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

Tell me how wrote: »

NASA has produced some work on it.
They state that 97% of scientists believe that climate-warming trends over the last century are extremely likely due to human activity.

You are basing your claim on consensus rather than science. You should also be aware that the so called 97% consensus has been discredited these are the list of papers that John Cook (an activist behind the website skepticalscience) used, and of the of the 11,944 abstracts that Cook et al examined, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming. NASA have been asked to remove that claim.

While NASA asserts the “97 percent” claim is supported by a number of studies, CEI contends that claim has major flaws that have been documented by critics. These include:
Incorrectly categorizing scientists who take “no-position” as endorsing the view that humans are responsible for climate change.

Failing to include relevant sources without explanation.

Failing to match the terms used as the basis for a study to the claim actually made by NASA.

source

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

My technical expertise on climate - I just lick my finger, put it the air to see which way the wind is blowing. I do a bit more besides that, as for signing up for the IPCC as they say nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Seems to me to be more like a plan to undermine future reports.

'Sure anyone can have an impact on what goes in to that, I even signed up and I know nothing about the science'.

Well played.

Tell me how wrote: »

:D:D:D:D:D
. . . . I trust you have a new found respect for their report of last year.

My technical expertise on climate - I just lick my finger, put it the air to see which way the wind is blowing. I do a bit more besides that, as for signing up for the IPCC as they say nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to share the data with us, you would not stoop as low as Michael Mann and not share the data now would you?

NASA has produced some work on it.
They state that 97% of scientists believe that climate-warming trends over the last century are extremely likely due to human activity.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to share the data with us, you would not stoop as low as Michael Mann and not share the data now would you?

Michael Mann also claimed he was awarded the Nobel peace prize, until he was put right on the matter by the IPCC no less.

Keep in mind the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) are a committee they are not experts on climate and their remit is ONLY to report on climate change that can be attributed to humans, meaning there is bias in their reports.

The shoddy methods and antics of the IPCC process are described in the book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert. I am registered as a reviewer for Working Group I of the future IPCC AR6 reports and you can be too. You have until the 13th December if you want to get in on working group II.

I had to agree to this

:D:D:D:D:D

Well done on being appointed a reviewer. Do you care to share with us your field of study? And the degree you hold in it? I find it very curious that you have not mentioned you have expertise in this field until this point.

I struggle to believe it given the content which you have been posting on this thread and how you only mention this now.

I am glad however that you can see the systems which the IPCC have in place and so I trust you have a new found respect for their report of last year.

Tell me how wrote: »

. . .
Mann was a lead scientist on an IPCC report 18 years ago? Is that what you're trying to use to discredit the current publication? Is it really expected that with so many scientists involved with the IPCC that there will not be some who have had their work commented on in such ways as this.
. . . .

I'm still waiting for you to share the data with us, you would not stoop as low as Michael Mann and not share the data now would you?

Michael Mann also claimed he was awarded the Nobel peace prize, until he was put right on the matter by the IPCC no less.

Keep in mind the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) are a committee they are not experts on climate and their remit is ONLY to report on climate change that can be attributed to humans, meaning there is bias in their reports.

The shoddy methods and antics of the IPCC process are described in the book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert. I am registered as a reviewer for Working Group I of the future IPCC AR6 reports and you can be too. You have until the 13th December if you want to get in on working group II.

I had to agree to this

Self Declaration of Expertise

I declare that I have scientific, technical or socioeconomic expertise in one or more areas relevant to the report and am therefore qualified to serve as an Expert Reviewer on the chapter(s) indicated.

jackboy wrote: »

Why would anyone say such a thing. Catastrophic climate change (whether man made or not) is pretty much certain in the long run.

Some in this thread would query that.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

What about the 'no issue with climate' side, given the absence of large bodies of scientists saying climate change is not an issue, we have to revert to 'notable others'..

Why would anyone say such a thing. Catastrophic climate change (whether man made or not) is pretty much certain in the long run.

biko wrote: »

IPCC scientist Micheal Mann went to court with another scientist, Tim Ball

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

This is the key part "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer . ." What about Timothy Balls opinion?

The publication in which Balls words on Mann were printed issued an apology to Mann so you could equally argue that they agreed with him that Ball was incorrect to say what he said. The case being dismissed was done due to delay which is different to suggesting it was a frivolous case in the first place.

Mann was a lead scientist on an IPCC report 18 years ago? Is that what you're trying to use to discredit the current publication? Is it really expected that with so many scientists involved with the IPCC that there will not be some who have had their work commented on in such ways as this.

What about the 'no issue with climate' side, given the absence of large bodies of scientists saying climate change is not an issue, we have to revert to 'notable others'.

Who do you want to discuss? Donald Trump? The Healy-Raes? Jeremy Clarkson? I mean, all of these are sensible, logical people aren't they, we'd never find any evidence of them to discredit their opinions I'm sure.

