Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm glad to see people are now demanding adherence to facts and figures published by scientists.

Well done Kyussb, you are quite the converter. Took some effort since the first thread started but finally there is signs people are paying attention to what is actually going on.

And as usual the activist takes credit for something that they didn't do/ didn't happen. Shock.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

The IPCC and their boundaries, represents the consensus among climate scientists and their science - so your statement is wrong.

That's all in your head, there is no such consensus and science is not done by consensus and nor does nature respect consensus. Let's take the UN to task, note the date on the following article.


U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 30, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
<snip>
The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.


source

That was over 30 years ago, nothing they have said has come to pass, not even close. The UN is not a credible source when it comes to climate and they have over 30 years of being wrong in their predictions before they reverted to projections in the 2000s.

Here is something else to consider if you meet with a pension advisor as part of the sales pitch they give you the low medium high risk scenario before taking your money.




The models used by the UN in their projections are just a variation on that sales pitch, pick a low medium and high scenario and graph the projected outcome as fits their imagination. Nature goes and does her own thing and a groundhog has a better track record than the UN.

KyussB

Not a climate scientist.

Again, why do you care what anybody - scientist or otherwise - says about the science, if you view human extinction as an acceptable outcome of climate change, anyway?

Since that would render the science irrelevant, to you - why don't you just argue that it doesn't matter if the science is right/wrong, because it's irrelevant to your views anyway?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Not a climate scientist.

Again, why do you care what anybody - scientist or otherwise - says about the science, if you view human extinction as an acceptable outcome of climate change, anyway?

Since that would render the science irrelevant, to you - why don't you just argue that it doesn't matter if the science is right/wrong, because it's irrelevant to your views anyway?

Science for you in the context of climate change is just a vehicle you use to get your way. You don't care what's in the vehicle or how you get there as long as you arrive at socialist utopia.

The problem for you and others is science deals with objective facts, not values. Some scientists will sow two heads on a dog and will not think about the ethics or morality of what they are doing. In the case of climate science the facts come slowly based on observation and for many decades now they have not been in accordance with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. I am asking why have their calculations about the future been so wrong? Is their hypothesis incomplete? Is it wrong? Clearly if as a scientist or UN official who made claims about the future many years ago underpinned by science with definite time lines that do not accord with reality then you have to explain why you were wrong or admit you just don't know?


If you listen to the scientists human extinction is inevitable on a long enough time scale. Are they right or wrong?


Now lets look at reality

The starkest fact, hidden in Stern’s chapter on ethics, is the plight of the world’s poor. One of the most positive aspects of the last 20 years has been the doubling from 1.5 billion to 3 billion of the number of people in the world living in what the World Bank calls “the middle class”: those who have electricity and running water in the dwelling they call home. BP data shows that this has coincided with a 40 per cent increase in global energy demand, 88 per cent of which has been provided by fossil fuels, and less than 1 per cent by renewables. The World Bank predicts that by 2035 the middle class will grow from 3 billion to 5 billion out of a total population of 8 billion. BP estimates that the world demand for energy will increase by another 40 per cent in total; more than 80 per cent of that will again be provided by fossil fuels.

It would be immoral to stop that process. Even if the developed world was to halve its CO2 emissions over the next 20 years, the overall global emissions will grow as China, India and Africa continue their rise out of grinding poverty into a middle class existence. By 2050 more than half the world’s population will live in megacities, where local renewable energy will only serve people living on the top floor of high-rise buildings, and where nearby land is already dedicated to food production. Only fossil fuels and nuclear energy will power megacities in 2050, and it is too late now to expect anything substantially different. Over the last decade, as 600 million people left the Chinese countryside for high-rise cities, the growth in primary energy sources was more than 140 million tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per annum while the best of the renewables was in the last year which saw a growth of only 10 million toe. This will continue for at least another decade in China, while India and Africa will start a phase of urbanisation that will last at least 20 years.

source

Much of the case for random energy sources i.e. renewables depends on an assumed future breakthrough in battery technology and while technology breakthroughs in history have been both highly beneficial and unpredictable. They don’t happen to order, especially the order of governments.

There is no mention of tradeoffs by alarmists, however, it is a fact that they abound in the science, engineering and economics of energy. Have we been smart enough to make the right trade offs, based on all the available facts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xe3BWPsBTU

Vaclav Smil is the guy gates mentions.

marknjb

6543WQ

Tea drinker

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

That's all in your head, there is no such consensus and science is not done by consensus and nor does nature respect consensus. Let's take the UN to task, note the date on the following article.


