nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Jimmy Garlic

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sorry for popping your, "11k scientists claim world is in crisis" bubble by pointing out facts. How long did you spend looking for three climate scientists before getting frustrated and replying with the above??

Sorry to disappoint but you haven't popped anything.

How could you? You don't even understand the topic.

Tuisceanch

weldoninhio wrote: »

I picked three at random and what they are qualified in.

1. Maria Abate. Zoologist and biology.

2. Peter Hodum. Avian Ecology and biology.

3. Leonie Valentine. Conservation biologist.

None of the three I picked at random have qualifications in climatology etc. Now the other 10997 might have, but it would be a bit of a coincidence if they were. I'd be interested if others picked 3 at random (to allay any fears of bias on my part), how many would actually be climate scientists??

Do you want to know what sample size you would need to give you confidence that only so many held a bachelors degree or above in climate science?

6034073

From that above image you can see that a sample size of 3 would only give you a confidence interval of 70. However I'm not sure what your experiment is about so you probably need to frame your question more precisely and then decide what method or methods you need to apply to see whether the data supports or negates your expected results. You might be able to get your hands on a copy of the data in a format that allows you to use a software program to perform the necessary analysis. Anyway best of luck with your project.

Professor Moriarty

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Do you want to know what sample size you would need to give you confidence that only so many held a bachelors degree or above in climate science?

From that above image you can see that a sample size of 3 would only give you a confidence interval of 70. However I'm not sure what your experiment is about so you probably need to frame your question more precisely and then decide what method or methods you need to apply to see whether the data supports or negates your expected results. You might be able to get your hands on a copy of the data in a format that allows you to use a software program to perform the necessary analysis. Anyway best of luck with your project.

The three people selected seem amply qualified to have an opinion on climate change from a zoology/biology/ecology perspective.

Professor Moriarty

weldoninhio wrote: »

I picked three at random and what they are qualified in.

1. Maria Abate. Zoologist and biology.

2. Peter Hodum. Avian Ecology and biology.

3. Leonie Valentine. Conservation biologist.

None of the three I picked at random have qualifications in climatology etc. Now the other 10997 might have, but it would be a bit of a coincidence if they were. I'd be interested if others picked 3 at random (to allay any fears of bias on my part), how many would actually be climate scientists??

I glanced though the list. About as qualified a list of people as you could wish for, with appropriate diversity and relevance. From biology to physics to ecology to climatology to environment. Indisputable.

Beasty

Tell me how wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint but you haven't popped anything.

How could you? You don't even understand the topic.

Attack the post, not the poster

Tuisceanch

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I glanced though the list. About as qualified a list of people as you could wish for, with appropriate diversity and relevance. From biology to physics to ecology to climatology to environment. Indisputable.

https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

From above site:

"If you are a scientist from any scientific discipline, we invite you to sign our Viewpoint article “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” by Ripple et al. 2019, which is now in press with Bioscience Magazine. It is important that we get signatories from a wide variety of scientific disciplines. "

As you say they invited signatories from any scientific discipline to lend their support to the broad message they wished to convey. It is at least food for thought.

Tuisceanch

"The obvious ideological aim of Ripple et al.is to inspire a generation of scientists to ask broader questions relevant to overconsumption and overpopulation,and how our institutions can meet the challenge of reducing human pressure on planet Earth. We find this unacceptable and call on the 15 364 signatories to join us on the side of winners against planet Earth, and hence to symbolically withdraw their signatures by not engaging in any of the research suggested in the warning to humanity. Fellow scientists,ask not what more you can do for planet Earth, ask what more planet Earth can do for you!"

The last report received a frosty response!

Gaoth Laidir

KyussB wrote: »

It's an encouragement for you to go and do your own research, instead of wasting other peoples time by denying easily verified information.

It doesn't matter if some countries in higher latitutdes benefit - these countries in the lower latitudes, and the people in them (who are predominantly poorer), will be fucked...

I'm not denying any verifiable information. For you to say that means you're claiming that I deny that anwhere will have negative impacts from changes in climate. That's completely untrue, so you've proven yet again that you're unable or unwilling to fully read what someone writes. Who's wasting whose time now?

I've done plenty of research, and it doesn't involve simply Googling terms to suit a narrative. It also doesn't involve simply listening to one side or the other without doing my own verification. I have zero confidence in ANYTHING I read or see in the media, but unfortunately that's where most people go to for their information now.