Venom

AllForIt wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1184745642905755649

Appols if this has been posted already.

I think I said on this thread some time ago that there is bound to be backlash against these protesters which is exactly what the above looks like to me. Someone is going to get hurt. These kinds of demonstrations are unprecedented, it's not like they are just marching thought the streets in a one-off way.

The thing about these ppl is that they just have that 'nutty' aurora about them even if their heart is in the right place. Aren't trains supposed to be more eco friendly than cars use btw. How exactly do ER expect ppl to get to work if not by train or not by car.

I saw a couple of videos taken at the train station that ER were protesting at yesterday and I'm totally at a loss for understanding what they were trying to accomplish? The trains in question ER delayed were electric trains so what's the problem?

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

biko wrote: »

IPCC scientist Micheal Mann went to court with another scientist, Tim Ball

Mann is director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University

Ball is a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and author of numerous books on climate science.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

This is the key part "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer . ." What about Timothy Balls opinion? He was also awarded costs by the court which should be a strong indicator why Mann lost his case. I've been following this since its inception in 2011. This case was an attempt by Michael Mann and his lawyers using a technique known as strategic lawsuit against public participation against Timothy Ball.

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann

As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

source

Mann lost his own case because of his own obstruction and has been ordered by the court to pay Tim Balls legal costs. You can read the judges opinion here. The judge took factors such as Mr. Balls age and the death of witnesses on Mr. Balls behalf into account in his dismissal, that was not the primary reason.

Michael Mann also has a case against Mark Steyn that has been dragging on for several years as well. He does not seem to be in a hurry to settle that one either. That will rumble on for a while as well.

Manns work is discredited because his Hockey Stick model wiped out both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which were well documented in history, literature, art and science. His unwillingness to release his data and model so others could attempt to duplicate his results took this from the realm of science to mere political activity.

biko

IPCC scientist Micheal Mann went to court with another scientist, Tim Ball

Mann is director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University

Ball is a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and author of numerous books on climate science.

In 2011, climate scientists Michael Mann filed a libel claim against Timothy (“Tim”) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc., and an unnamed defendant (“John Doe”). The defendant Ball participated in an interview with the FCPP and John Doe during which Ball made false and defamatory statements inferring that Michael Mann is guilty of criminal fraud in relation to the alleged “Climategate” scandal or alternatively that there are probably grounds to find Mann guilty.

The plaintiff sought damages, an injunction against further publication of the defamatory statements, and a court order for the defendants to remove the interview containing the defamatory statements from all electronic databases, including the FCPP website. In June 2019, the FCPP settled with Mann and issued a retraction and apology on their website.

According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer, on August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay.
This dismissal was apparently responsive to Ball’s request which stressed his poor health.

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

People still banging on about the non-peer reviewed flawed IPCC report? Yeah?

It’s the equivalent of picking a report by a flat earther and constantly using it as evidence.

But it’s in the report, derp.

The report is flawed, the scientists have even admitted it.

But it’s in the report, derp derp.

It’s not peer reviewed.

But it’s in the report, derp derp derp.

Do you have any other evidence?

But the report derp, derp.

Okaaaay then...

Tell me how wrote: »

So, where do you go to for information you trust?
What parts of the report are false? Links please.

Derp?

Tell me how wrote: »

Does it? In what way?

Why do you doubt the integrity of the process and the contributors?

What part of the report have you an issue with?

KyussB wrote: »

The IPCC is the the authority on the scientific consensus on climate change - that's literally the entire point of its existence: To gather and report on the scientific consensus on climate change, which it does with the full support of the vast vast majority of climate scientists and institutions involved in climate science.

Questioning the content of specific parts of their reports is one thing - that's fair game - trying to portray the IPCC as merely producing opinion-based or politically motivated reports: That's Science Denialism. You might as well be a fucking astrologist or homeopath - that's where it leaves your own credibility...

It’s like a broken record at this point.

Someone refers to the IPCC report, asks which parts are false, gets a response and completely ignores it. Then asks the very same question again a few pages later.

‘la la la, fingers in my ears, I can’t hear you”

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111519359&postcount=5856

KyussB

The IPCC is the the authority on the scientific consensus on climate change - that's literally the entire point of its existence: To gather and report on the scientific consensus on climate change, which it does with the full support of the vast vast majority of climate scientists and institutions involved in climate science.

Questioning the content of specific parts of their reports is one thing - that's fair game - trying to portray the IPCC as merely producing opinion-based or politically motivated reports: That's Science Denialism. You might as well be a fucking astrologist or homeopath - that's where it leaves your own credibility...

moonage wrote: »

Making science just a matter of opinion to back their political views?

Hmm, it sounds a bit like the IPCC process.

Does it? In what way?

Why do you doubt the integrity of the process and the contributors?

What part of the report have you an issue with?

moonage

KyussB wrote: »

Wow the threads gone full on anti-science now, in recent pages...

