Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

ForestFire

KyussB wrote: »

Okey, 3 to 5 degrees raises the bar to within IPCC projections - so that helps the debate a lot.


If you take 3/5 degrees as an unacceptable limit on human contributions to climate change, then it's important to look at how to arrest our emissions on time to avoid hitting those limits - if you look at the economics of this, market-based solutions to climate change are projected to fail to stay within those limits - and government-led solutions like above, are the only way.

But the important question missed...

How much of climate changed temperature rise is human related? What is the percentage value?

I do not know the answer to this and my current uneducated, open minded value, could be any where from 20 to 80%, but I could still be wrong :-)

The green deal, I would imagine is a very solalist policy I beliebe (I won't use the other word as its not needed), and maybe its something that is needed to get governments and people into action, but it will need near global acceptance of this policy.

Also its hard to make this huge change in policy without knowing clearly, what temperature (or co2 levels) is the definite critical value, and what percentage is human based and we can control, or do we even need to compansate for factors out of our control!

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Okey, 3 to 5 degrees raises the bar to within IPCC projections - so that helps the debate a lot.

....

The key word is projections. Projections rely on scenarios, and each scenario is based on assumptions about how the future will develop. Projections are imagination, they not data, they are not science. This is borne out in the results of the models promoted by the IPCC that have proven useless when measured against real world data. There is no basis for debate when the projections made by the IPCC over several decades have been consistently wrong.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

It's notable that not a single person on the side of the debate critical of Greta, will even express that human extinction as a result of human-driven climate change, would be 'unacceptable'.Do you meet that incredibly low bar, of thinking that a human-driven temperature change that leads to human extinction, is unacceptable?

Again it is clear that being a fan of greta or otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with your hypothetical ideas on 'human extinction'

It is of notable that the IPCC have not made any claims with regard to human extinction as a result of climate change. Is it that you do not agree with the IPCCs findings or prefer to make use alarmism in an apparent attempt to discredit those who you do not agree with?

"no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

And yes "humanity can still live in a world with climate change".

http://theconversation.com/will-climate-change-cause-humans-to-go-extinct-117691

You have again avoided answering the pertinent questions as to why you dont agree with the IPCC and why you believe existing greenhouse gas emissions management systems are 'fraudulent accounting tricks'. Answers on both those issues are certainly overdue.

Quantum Erasure

To hell with the planet and the fellas that say we must save the planet and forget about the people! I'm not one of those people. I make no apologies to anyone, anywhere for that!

gozunda

In other news - the topic of the thread title has had a ball served back to her after she previously had a go at the tennis player Roger Federer 

In a recent reply Federer said that "attacking others" was not the right way of discussing climate change.

"It is important that you choose the right things at the right time and get your message across in a fair way. Not by attacking others," he said.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/119382671/misused-roger-federer-offers-climate-change-activist-greta-thunberg-advice

Wise words with game, set and match to Mr Federer. No doubt greta et al will respond with some witty twitter profile editing as per previous form... :pac:

KyussB

ForestFire wrote: »

But the important question missed...

How much of climate changed temperature rise is human related? What is the percentage value?

I do not know the answer to this and my current uneducated, open minded value, could be any where from 20 to 80%, but I could still be wrong :-)

The green deal, I would imagine is a very solalist policy I beliebe (I won't use the other word as its not needed), and maybe its something that is needed to get governments and people into action, but it will need near global acceptance of this policy.

Also its hard to make this huge change in policy without knowing clearly, what temperature (or co2 levels) is the definite critical value, and what percentage is human based and we can control, or do we even need to compansate for factors out of our control!

The results of climate change temperature rises are the same, human made or otherwise - and as a species, we are capable of undoing the effects of not just our own greenhouse gas emissions, but natural emissions as well.

This is going to become more important, too - as rising temperatures unlock other natural sources of greenhouse gasses.

As long as we know that emissions at their current level (from all sources), will lead to a temperature rise that's deemed unacceptable - then isn't that argument enough, for first of all bringing our own emissions to zero, and then far into the negative (that is: counteract both historical human emissions, and natural/non-human emissions as well), so that we gain enough control to bring the temperature change within acceptable limits?

A lot of people would describe the Green New Deal as socialist, yes - I wouldn't, myself, because I think that people have wildly different interpretations on what that word means, to the point that it's unusable - I would say instead that you can't have a capitalist economy without a strong government - and the GND and Job Guarantee actually bolster our economies and bolsters capitalism itself, ensuring that capitalism survives for centuries still.