Many of the effects you're mentioning are primarily linked to natural oceanic and atmospheric cycles, with timescales ranging from weeks to decades (e.g. MJO, Kelvin waves, AMO/PDO/IOD/ENSO).

The positive AMO since the mid-'90s has had widespread major influences in trends of temperature, precipitation and hurricane activity, yet this simple fact is lost in the hyperbole. The Arctic hasn't lost any ice in more than a decade, Greenland's melt has slowed down to almost a levelling off. Where will you find these undeniable facts in the Guardian?

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

He didn't quote from the article.He linked to the article. The article is not source material. The article links to the report that contains the original statement. The article does quote from that report which is not surprising since it is a newspaper. The very same report has been reported by all mainstream outlets including Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/science/11000-scientists-warn-of-climate-emergency

No need to try and be all pedantic - it clearly doesnt work. Yes the article was linked as a source. Fox news seriously? Yeah that is a whole other ball game. How media take such information and run with them to suit their media hyperbole is perhaps relevant to the overall discussion but not relevant here.

Eitherway you are missing the obvious that a publication like the Guardian which receives money from a US 'think tank' to publish directed content (this has already been given in detail) is ok to link to according to some on this thread. However anyone quoting other sources (irrespective of the points made or the veracity of what is being said) gets lambasted as right wing / libertarian / koch supporting blah blah bull****e. Double standards indeed.

I'd suggest maybe reading the thread back to get a basic grip of what is under discussion.

JJayoo

I have Planted 73 trees, 7/8 year old trees, this week, all were grown from seed.

I'm like the Irish Greta, worship me ye cnuts

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

That particular publication has shown itself to be less editorially independent and even more extremist in its views compared to some of the Tabloids and yet here we have it quoted as source material...

:rolleyes:

Overheal wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that the article is incorrect in reporting that the statement was made or are you just being petulant?

gozunda wrote: »

To which 'statement' are you referring to exactly?

Equivalently would you use the Sun Newspaper to back up what you are claiming or are you just being 'petulant' - whatever that has to do with it....

Overheal wrote: »

I’m just trying to ascertain what about the article in question you are trying to impugn? If it’s only the publisher, I mean.

Tuisceanch wrote: »

He didn't quote from the article.He linked to the article. The article is not source material. The article links to the report that contains the original statement. The article does quote from that report which is not surprising since it is a newspaper. The very same report has been reported by all mainstream outlets including Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/science/11000-scientists-warn-of-climate-emergency

gozunda wrote: »

No need to try and be all pedantic - it clearly doesnt work.

I'd suggest maybe reading the thread back to get a basic grip of what is under discussion.

That's the thread of the conversation I was following. I'm sorry that other posters have gotten under your skin that you've lost interest in discussing the subject matter of the thread. I think the poster who I've quoted raised a good point which perhaps deserved a better answer. I would have thought pedantry was a necessary quality when debating scientific matters and when debating on social media it's perhaps a good idea to walk away from conversations if you can't maintain a civil discourse. "manners maketh man" as the proverb goes.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

That's the thread of the conversation I was following. I'm sorry that other posters have gotten under your skin that you've lost interest in discussing the subject matter of the thread. I think the poster who I've quoted raised a good point which perhaps deserved a better answer. I would have thought pedantry was a necessary quality when debating scientific matters and when debating on social media it's perhaps a good idea to walk away from conversations if you can't maintain a civil discourse. "manners maketh man" as the proverb goes.

Btw you seem to have omitted the main part of my previous comment without acknowledging that it was left out. Here it is ...

Yes the article was linked as a source. Fox news seriously? Yeah that is a whole other ball game. How media take such information and run with them to suit their media hyperbole is perhaps relevant to the overall discussion but not relevant here.

Eitherway you are missing the obvious that a publication like the Guardian which receives money from a US 'think tank' to publish directed content (this has already been given in detail) is ok to link to according to some on this thread. However anyone quoting other sources (irrespective of the points made or the veracity of what is being said) gets lambasted as right wing / libertarian / koch supporting blah blah bull****e. Double standards indeed.

Lol. And yet strangely here you are going rapidly off topic and doing what you accuse others of. But yes indeed posters (as I have) are discussing the topics of linked sources relevant to this thread. At least try and not to personalise the discussion. It does you no favours. The issue highlighted is already discussed by quite a few posters. And yes there is a very clear case of double standards here with regards to the use of sources to this point. And yes imo it warrants being held up to scrutiny. I'm sorry that you cannot understand that at least. Indeed I note the lack of 'manners'. But no matter - it has now been explained several times. I'll leave you at it. So back to the discussion ...

