or not with data, 100% due to emissions?


I have to ask why is it you cherry pick single words?

And yes stick to the facts from the scientific reports, don't widly extrapolate from them (that is the media)

Cool, listen to the science so is your message I guess. Sounds familiar.

As for the rest of your post. Venice was discussed here several weeks ago, and the rest of your attempts to find fault with advocating for action is just looking to detract from the need to do something.

Tell me how

cutelad wrote: »

So forest fire your answer is tax it. You mention change transport from my diesel car was encouraged to buy. Well why not carrot and stick. Hybrids cars why not reduce vrt. Electric cars are 20 years off, infrastructure not there, in Kerry I believe 12 charging points. As for recycling, you need a degree now to know what to recycle. I believe we really need to stop the green tax them party getting into power. They only know about Dublin.
So here's one suggestion, it was mentioned radio to green party councillor, all the parking public servants have in cities take them away and make them use public transport.
I was in a rural pub recently and fella made a great suggestion. For solar heating or retro fitting, government gives 50 percent grant, 20 percent up front and a government loan for rest over 10 years. Now that would encourage people and not a tax

What would pay for the government grant? We don't have enough money for health at the moment not to mention demands on infrastructure and education funding.

Also, the issue in public sector parking isn't the government, it's the 1 in 10 workers or whatever it is that use these who would be up in arms at the suggestion of the change in their job circumstances.

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

Cool, listen to the science so is your message I guess. Sounds familiar.

As for the rest of your post. Venice was discussed here several weeks ago, and the rest of your attempts to find fault with advocating for action is just looking to detract from the need to do something.

The only one detracting and avoiding actually discussing the points is you.

Again
Is the 1 degree temperature rise in Aus, 100% based on emissions as claimed? (discussed today by the way by guess who? You)

Was they headline on Venice false?

Claimimg it was discussed before, is simple a cop out, I am showing a pattern in the media and discussion how the message is delivered, but you do not want to answer, so you will continue to make your excuses and cherry pick you points.... Fine

Tell me how

ForestFire wrote: »

The only one detracting and avoiding actually discussing the points is you.

Again
Is the 1 degree temperature rise in Aus, 100% based on emissions as claimed? (discussed today by the way by guess who? You)

Was they headline on Venice false?

Claimimg it was discussed before, is simple a cop out, I am showing a pattern in the media and discussion how the message is delivered, but you do not want to answer, so you will continue to make your excuses and cherry pick you points.... Fine

Why don't you go ahead and ask the climate scientist who I posted. It is her claim and I am happy to take her word for it.

I've no interest in discussing Venice again, why should I?

You want to listen to the scientists, so do I. We're on the same page.

Anyway, I'm out for the evening.

ForestFire

Tell me how wrote: »

Why don't you go ahead and ask the climate scientist who I posted. It is her claim and I am happy to take her word for it.

I've no interest in discussing Venice again, why should I?

You want to listen to the scientists, so do I. We're on the same page.

Anyway, I'm out for the evening.

So you believe anything someone says without data and proof (just their word alone) and still refuse to discuss something you brought up yourself and back it up. (this point only on the 1 degree claim)

Refuse to even acknowledge in a previous headline was correct or not, you just had to type one word, yes or no, for your answer, whichever you think is correct. And the reason I asked you is because it is directly related to this latest claim you posted this evening (I. E. A Pattern).

As I said, the media and some of the movement seems to be able to do no wrong, and you think we should not question them, blind faith it is then, instead of reasoned and critical analysis of what they say and report?

Also out for the evening now too

feargale

gozunda wrote: »

A protest by virtue of being a protest does not give it moral authority.

That's a statement of tlhe obvious. I don't know if you are trying to say that neither Martin Luther King nor John Hume had moral authority. We know where you stand on the moral authority of Greta Thunberg, other climate protesters, and the overwhelming majolrity of the world's scientists who are in broad agreement with her

gozunda wrote: »

History is generally the arbitrator on that subject.