If we deem a certain temperature rise as unacceptable, and if stuff like the GND + JG is the only certain plan we have that can act timely at a large enough scale (with market solutions being neither certain, timely, nor of a large enough scale) - and if they are only really a tweak to our current economic system, not a replacement of it - then doesn't this render ideological concerns irrelevant, and leave us not just with no better option - but with an option which is actually a vast incremental improvement to our current system?

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The key word is projections. Projections rely on scenarios, and each scenario is based on assumptions about how the future will develop. Projections are imagination, they not data, they are not science. This is borne out in the results of the models promoted by the IPCC that have proven useless when measured against real world data. There is no basis for debate when the projections made by the IPCC over several decades have been consistently wrong.

Projections of any kind don't matter when you view human extinction as acceptable.

The consensus among climate scientists disagree with you about the usefulness and accuracy of the IPCC projections.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

In other news - the topic of the thread title has had a ball served back to her after she previously had a go at the tennis player Roger Federer 

In a recent reply Federer said that "attacking others" was not the right way of discussing climate change.

"It is important that you choose the right things at the right time and get your message across in a fair way. Not by attacking others," he said.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/119382671/misused-roger-federer-offers-climate-change-activist-greta-thunberg-advice

Wise words with game, set and match to Mr Federer. No doubt greta et al will respond with some witty twitter profile editing as per previous form... :pac:

I know you have put a lot of effort in to shoehorning tennis puns in to your post but how is it game, set and match anything. All he did was say please don't talk about me.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Again it is clear that being a fan of greta or otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with your hypothetical ideas on 'human extinction'

It is of notable that the IPCC have not made any claims with regard to human extinction as a result of climate change. Is it that you do not agree with the IPCCs findings or prefer to make use alarmism in an apparent attempt to discredit those who you do not agree with?

"no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

And yes "humanity can still live in a world with climate change".

http://theconversation.com/will-climate-change-cause-humans-to-go-extinct-117691

You have again avoided answering the pertinent questions as to why you dont agree with the IPCC and why you believe existing greenhouse gas emissions management systems are 'fraudulent accounting tricks'. Answers on both those issues are certainly overdue.

I'm trying to get posters to specify the limits they're ok with, in this case temperature-wise - ForestFire has given limits that spark good/constructive discussion - ElGrande has effectively specified a total lack of limits, which is so extreme I don't think there's much useful to discuss from it - and nobody has any idea what limits you are ok with.

So, to get some idea - any idea - of the range of limits you are ok with, I have asked if you view a temperature increase that would probably lead to human extinction, e.g. 38°C, as unacceptable?

Since it'd obviously be an absurd increase, and since you probably don't want humans to become extinct - why not just agree that that's unacceptable, as a starting point?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I know you have put a lot of effort in to shoehorning tennis puns in to your post but how is it game, set and match anything. All he did was say please don't talk about me.

That's a direct quote btw

"It is important that you choose the right things at the right time and get your message across in a fair way. Not by attacking others," he said.

As I said 'wise words' ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

That's a direct quote btw

"It is important that you choose the right things at the right time and get your message across in a fair way. Not by attacking others," he said.

As I said 'wise words' ...

As I said, it doesn't imply 'Game set and match' in any sense.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

I'm trying to get posters to specify the limits they're ok with, in this case temperature-wise - ForestFire has given limits that spark good/constructive discussion - ElGrande has effectively specified a total lack of limits, which is so extreme I don't think there's much useful to discuss from it - and nobody has any idea what limits you are ok with.
So, to get some idea - any idea - of the range of limits you are ok with, I have asked if you view a temperature increase that would probably lead to human extinction, e.g. 38°C, as unacceptable?Since it'd obviously be an absurd increase, and since you probably don't want humans to become extinct - why not just agree that that's unacceptable, as a starting point?

So you have postulated some bizarre human extiction scenario - to get posters to speculate on their personal choice of climate change scenario in order to shoehorn in the usual guff about AOC's / Bernie Sander's Democratic Party Electioneering "Green New Deal' rubbish?

The IPCC have already set out the projected limits for a range of climate change temperature increase scenarios - and no its not a competition to see who can come up with the highest mark on the wall. The figures are already
out there.

KyussB wrote:

I have asked if you view a temperature increase that would probably lead to human extinction, e.g. 38°C, as unacceptable?

I know you have - it remains:

"no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species".

So personal theories on temperature increase + human extinction is a moot point. We might as well speculate on the year in which humans will migrate to Mars - for all the the logic that pertains to anything.