KyussB

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm not denying any verifiable information. For you to say that means you're claiming that I deny that anwhere will have negative impacts from changes in climate. That's completely untrue, so you've proven yet again that you're unable or unwilling to fully read what someone writes. Who's wasting whose time now?

I've done plenty of research, and it doesn't involve simply Googling terms to suit a narrative. It also doesn't involve simply listening to one side or the other without doing my own verification. I have zero confidence in ANYTHING I read or see in the media, but unfortunately that's where most people go to for their information now.

Many of the effects you're mentioning are primarily linked to natural oceanic and atmospheric cycles, with timescales ranging from weeks to decades (e.g. MJO, Kelvin waves, AMO/PDO/IOD/ENSO).

The positive AMO since the mid-'90s has had widespread major influences in trends of temperature, precipitation and hurricane activity, yet this simple fact is lost in the hyperbole. The Arctic hasn't lost any ice in more than a decade, Greenland's melt has slowed down to almost a levelling off. Where will you find these undeniable facts in the Guardian?

The eventual displacement of billions of people due to the reduced habitability through food production of many lower latitude nations, coupled with the reduced habitability of may coastal and low level urban aread due to rising maximum water levels during storms - these things aren't a part of normal abberations.

There's a worldwide scientific consensus that it's the human contribution pushing the tipping points.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Eitherway you are missing the obvious that a publication like the Guardian which receives money from a US 'think tank' to publish directed content (this has already been given in detail) is ok to link to according to some on this thread. However anyone quoting other sources (irrespective of the points made or the veracity of what is being said) gets lambasted as right wing / libertarian / koch supporting blah blah bull****e. Double standards indeed.

I'd suggest maybe reading the thread back to get a basic grip of what is under discussion.

Where's the conflict of interest which is supposed to make this a bad/discreditable thing?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The eventual displacement of billions of people due to the reduced habitability through food production of many lower latitude nations, coupled with the reduced habitability of may coastal and low level urban aread due to rising maximum water levels during storms - these things aren't a part of normal abberations.

There's a worldwide scientific consensus that it's the human contribution pushing the tipping points.

So I gather you are talking some mad max style theorised future projections? How many 'billions' are you reckoning - given that there currently 7.7 billion on the planet. A quarter? Half? For scale China at 1.4 Billion makes up just under a fifth of the world population.

Plus the greatest density of global population is in the Mid / northern latitudes well above the 'lower latitudes'

I reckon that "worldwide consensus'" is the product of a largely alarmist mindset tbh.

Btw the IPCC do not use 'tipping points' in their modeling. In 2014 they defined a tipping point "as an irreversible change in the climate system" But made it clear "that the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point remain uncertain". There is no mention of Tipping Points in the IPCCs latest Report Summary for Policymakers.

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

Btw you seem to have omitted the main part of my previous comment without acknowledging that it was left out. Here it is ...

Lol. And yet strangely here you are - doing what you accuse others of. But yes indeed posters (as I have) are discussing the topics of linked sources relevant to this thread. At least try and not to personalise the discussion. It does no favours. The issue highlighted is already discussed by quite a few posters. And yes there is a very clear case of double standards here with regards to the use of sources to this point. And yes imo it warrants being held up to scrutiny. I'm sorry that you cannot understand that at least. Indeed I note the lack of 'manners'. But no matter - it has now been explained several times. I'll leave you at it. So back to the discussion ...

Who are these others you talk of? I was replying to you and nobody else. What was I accusing you of? You said yourself that you were not interested in discussing the report. Thanks for at least apologising for your ad hominem attacks.Look forward to finding out the name of the "US think tank" and how they influenced the Guardian to convince a third body to write a report on climate change. Sneaky critters.

gozunda wrote: »

That particular publication has shown itself to be less editorially independent and even more extremist in its views compared to some of the Tabloids and yet here we have it quoted as source material...

:rolleyes:

I tackled already your erroneous understanding of what constitutes source material but unfortunately you consider that pedantry. That is your prerogative of course. Regarding the highlighted text which based on subsequent discussions seems to be the subject of your main preoccupation. Would you consider that an objective or subjective opinion and would you consider it to border on hyperbole or understatement?

DFGrange

The current over sixties have had the greatest return on effort for lifestyle in human history and they're making sure they retain that accolade. Boomers will be hated for generations.