U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 30, 1989





That was over 30 years ago, nothing they have said has come to pass, not even close. The UN is not a credible source when it comes to climate and they have over 30 years of being wrong in their predictions before they reverted to projections in the 2000s.

Here is something else to consider if you meet with a pension advisor as part of the sales pitch they give you the low medium high risk scenario before taking your money.




The models used by the UN in their projections are just a variation on that sales pitch, pick a low medium and high scenario and graph the projected outcome as fits their imagination. Nature goes and does her own thing and a groundhog has a better track record than the UN.

UN is a completely discredited, both for climate and politics.
Look at the mess in Iraq, Colin Powell holding up a viall of that old school white dog**** telling everyone it was WMD - no WMD.
Then this completely biased report, basically falsified information, dissenting voices quashed about Assad supposedly gassing his own poeple.
All biased BS. Anyway it will soon only have one room left for meetings, they will need to knock down conference rooms to make way for the 5,500 bathrooms to cater for all the "genders "

biko

Without comment

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

...

You've never been able to back up your smears on the accuracy of the science, nor your conspiracy theories of political collusion among scientists (in fact, you almost exclusively use sources with conflicts of interest, which tie them directly back to propaganda networks known for political collusion...).

You don't deal with science, you deal with political propaganda - with material sourced from political propagandists trying to smear the science, not with material sourced from climate scientists.

You've even discarded all of the science already, since the view you put forward is that human extinction is an acceptable outcome of climate change. That is effectively stating the political view, that no matter what climate science says, it should not be acted on.

Given that you've already entirely precluded science, from being relevant to your views on climate change, then you're well aware of how dishonest it is to pretend to care about actual science.

So it leaves the open question for other posters: Why would someone who so obviously has disdain for climate science, and views human extinction as an acceptable outcome of climate change (thus making the science irrelevant to them) - be so interested in trying to malign the science, given that it shouldn't even matter to them?

It's very Odd.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

You don't deal with science, you deal with political propaganda - with material sourced from political propagandists trying to smear the science, not with material sourced from climate scientists.

You've even discarded all of the science already, since the view you put forward is that human extinction is an acceptable outcome of climate change. That is effectively stating the political view, that no matter what climate science says, it should not be acted on.

I've included quite a bit of science in the previous thread. You have never refuted the science all you have done is slime people. If this was about science we would be debating sensitivity and CO2 residence time and we are not.

The fact of the matter is climate science became a tool for pushing political agendas over 30 years ago.

In 1988, the United Nations, a political body, founded the global-warming-report-writing entity called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC was created to support political agendas. And in 1995, politics corrupted climate science, when politicians changed the language of the IPCC’s second assessment report, eliminating the scientists’ statements of uncertainties by deleting them. Because of the IPCCs interference, the climate science community still cannot truly differentiate between natural and anthropogenic global warming. Why? The climate models used in attribution studies still cannot simulate modes of natural variability that can cause global warming over multi-decadal time frames.

You can read more here.

Madrid 1995: Was this the Tipping Point in the Corruption of Climate Science?

The story of Ben Santer’s late changes to Chapter 8 of the Working Group 1 Report is familiar to most sceptical accounts of the climate change controversy (e.g. here & here and a non-sceptical account). However, it is often overshadowed by other landmark events, and so it is usually not put up there in the same league with Hansen‘s sweaty congressional testimony of 1988, with the establishment of the IPCC nor with the Hockey Stick Controversy. Yet, if one looks at the greater controversy in terms of its impact on science, then this conference in Madrid might just surpass them all.

source

The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is being slowly taken apart by nature and science all that's left is the politics.

22 reasons to be skeptical of man made global warming

KyussB

You only present propaganda sources - not science. You're doing it right now - smearing the science, the IPCC, which represents the consensus among climate scientists - using random bullshit blogs, of all sources...

Did you check those blogs for conflicts of interest? Or are you leaving the legwork to others?

Not only that: You've precluded the science altogether, by saying that human extinction is an acceptable outcome of climate change. Why, then, would anything you say about the science be trustworthy in any way, when you've already made your mind up? (in addition to all of the proven propaganda you've cited...)

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

You only present propaganda sources - not science. You're doing it right now - smearing the science, the IPCC, which represents the consensus among climate scientists - using random bullshit blogs, of all sources...

