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
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.
moonage wrote: » Making science just a matter of opinion to back their political views? Hmm, it sounds a bit like the IPCC process.
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 It’s not peer reviewed.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...
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.
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/
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
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.
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?
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'..
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.
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. . . . .
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.
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
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?
Tell me how wrote: » :D:D:D:D:D . . . . I trust you have a new found respect for their report of last year.
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.
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.
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: » 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.
JJayoo wrote: » "NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers" "Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies" Said in 2006 ''the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophetunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe"http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/ I remember 2006 with Al Gore and manbearpig and the surge in Climate activity and how the exact same "we are all doomed" sh1te was thrown around. This is why I roll my eyes when I see the scaremongering stuff in the media.Do I think mankind is playing a role in global warming...well obviously. Am I worried about the temperature increasing? Not really, I would be far more worried about air quality from all the sh1te that is being pumped into the atmosphere. Hundreds of millions of people spending their entire lives in big cities breathing in sh1t. And when I see all these protesters on the news I wonder why they are so worried about something that might happen in the future when so many things in the world at the moment are in a heap. Virtue signalling really annoys me. Do something productive.
Tell me how wrote: » Greta is doing something productive. She is drawing attention to the issue on a global scale. If you believe so much is wrong, why do you have a problem with someone doing what they can, trying to live by example and encouraging others to do the same. A world wildlife report recently detailed the loss of animal numbers, largely because of human action. When are we going to say 'oh, let's do something.'? when it is in fact too late? This thread has now developed in to a lot of people saying 'well yes, there's a problem', but at the same time decrying Greta for trying to promote action. Think about that, it really is bizarre.
JJayoo wrote: » I didn't mention Greta once in my post....but hey don't let that stop you from making stuff up to complain about lol
JJayoo wrote: » When I said I hate virtue signalling people who just complain and do nothing productive I was on about people who spend their entire days posting sh1te on social media /forums constantly bitching....
JJayoo wrote: » Actually since you have brought up Greta and how you find her inspiring what have you done to positively contribute to the environment/climate?
JJayoo wrote: » You recycle and take the bus wow really putting in the effort for the cause, don't forget to mention sitting in front of the computer 24/7 to reply to every post, that's definitely gonna help. "You going to ask the same question of people who say that they know there is a problem but everything Greta is saying is wrong?" If you point them out and if they are virtue signalling little ****s then ya of course.
Tell me how wrote: » Exactly like the BS about the outboard motor or wondering about there not being a toilet on the yacht. You just rant. That's it. Empty vessels and so on. P.S. We have the internet on phones now.
JJayoo wrote: » You do love a good strawman Twice now you have mentioned a motor on a boat in reply to me, why? When have I ever mentioned rubbish like this or talking about toilets on boats. When you have to make up stuff to complain about that should be a little warning sign that maybe you're talking shooiiittteee
Tell me how wrote: » that's the same BS approach people used suggesting there was an outboard engine used to manoeuvre the yacht she was on in the harbour. ?
Tell me how wrote: » See Jjayoo, this is what I said. I didn't say you said it. If you can't understand the difference or why I used that example, then I can't help you. Similar thing with Greta, people deliberately unable to understand her message.