Gaoth Laidir

KyussB wrote: »

The eventual displacement of billions of people due to the reduced habitability through food production of many lower latitude nations, coupled with the reduced habitability of may coastal and low level urban aread due to rising maximum water levels during storms - these things aren't a part of normal abberations.

There's a worldwide scientific consensus that it's the human contribution pushing the tipping points.

Even the Google search results you so kindly posted don't mention billions (plural) of people (check it again). You keep using this figure you had in your head and put into Google, despite the fact that your own search don''t support this number. That, imo, is probably the first signs of the brainwashing I was talking about. In your case, though, there's a little bit more to it too.

[Deleted User]

DFGrange wrote: »

The current over sixties have had the greatest return on effort for lifestyle in human history and they're making sure they retain that accolade. Boomers will be hated for generations.

boards.com is thataway.

'boomers' my gawd. any ole tripe from the american left is barely even wiped before someone over here starts aping it now.

dyou know that before twitter the irish and british left took positions based on their own societies, culture and regional economic needs?

can you imagine that?

must have been much harder work, that. probably more worthwhile of course, but none of that matters now. you can get yr boost by repeating the hashtag of the week and eating whatever cause de celebre you're told when you open the app.

nothing to lose but yer chains, how do

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Who are these others you talk of? I was replying to you and nobody else. What was I accusing you of? You said yourself ...

Poor poor try my friend. And no I cant help you with your lack of comprehension. But If you really wish to find out about the Guardian Newspapers lack of editorial independance / being funding by a US 'think tank' (a much favourite phrase hereabouts by some) and why that is relevant - it's already been detailed. But you already know that. Now welcome to the ignore list.

weldoninhio

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Do you want to know what sample size you would need to give you confidence that only so many held a bachelors degree or above in climate science?

From that above image you can see that a sample size of 3 would only give you a confidence interval of 70. However I'm not sure what your experiment is about so you probably need to frame your question more precisely and then decide what method or methods you need to apply to see whether the data supports or negates your expected results. You might be able to get your hands on a copy of the data in a format that allows you to use a software program to perform the necessary analysis. Anyway best of luck with your project.

Therefore I offered it out to boards, for others to pick 3 at random. You seem to have glossed over that. There are currently 2335 people who can read my post, take away say 35 who may be forum banned, that's 2299 people who could possibly pick 3 at random and prove me right or wrong.

weldoninhio

JJayoo wrote: »

I have Planted 73 trees, 7/8 year old trees, this week, all were grown from seed.

I'm like the Irish Greta, worship me ye cnuts

Hardly the Irish Greta!! You've actually done something.

gozunda

weldoninhio wrote: »

Therefore I offered it out to boards, for others to pick 3 at random. You seem to have glossed over that. There are currently 2335 people who can read my post, take away say 35 who may be forum banned, that's 2299 people who could possibly pick 3 at random and prove me right or wrong.

I wouldnt bother tbh. The comments appears to variously move between extreme pedantism and continuously repeating the same nonsense in the hope of getting a reaction.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

Poor poor try my friend. And no I cant help you with your lack of comprehension. But If you really wish to find out about the Guardian Newspapers lack of editorial independance / being funding by a US 'think tank' (a much favourite phrase hereabouts by some) and why that is relevant - it's already been detailed. But you already know that. Now welcome to the ignore list.

I don't know you so how could we be friends? Why do you also need to feel the need to avoid answering any questions and resort to ad hominem attacks? It's like you're avoiding scrutiny. That seems a bit of a double standard considering your previous posts. Isn't that relevant to what you said you were discussing? Oh sorry didn't see you were ignoring me now. Never mind. I'm actually more interested in finding out more about the science of climate change and the political ramifications and various groups that host their content hence my interest to know the name of the 'US think tank' that you keep referring to.If it doesn't exist then don't worry. Nobody will think it undermines the credibility of your general point.

Tuisceanch

weldoninhio wrote: »

Therefore I offered it out to boards, for others to pick 3 at random. You seem to have glossed over that. There are currently 2335 people who can read my post, take away say 35 who may be forum banned, that's 2299 people who could possibly pick 3 at random and prove me right or wrong.