There is more the IPCC have been guilty of this themselves.


Waste No Tears on the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri

Did I call Pachauri “liar” about the IPCC? Proven, and for lies that have influenced the world. It’s always been the meme that the IPCC represents “gold standard” trustworthy science. Here’s from the transcript of Pachauri’s testimony to a North Carolina legislative committee[ii]:

The IPCC … mobilises the best experts and scientists from all over the world and we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don’t settle for anything less than that.

Pachauri was wrong, 5587 times wrong, because that’s the number of non-peer-reviewed or “grey-lit” citations in the IPCC’s 2007 assessment report—30 per cent of all citations, as journalist Donna Laframboise discovered. The grey-lit included press releases from Greenpeace and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), not to mention a “first version of a draft”. The science team even used grey-lit in preference to unwelcome peer-reviewed findings. As George Filippo, a 2002–08 IPCC vice-chair of Group 1 (science), put it in a Climategate e-mail in 2000:

I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions) … I feel that at this point there are very little rules [sic] and almost anything goes.

Pachauri used his lie about “peer-reviewed only” multiple times from multiple podiums. Every so-called “climate scientist” reader would have known Pachauri was mouthing garbage. Not one called him out: mustn’t sully the cause, guys! And it took one honest journalist, Donna Laframboise, contrasting with hordes of incompetents, to count that 5587 out of 18,531 references in the IPCC 2007 report were not peer reviewed.

source

There were consequences that still reverberate today for the alarmist narrative.

Since Pachauri fled the IPCC, and because of the IAC audit, the IPCC has adopted a more cautious tone. In 2014 it even mentioned that 111 of 114 of the IPCC’s all-important forecasting models are biased to exaggerate warming.[vi] It has acknowledged there is no basis for attributing most extreme weather events to warming, and even noted that warming may reduce extreme weather. In fact, the zealots of “climate emergency” and “sixth extinction” are now accusing the IPCC of soft-pedalling their true message of doom.

source

KyussB

Have you done any checking on whether your source has conflicts of interest? Nearly all your sources end up being easily tied back to propaganda networks - so unless you're just intending to preach to the choir, people aren't going to take some random garbage you link, above the IPCC.

Again: Why, exactly, do you care so much about smearing the science - if you view the science as irrelevant anyway, since you view human extinction as an acceptable outcome of climate change?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Again: Why, exactly, do you care so much about smearing the science - if you view the science as irrelevant anyway, since you view human extinction as an acceptable outcome of climate change?

Not at all. As I have said before catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is not about science but the desire to rule and your own desired outcome lends credence to this and it's consequence of extinction for many humans.


Essä: Climate change has become an ideological tool - what does this mean for democracy?

Tännsjö points out that the time for our planet is running out and that we need quick and drastic measures:

"The establishment of a global government may be achieved through a coup, a kind of existential leap, in which the sovereign nation states are forced to cease to exist. A global government in the form of a global despotism takes over ”.

The idea of ​​democracy as a test of action is not new, but it has become more common.

<snip>

In 2010, Guardian ecologist James Lovelock put forward a notion that people are too stupid to solve the climate crisis and that the biggest problem is "modern democracy".

Lovelock perceived climate change as a kind of war state when "democracy must be put on ice for a while".

The professor of climate strategy Jørgen Randers has expressed similar views and added that the dictatorship in China is a good example as the system makes quick decisions t.

Anders Wijkman, a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and chair of the Rome Club and Climate-KIC, has also highlighted China as an example because the country is top-ruled and can make quick decisions - besides, there is no "opposition that is quarreling".

<snip>

Professor Janne Kotiaho even mentions that childlessness should be provided, that the population should be reduced and that the construction of houses, railways and highways is harmful.

Asceticism here goes into a kind of eco-Malthusianism.

At the end of the 18th century, the British priest and writer Thomas Malthus put forward ideas about proto-eugenics and the abolition of poor-care laws.

His main argument, however, was associated with a kind of moralism: celibacy, abstinence, and postponement of marriage would alleviate poverty in the lower classes.

Perhaps Finland's best-known Malthusian is Pentti Linkola, who advocates eco-totalitarianism. Linkola has advocated a return to the modern society where modern technology is not needed.

He has also come up with ideas that pay tribute to the elite and regard democracy as "the religion of death".