That's usually where the denialists try to drag discussions: Try to make science just a matter of opinion, so they can shoehorn in discredited 'scientists' (typically with no background in climate science) who back their political views.

Making science just a matter of opinion to back their political views?

Hmm, it sounds a bit like the IPCC process.

KyussB wrote: »

Wow the threads gone full on anti-science now, in recent pages...

That's usually where the denialists try to drag discussions: Try to make science just a matter of opinion, so they can shoehorn in discredited 'scientists' (typically with no background in climate science) who back their political views.

KyussB

Wow the threads gone full on anti-science now, in recent pages...

That's usually where the denialists try to drag discussions: Try to make science just a matter of opinion, so they can shoehorn in discredited 'scientists' (typically with no background in climate science) who back their political views.

windy shepard henderson

JJayoo wrote: »

Damn he kicked that lad right in the head, not gonna end well.

I think these protests are beyond stupid, oh let's target public transport....what?

But at the same time I think banning the protests is absolutely ridiculous, why not allow protests in parks/open spaces? Surely a middle ground is better than is nonsense

The worst thing to do in terms of any climate change protest or policy is to interfere with the ordinary Joe trying to earn a living

These people if we're delayed at work would have been docked wages because of these dole merchants so next time maybe stay out of the normal guys way when protesting

JJayoo

Damn he kicked that lad right in the head, not gonna end well.

I think these protests are beyond stupid, oh let's target public transport....what?

But at the same time I think banning the protests is absolutely ridiculous, why not allow protests in parks/open spaces? Surely a middle ground is better than is nonsense

AllForIt

https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1184745642905755649

Appols if this has been posted already.

I think I said on this thread some time ago that there is bound to be backlash against these protesters which is exactly what the above looks like to me. Someone is going to get hurt. These kinds of demonstrations are unprecedented, it's not like they are just marching thought the streets in a one-off way.

The thing about these ppl is that they just have that 'nutty' aurora about them even if their heart is in the right place. Aren't trains supposed to be more eco friendly than cars use btw. How exactly do ER expect ppl to get to work if not by train or not by car.

JJayoo

Tell me how wrote: »

Zero knowledge? About a throwaway comment? I actually worked out using your logic that we'd need over 1M KMs of fencing posts to get to to the few hundred M you spoke about. And that was only using 200M as your proposed number of posts but I said I'd let you off with your plan.

No I meant the A/B/C of questions you posed which demonstrated that you had zero knowledge of forestry or how it actually works, didn't stop you assuming it was wrong tho....

And the above comment about the 1 million km of wire. There are over 100,000km of roads in Ireland, this doesn't count small lane ways or roads to people's houses. If the only wire/posts in the entire country was only erected to fence off the roads you would have over 200,000 km of wire and posts. Have you seen Ireland? It is a patchwork of fields divided, there would be easily 40+million miles of fencing and that is an incredibly conservative estimate.

But it's a great example of the point I made, a constant need to reply and try and put down every point made by one of the 'other team'.

When you do stuff like that the majority of people, who are in the middle of the two sides, will just discredit the good stuff you say.

James Brown

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

People in general tire of repetitive holier than thou slogan chanters very quickly. Even the Nazis jazzed it up a little and didn't just repeat - "listen to the scientists, we must kill the Jews" ... they had science (eugenics) backing their theories too.

So your argument is if Greta has her way we might have cleaner air and less reliance on fossil rules for nothing? The monster.
I can see the analogy

At this stage, you just have to laugh.

"Greta" was a fallacious fraud.

The planet will continue.

* I will remove myself from this thread now, as I have personal experience with cults and how they can change people you care about.

** Who will be the one to resurrect this thread in 11 YEARS after the World has not ended? Again.

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

It's not just skeptics who hold their own conferences on climate change, the climate science industry hold their own extravagant government funded climate conferences which vastly outnumber the skeptic ones by many orders of magnitude.

This one is from 2017, pay attention to Professor Kevin Anderson. If you are wondering how Greta Thunberg managed to get so off the rails look no further than her climate advisors of which Mr. Anderson is one. The others are Professor Stefan Rahmstorf and Professor Johan Rockström all are well known alarmists within the scientific community especially Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany who has many scare projections to his name.

"Denier"

"Unbeliever"

Hmmnn...?

Once those words are being thrown, you can bet your bottom dollar it was a Cult that threw them.

* If everyone cleaned up their own mess, then there would be no mess to clean up.

#Environment

Jimmy Garlic

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

"People in general tire of repetitive holier than thou slogan chanters very quickly. Even the Nazis jazzed it up a little and didn't just repeat - "listen to the scientists, we must kill the Jews" ... they had science (eugenics) backing their theories too."

*Not disparaging Tell Me How in any way.

As Daddy Rockbeast once said:

"You can always pay a scientist to agree with you."

There's a bang of cult off greta & her super-friends.

A circle jerk for trustifarian and communist layabouts.

"A scientist told me to do it."

The Greta Defence?