If we don't watch out the historical assessment will be taking place in a great history symposium in tthe sky,

gozunda wrote: »

And on the subject of overpopulation and where activists are really serious about human impact on the planet - they wont be having grandchildren.

Condoms for everybody? Good luck with that. I guess its a win win scenario. The planet fries but there's nobody here to worry about it. :rolleyes:

gozunda wrote: »

An "Inconvient Truth"? I believe Al Gore got egg all over his face with his particular brand of 'Inconvenient Truth" when it was ruled as being littered with scientific errors. Something still ignored by many of his fans.

Gore or no Gore it remains an inconvenient truth, as inconvenient to me as to you. You must remember that in 1960 the idea of climate change didn't exist. As in all scientific investigations, scientists stumble towards the answer, misreading and making mistakes on the way. It's called finding the answers by trial and error. Don't underestimate the capacity of Philip Morris, Greed is Good Oil, or Donald Duck the Questions to pounce on those mistakes.

gozunda wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

Keep reading the Telegraph. It has a very good sudoku.

And now I would like to know how many deniers are employed by multinationals whose enterprises are inimical to the planet, not in their view but in the view
of environmentalists, or who are self-employed and in a similar situation. I imagine that in such an employment position you wouldn't be very comfortable going into the company canteen tomorrow morning and telling everybody that you were an environmentalist.

gozunda

feargale wrote: »

That's a statement of tlhe obvious. I don't know if you are trying to say that neither Martin Luther King nor John Hume had moral authority. We know where you stand on the moral authority of Greta Thunberg, other climate protesters, and the overwhelming majolrity of the world's scientists who are in broad agreement with her

Dont think so tbh. Lots of people dont seem to have grasped that. And surely she should be in agreement with the scientists and not the other way around! And yet that said it remains that greta is not even in agreement with the IPCC scientists where she is claiming civilisation is about to end in a decade etc as already detailed. For clarification read again what was said regarding 'moral authority'- it is fairly self explanatory tbh .

feargale wrote: »

If we don't watch out the historical assessment will be taking place in a great history symposium in tthe sky,

Thankfully the alarmist protests do not equal the science. So let's not push the boat out into the quick sand just yet ...

feargale wrote: »

Condoms for everybody? Good luck with that. I guess its a win win scenario. The planet fries but there's nobody here to worry about it. [

Not said. Just where convictions are so apocalyptic - the same interests wont be having children to tell them anything obviously
...

feargale wrote: »

Gore or no Gore it remains an inconvenient truth, as inconvenient to me as to you. You must remember that in 1960 the idea of climate change didn't exist. As in all scientific investigations, scientists stumble towards the answer, misreading and making mistakes on the way. It's called finding the answers by trial and error. Don't underestimate the capacity of Philip Morris, Greed is Good Oil, or Donald Duck the Questions to pounce on those mistakes.

AL Gores "An Inconvient Truth" (Filmed 2006) remains littered with scientific inaccuracies. And more importantly Al Gore is not a scientist and his claims were frequently not based on science. To this day greta cites the same as an inspiration. Truely deeply concerning some cite the "inconvient truth' eitherway ...

feargale wrote: »

Keep reading the Telegraph. It has a very good sudoku.

The guardian had an identical article reporting the same court case regarding Al Gores money making movie found to be littered with scientific inaccuracies as detailed - would that suit perhaps ?

feargale wrote: »

And now I would like to know how many deniers are employed by multinationals whose enterprises are inimical to the planet, not in their view but in the view
of environmentalists, or who are self-employed and in a similar situation. I imagine that in such an employment position you wouldn't be very comfortable going into the company canteen tomorrow morning and telling everybody that you were an environmentalist.

'You'? As in me? Ah the old 'deniers' much loved of the alarmists lol.

Nope not one of those. Sorry ...