Although Linkola is extreme in expressing support for terrorism, mass murder and disease epidemics, the general way of thinking has moved much closer to his ideas.

All of humanity is at risk of being diagnosed as a disease, which is a dangerous path to anti-human politics.

source

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Have you done any checking on whether your source has conflicts of interest? Nearly all your sources end up being easily tied back to propaganda networks - so unless you're just intending to preach to the choir, people aren't going to take some random garbage you link, above the IPCC.

Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is scientifically falsified by its own prediction failure in the real world of empirical data. On the other hand, you are essentially admitting that what determines your own position is that you are either getting paid by someone or have a belief system that wants you to keep ignoring the principles of real science.

Part of the deception you bought into is that fossil fuel interests are somehow evil and this is one of the sentiments that drives the broken science. Just because people have built successful companies by providing products that practically everyone wants should not be held against them and cheap energy is a product that everyone wants and the more energy we can get the better off our standards of living are.


You don't have to accept my word the IPCC has politicised climate science with a predetermined outcome. I've made it easy for you the references are linked below for you to follow. As you can see the IPCC was setup NOT to test the assumption that carbon emissions were driving heat and heat was driving dangerous "climate change" or catastrophic anthropogenic "global warming" as they branded it back then, BUT to broadcast it. It is a politicised forum, pushing out people who are frustrated by the way discussions of findings and theories in its working papers are distilled into political alarms in the summary materials used by politicians and the press. The IPCCs terms of reference are only to report on climate change caused by human activity, other factors that affect climate are excluded.

Climate Change Science & Propaganda

Point of View Constrains Objectivity


The IPCC specifically limited its study to proving that climate change was the result of man’s activities and specifically carbon dioxide, (URL="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/"]18[/URL, p. v) as defined in Scope 29 [73]. They started the investigation with certainty that emissions from man-made greenhouse gases were causing global warming and carbon dioxide was responsible for more than half of the greenhouse effect (URL="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/"]18[/URL, p. xi).

The climate change that “we” (IPCC) “are addressing” is the “result of human activities.” (URL="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/"]18[/URL, p. xxxvi). Changes in the atmospheric composition are largely due to “human activities.” (URL="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/"]18[/URL, p. 7). The major contributor to radiative forcing is carbon dioxide since the industrial times (URL="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/"]18[/URL, p. 45). The IPCC created a mathematical formula known as the Global Warming Potential (QWP) that is limited to variations in the concentration of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, over time without any other factors (URL="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/"]18[/URL, p. 58). A meteorite striking the earth, a super massive volcanic eruption, etc. would have no effect on the GWP unless it happened to change the CO2 concentration. The Business-as-Usual Scenario assumed that ALL tropical forests have been destroyed (Appendix 1) URL="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/"]18[/URL. It is apparent that the IPCC severely limited its investigation to man-made CO2 related global warming issues.


Restricting the study to essentially proving one issue, creates an advocacy situation and not a scientific one.The IPCC’s “primary audience” was identified as “governments and policy makers.” ([3], p. 32). The target audience was not the scientific community, but politicians. This, coupled with the adoption and execution of robust propaganda techniques, support a goal oriented investigation.

source

KyussB

I don't know why you're pretending to reply to me there, as nothing in either of your posts is a reply to what I've asked in either case - they're both just random blog-dumps unrelated to anything quoted.

Again: You have no limits on what you view as an acceptable outcome from climate change - because you have said human extinction would not be an unacceptable outcome - so why don't you just argue that any outcome from climate change is acceptable, instead of trying to smear the science?

Fr_Dougal

KyussB wrote: »

I don't know why you're pretending to reply to me there, as nothing in either of your posts is a reply to what I've asked in either case - they're both just random blog-dumps unrelated to anything quoted.

Again: You have no limits on what you view as an acceptable outcome from climate change - because you have said human extinction would not be an unacceptable outcome - so why don't you just argue that any outcome from climate change is acceptable, instead of trying to smear the science?

He’s not falling for the straw man argument you have offered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfil34ayaEU

KyussB

It's pretty simple: When asked to set a limit on what level of climate change would be acceptable - based on a number of things, ranging from temperature, GHG levels, and finally (when he stonewalled everything else) the deliberately unrealistic hypothetical scenario of temperatures leading to human extinction - he argued that human extinction would not be unacceptable.

No straw man here - that's what he said.