More importantly you still have failed to answer the questions I have asked which you brought up previously in the discussion and which remain relevant viz. "Fraudelent Account Tricks " and why do you not accept the IPCCs figures as above?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

As I said, it doesn't imply 'Game set and match' in any sense.

Oh yes it does - read the article again if you are in any doubt. Federer's reply is very relevant.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

So you have postulated some bizarre human extiction scenario - to get posters to speculate on their personal choice of climate change scenario in order to shoehorn in the usual guff about AOC's / Bernie Sander's Democratic Party Electioneering "Green New Deal' rubbish?

The IPCC have already set out the projected limits for a range of climate change temperature increase scenarios - and no its not a competition to see who can come up with the highest mark on the wall. The figures are already
out there.



I know you have - it remains:

"no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species".

So personal theories on temperature increase + human extinction is a moot point. We might as well speculate on the year in which humans will migrate to Mars - for all the the logic that pertains to anything.

More importantly you still have failed to answer the questions I have asked which you brought up previously in the discussion and which remain relevant viz. "Fraudelent Account Tricks " and why do you not accept the IPCCs figures as above?

So is that saying you think surpassing the temperature limits set by the IPCC, is something you view as unacceptable?

The only reason absurd hypotheticals (temperature limits leading to human extinction) are part of discussion here, is because there seems to be a complete refusal from many posters, to say what temperature limits they view as acceptable/unacceptable - even when an obviously absurd limit is put forward...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Oh yes it does - read the article again if you are in any doubt. Federer's reply is very relevant.

Oh not it doesn't!!!

Your turn.

(Did read the article by the way, can be summarised as, I shouldn't be singled out.)

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

...
The consensus among climate scientists disagree with you about the usefulness and accuracy of the IPCC projections.

That is untrue. Most recently even Zeke Hausfather came out and said cool it and this guy is on the warmunist side of the science.

RCP8.5 was intended to explore an unlikely high-risk future. But it has been widely used by some experts, policymakers and the media as something else entirely: as a likely ‘business as usual’ outcome. A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation. The media then often amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances. This results in further confusion regarding probable emissions outcomes, because many climate researchers are not familiar with the details of these scenarios in the energy-modelling literature.

source

Analysis of a carbon forecast gone wrong: the case of the IPCC FAR
Alberto Zaragoza Comendador

The First Assessment Report greatly overestimated the airborne fraction of CO2

The error in the IPCC’s forecast of methane concentrations was enormous

source

One other item that is relevant as regards Greta et al. the IPCC has made no projections regarding tipping point thresholds.

KyussB

The first thing you cite does not impact the accuracy or usefulness of IPCC projections - and the second guy you cite is not a climate scientist.

So my statement - "The consensus among climate scientists disagree with you about the usefulness and accuracy of the IPCC projections." - is still true.

Why do you care about the predictions anyway, when your position is that even human extinction would be an acceptable outcome of ever-increasing emissions?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

So is that saying you think surpassing the temperature limits set by the IPCC, is something you view as unacceptable?

You really have to stop making up what you believe other people have said...

You said

KyussB wrote:

I asked if you view a temperature increase that would probably lead to human extinction, e.g. 38°C, as unacceptable?

And I said

gozunda wrote:

The IPCC have already set out the projected limits for a range of climate change temperature increase scenarios...The figures are already out there etc.

KyussB wrote:

The only reason absurd hypotheticals (temperature limits leading to human extinction) are part of discussion here, is because there seems to be a complete refusal from many posters, to say what temperature limits they view as acceptable/unacceptable - even when an obviously absurd limit is put forward...

Its part of 'your' discussion' and makes no sense whatsoever. As stated the temperature limits have already been set out by the IPCC. Coming up with some daft hypothetical scenario for people to make up their own imaginary figures or even to see who wins the peeing competition is at best puerile tbh.

Any thoughts on the questions viz. "Ghg emissions management systems and "fraudulent accounting tricks' and why you dont accept the IPCC recommendations etc?

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

In other news - the topic of the thread title has had a ball served back to her after she previously had a go at the tennis player Roger Federer 

What did greta do? Is it the retweeting of the 350Org tweet?

“As the father of four young children and a fervent supporter of universal education, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the youth climate movement, and I am grateful to young climate activists for pushing us all to examine our behaviours and act on innovative solutions. We owe it to them and ourselves to listen. I appreciate reminders of my responsibility as a private individual, as an athlete and as an entrepreneur, and I’m committed to using this privileged position to dialogue on important issues with my sponsors.” - Federer

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

What did greta do? Is it the retweeting of the 350Org tweet? ...