You can download the .pdf and convert it to an excel file and then use the data to graph out your results. Seems a more scientific approach and would provide a lower margin of error than 70% than picking three at random. Just trying to help.

gozunda wrote: »

I wouldnt bother tbh. The comments appears to variously move between extreme pedantism and continuously repeating the same nonsense in the hope of getting a reaction.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not sure why you felt to need to comment here since you've just stated you made a mature decision to ignore me.Could you have the good manners to avoid sniping from the background? I respect your decision to avoid scrutiny but please maintain a sense of decorum. It is, after all, you who just criticized a previous poster about his use of the term 'lower latitudes', so you're not quite so adverse to pedantry as you make out. Again that would be an example of using double standards which you would agree is very relevant to the point you kept repeating,although I wouldn't be so disrespectful as to call it nonsense, whilst deflecting from talking about the merits of the report which had been referenced by another poster and which constituted the source material, which was the subject of my original post, which you seemed to take exception to on the grounds that, although factually correct, was irrelevant to your discussion of double standards. Since you were at great pains to emphasize your focus on discussing the subject of double standards with regard to the merits of individuals' 'source material' I'm curious as to why you didn't take the opportunity to answer the question of another poster who took up your challenge immediately afterwards.

KyussB wrote: »

Where's the conflict of interest which is supposed to make this a bad/discreditable thing?

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

So I gather you are talking some mad max style theorised future projections? How many 'billions' are you reckoning - given that there currently 7.7 billion on the planet. A quarter? Half? For scale China at 1.4 Billion makes up just under a fifth of the world population.

Plus the greatest density of global population is in the Mid / northern latitudes well above the 'lower latitudes'
I reckon that "worldwide consensus'" is the product of a largely alarmist mindset tbh.

Btw the IPCC do not use 'tipping points' in their modeling. In 2014 they defined a tipping point "as an irreversible change in the climate system" But made it clear "that the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point remain uncertain". There is no mention of Tipping Points in the IPCCs latest Report Summary for Policymakers.

The effcts of climate change decimate crop production primarily in lower latitudes (mid to lower, to be more precise) - affecting mostly poorer nations:
image_large

And on the displacement of billions:

Rising seas could result in 2 billion refugees by 2100

Date:June 26, 2017Source:Cornell UniversitySummary:In the year 2100, 2 billion people -- about one-fifth of the world's population -- could become climate change refugees due to rising ocean levels. Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to new research.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170626105746.htm

The scientific consensus I referred to is that humans are pushing climate change.

Eric Cartman

KyussB wrote: »

The effcts of climate change decimate crop production primarily in lower latitudes (mid to lower, to be more precise) - affecting mostly poorer nations:

And on the displacement of billions:
Rising seas could result in 2 billion refugees by 2100

Date:June 26, 2017Source:Cornell UniversitySummary:In the year 2100, 2 billion people -- about one-fifth of the world's population -- could become climate change refugees due to rising ocean levels. Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to new research.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170626105746.htm

The scientific consensus I referred to is that humans are pushing climate change.

Between that and that graph about agricultural yields, Europe should. focus on closing and securing its borders to ensure we're not over run by these migrants.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The effcts of climate change decimate crop production primarily in lower latitudes (mid to lower, to be more precise) - affecting mostly poorer nations:
And on the displacement of billions:
Rising seas could result in 2 billion refugees by 2100

Date:June 26, 2017Source:Cornell UniversitySummary:In the year 2100, 2 billion people -- about one-fifth of the world's population -- could become climate change refugees due to rising ocean levels. Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to new research.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170626105746.htm
The scientific consensus I referred to is that humans are pushing climate change.

Nope that wasnt made clear where you referred to 'worldwide' concensus / wtte.

What you've missed there was your previous reference to your many 'billions' in lower latitudes. In contrast your reference above details

"Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to new research".

That says nothing about your statement that there would be 'displacement of billions of people due to the reduced habitability through food production of many lower latitude nations' .

The point being the far greatest density of people is not in lower latitudes which you are going on about. You also need to check what your graphic says about climate change theoretically improving agricultural outputs worldwide ...

A key culprit in climate change - carbon emissions can also help agriculture by enhancing photosynthesis in many important crops such as wheat rice and soybean.

The above comes with the provisio that "The science however is far from certain on the benefit of carbon fertilisation". So like a lot of scientific projections then.

It also clearly states that:

This Map represents the case of beneficial carbon fertilisation processes

You may wish to compare that map based projection with the areas considered the major crop production areas across the globe ....

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Between that and that graph about agricultural yields, Europe should. focus on closing and securing its borders to ensure we're not over run by these migrants.

Or we could do our best to stop climate change and maybe these people won't have to migrate.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Between that and that graph about agricultural yields, Europe should. focus on closing and securing its borders to ensure we're not over run by these migrants.

A venn diagram of those on Boards denouncing Greta and those with issues with refugees is a perfect circle it seems.