That effectively means he has no limits on what he views as an acceptable outcome of climate change (and he's been free to state a limit at any time, been asked repeatedly) - and that effectively means that it does not matter to him what climate scientists say, because he's already ruled all possible outcomes as acceptable...

These are pretty straightforward conclusions from what he said. Feel free to point out exactly what part is a straw man.

Given that - it would be far more honest for him just to argue that any outcome is acceptable (as that's effectively his position) - rather than try to smear the science with propaganda links (since the science is already irrelevant to his view). So why doesn't he just argue the former, since that's his position?

sher look

hes wiping the floor with you as far as i can see.

you keep making demands and not accepting the comprehensive answers given in response. just changing your demands or glibly attacking the numerous sources cited.

its clear that you haven't a notion of accepting that you're well defeated

it's clear you think arguments are won by stamina or stubbornness

or that you just want everyone to leave the thread in annoyance at you.

nb greta thunberg is the child puppet figurehead of a shady antidemocratic bunch of fanatics

and no i dont have a source :-)

KyussB

*shrugs* If you consider preaching to the choir a 'win', sure. He's only been stonewalling and evasive - making pretend replies unrelated to what he was asked.

Fact is, a lot of people have been asked where their limits stand when it comes to climate change (in variations of temperature increases, GHG increases, and the deliberately unlikely extreme of human extinction - just to find a starting limit) - and it's proven to be an extremely reliable way of determining who is an ideologue without limits - who is genuinely critical of Greta, while still having scientifically agreeable limits - and those who will conspicuously do anything to avoid specifying any kind of limit, while pretending to just be 'skeptical' of the science.

If people can't specify some kind of limit - nor rule out obviously absurd situations as beyond their limits - then it's going to be pretty easy to discredit them.

shrugs indeed

do you declare yourself the winner of a lot of arguments? must be nice

KyussB

Eh? Your previous post was exactly in the vein of declaring a poster as 'winning'. The one mine replied to...

If that's the type of childish bollocks/potshotting that remains, then lets leave it at that and let the thread finally die off.

hetuzozaho

Fair play to Greta, I'm sure we all agree on this at least!

Climate activist Greta Thunberg donates prize money to her new foundation.

https://news.trust.org/item/20200220112756-fz64h

notobtuse

Perhaps it’s time for the kid to go back to school and learn that the Grand Solar Minimum that will plunge us into another mini ice age is a far more pressing issue for all of humanity to contend with than man-made climate change.

Thelonious Monk

notobtuse wrote: »

Perhaps it’s time for the kid to go back to school and learn that the Grand Solar Minimum that will plunge us into another mini ice age is a far more pressing issue for all of humanity to contend with than man-made climate change.

Sh*t, have you told the UN and the scientist community and other authorities about this??

notobtuse

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Sh*t, have you told the UN and the scientist community and other authorities about this??

They already know. Unfortunately it diminishes the importance of their new religion... Man-Made Climate Change (aka: Redistribution Of Wealth).

https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-cycle-will-be-lowest-in-200-years-dalton-minimum-levels-the-implications/
https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkovas-expanded-analysis-still-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum-2020-2055/

Tea drinker

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Fair play to Greta, I'm sure we all agree on this at least!

Climate activist Greta Thunberg donates prize money to her new foundation.

https://news.trust.org/item/20200220112756-fz64h

Jaysus if Trump donated money to his own foundation ye'd be howling :-)

Eric Cartman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Fair play to Greta, I'm sure we all agree on this at least!

Climate activist Greta Thunberg donates prize money to her new foundation.

https://news.trust.org/item/20200220112756-fz64h

the one she claims expenses out of....

Quantum Erasure

Revealed: quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis

On an average day during the period studied, 25% of all tweets about the climate crisis came from bots. This proportion was higher in certain topics – bots were responsible for 38% of tweets about “fake science” and 28% of all tweets about the petroleum giant Exxon.

Conversely, tweets that could be categorized as online activism to support action on the climate crisis featured very few bots, at about 5% prevalence. The findings “suggest that bots are not just prevalent, but disproportionately so in topics that were supportive of Trump’s announcement [of the US exit from the Paris accords] or skeptical of climate science and action”, the analysis states.

hetuzozaho

Tea drinker wrote: »

Jaysus if Trump donated money to his own foundation ye'd be howling :-)

He used to. Until it got shut down, due to the incidents.

Mr Flicky

Does anyone know if she’s been kept off her medication still ?