No - she previously had a go at the tennis player Roger Federer 

see article linked above for further details

Federer told the publication that "attacking others" was not the right way of discussing climate change.

"It is important that you choose the right things at the right time and get your message across in a fair way. Not by attacking others,"

Tbh she does seem to have a habit of that whether it's the adults in the room who apparently ruined her childhood (or wtte) or even various others greta et al have decided are open targets

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

No - see article linked above for further details

Maybe it's too early, I just see this :

"The partnership was questioned by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg in January, who called out Federer's connection to a bank that supports fossil fuels."

What exactly did she do?

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

No - she previously had a go at the tennis player Roger Federer 

see article linked above for further details

Can you link where she had a go? Maybe it's in the article I'm on mobile so maybe missing the hyperlink or something

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Can you link where she had a go? Maybe it's in the article I'm on mobile so maybe missing the hyperlink or something

Can you use Google as per the 350 quote no?

No matter perhaps you are unaware grera (and others) was in involved in the spread of the #RogerWakeUpNow and @RogerFederer do you endorse this - hashtags on social media in an organised attempt to attack his integrity and use his name to popularise accusations against Credit Suisse?

Hence his comments above that

"attacking others" was not the right way of discussing climate change.

"It is important that you choose the right things at the right time and get your message across in a fair way. Not by attacking others,"

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Can you use Google as per the 350 quote no?

No matter perhaps you are unaware grera (and others) was in involved in the spread of the #RogerWakeUpNow and @Roger do you endorse this - hashtags on social media in an organised attempt to attack his integrity and use his name to popularise accusations against Credit Suisse?

I am aware of the 350 org tweet and greta retweeting it. I was wondering if that was the having a go is all. And you said no, so here we are.. Sorry dude.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I am aware of the 350 org tweet and greta retweeting it. I was wondering if that was the having a go is all. And you said no, so here we are.. Sorry dude.

Wow fair play you remembered the 350 quote word for word? I'm impressed;)

But yeah sorry dude - you must be thinking of someone else lol. Re your questionn "what did she do?" - Not just me saying that greta - an icon of the climate alarmist movement - was having a go when she weighed in the situation in an organised attempt to attack on his integrity and used Federers name to popularise accusations against Credit Suisse

Unless that is if you dont agree with Roger Federer response / message from Federer I quoted no? To be fair - I reckon hes spot on.

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Wow fair play you remembered the 350 quote word for word? I'm impressed;)

Sorry I'm lost. I was talking about the tweet.

What's with the attitude?

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Sorry I'm lost. I was talking about the tweet. What's with the attitude?

I was talking about the article linked and the question you asked ""what did she do?"
regarding what led to that Federers message for the climate activist. But now you've got me lost lol. No worries.

Thargor

gozunda wrote: »

Can you use Google as per the 350 quote no?

No matter perhaps you are unaware grera (and others) was in involved in the spread of the #RogerWakeUpNow and @RogerFederer do you endorse this - hashtags on social media in an organised attempt to attack his integrity and use his name to popularise accusations against Credit Suisse?

Hence his comments above that

"attacking others" was not the right way of discussing climate change.

"It is important that you choose the right things at the right time and get your message across in a fair way. Not by attacking others,"

"Attacking others bad" claims middle aged keyboard warrior who spends months posting thousands of attacks on a child on the internet because her activism offends him.

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

I was talking about the article linked and the question you asked regarding what led to that Federers message for the climate activist. But now you've got me lost lol.

Haha

Yes I read the article and it doesn't link to her having a go.

I know 350 org tweeted about Roger and did that Swiss bank tennis thing. And that greta retweeted the 350 org tweet.

So I was wondering if that was the 'having a go' or has she tweeted or said something else in an interview.

That was all. Just seems like a really poor article is all. Does Roger even mention Greta, maybe we'll have a twitter row later today looks quiet between their accounts so far.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Haha
Yes I read the article and it doesn't link to her having a go. I know 350 org tweeted about Roger and did that Swiss bank tennis thing. And that greta retweeted the 350 org tweet.
So I was wondering if that was the 'having a go' or has she tweeted or said something else in an interview.That was all. Just seems like a really poor article is all. Does Roger even mention Greta, maybe we'll have a twitter row later today looks quiet between their accounts so far.

Haha We must be reading different article so.

He also had a message for the climate activist Thunberg.

Federer told the publication that "attacking others" was not the right way of discussing climate change.

"It is important that you choose the right things at the right time and get your message across in a fair way. Not by attacking others," he said.

If you dont like that article - plenty of other online articles cover the same story.