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

gozunda · 18-10-2019 10:27pm

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.

Greta is evidently little more than a teenager scared by populist doomsday ideas such as her bizarre belief that civilisation is going to end in 10 years time. Those ideas are helping nothing.

'Loss of animal numbers '? I take it that is the same 'loss of animal numbers' which has been hijacked by extinction rebellion and similar such as greta et al?

The thing is that what's referred to as the 'sixth great extinction' has been ongoing for quite a while. And overpopulation and overconsumption has already been firmly targeted as the principal agent ...

Heres an article from 2017 - BG (before greta)

Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis ...

Nearly half of the 177 mammal species surveyed lost more than 80% of their distribution between 1900 and 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn

Why yes, there's a 'problem', but it has nothing to with gretas doomsday rantings. Bizarre that some think it does.

youknowitstrue · 18-10-2019 10:43pm

gozunda wrote: »

Greta is evidently little more than a teenager scared by populist doomsday ideas such as her bizarre belief that civilisation is going to end in 10 years time. Those ideas are helping nothing.

And overpopulation and overconsumption has already been firmly targeted as the principal agent ...

The best thing Greta and her followers could do is get their tubes tied/Vasectomy./s
Nothing will change as long as the west keeps feeding the naturally unsustainable population growth in certain African and Asian countries, the West can eliminate carbon emission completely and all go Vegan, wont matter a jot with families of 10 being the norm in certain African/Asian countries.
#savetheplanetdontdonatetocharities

Tell me how · 18-10-2019 10:45pm

gozunda wrote: »

Greta is evidently little more than a teenager scared by populist doomsday ideas such as her bizarre belief that civilisation is going to end in 10 years time. Those ideas are helping nothing.

......

The thing is that what's referred to as the 'sixth great extinction' has been ongoing for quite a while. And overpopulation and overconsumption has already been firmly targeted as the principal agent ...

Fair play to Greta for being a vegan so.

Now, did she say civilisation is going to end in 10 years, or that beyond that time the damage will be irreparable?
Big difference and I think you know the answer. I know you've been told it at least.

Hal3000 · 18-10-2019 10:56pm

I don’t understand society anymore. Everything is so so fickle. We award Greta for the 10 minutes of Environmental work she has done and been involved in. We now totally ignore those who don’t seek the limelight and who have been campaigning and volunteering tirelessly to improve our communities for years. Why do we do this ? Because it’s easier, and we just love a good bandwagon. Well Mr Lord Mayor of Dublin just climbed all over one. What a shambles of an award.

Tell me how · 18-10-2019 10:59pm

Hal3000 wrote: »

I don’t understand society anymore. Everything is so so fickle. We award Greta for the 10 minutes of Environmental work she has done and been involved in, we ignore those who have been campaigning and volunteering tirelessly in our communities for years. Why ? Because we love a good bandwagon and the Lord Mayor just climbed all over one...

Well, given she's been at it every week for over a year and pretty much full time for the last few minutes, the 10 minutes is hardly accurate.

Also, she gets more attention because she has motivated people on a global scale.
It is very likely that there are a great many more acting at a local scale because of the awareness which she brought.

Hal3000 · 18-10-2019 11:07pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, given she's been at it every week for over a year and pretty much full time for the last few minutes, the 10 minutes is hardly accurate.

Also, she gets more attention because she has motivated people on a global scale.
It is very likely that there are a great many more acting at a local scale because of the awareness which she brought.

Stuff had to be earned years back. Now a few posts on social media can get you a Nobel prize.

biko · 18-10-2019 11:13pm

Nigel Farage vs Extinction Rebellion protester Sarah Lunnon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vOxgzIeSt4

KyussB · 18-10-2019 11:15pm

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? 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

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.

As I said about Ball before:

Dr. Ball is the one who began suing other people, and lost the case. Then when he got sued for defamation, the judge let him off, because the article he wrote was so discreditable to himself, that the average person was unlikely to believe his claims - thus they didn't meet the criteria of being defamotory (i.e. basically being such an obvious and massive bullshitter, and having a reputation as such, bizarrely transformed his claims from defamatory, to not-defamatory). In the latest case, Ball's defamatory writing was retracted and an apoloy issued, but because the court case ran so long, there was no judgement on the defamation, and it was struck out with costs awarded to Ball, due to the delays.

The guy is a serial bullshitter - with a reputation as such.

He completely lacks any credibility.

The hockey stick graph was a non-issue, down to wide margins of error - multiple different independent datasets, compiled by different people, replicated very similar temperature findings - it's a non-issue among scientists, only propagandists/doubt-peddlers go on about it still.

Tell me how · 18-10-2019 11:23pm

Hal3000 wrote: »

Stuff had to be earned years back. Now a few posts on social media can get you a Nobel prize.

She has a year put in to her demonstrations.
She didn't win the Nobel Prize.

If you were around in the 50's, you'd probably have been complaining that Rosa Parks was getting a lot of attention for just sitting on her ar*e.

gozunda · 18-10-2019 11:36pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Fair play to Greta for being a vegan so. Now, did she say civilisation is going to end in 10 years, or that beyond that time the damage will be irreparable?Big difference and I think you know the answer. I know you've been told it at least.

Lol. And yet the same kid and others are blathering on about the sixth mass extinction as if it has just been discovered by climate alarmists!

Greta is certainly no better than anyone else claiming to live in a manner which helps reduce the use of scare resources. Something she evidently needs to learn about imo.

Re the end of civilisation - this is what the teenager has been claiming

Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it"

This been highlighted as complete bolloxology by one of the IPCC scientists.

Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

Even a cursory reading of the IPCC report will back this up. But bizarrely you know that already

Tell me how · 18-10-2019 11:38pm

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. And yet the same kid and others are blathering on about the sixth mass extinction as if it has just been discovered by climate alarmists!

Greta is certainly no better than anyone else claiming to live in a manner which helps reduce the use of scare resources. Something she evidently needs to learn about...

Re the end of civilisation - this is what the teenager has been claiming

This been highlighted as complete bolloxology by one if the IPCC scientists.

Even a cursory reading of the IPCC report will backs this up. But bizarrely you know that already

You're now posting quotes from her which undermine your earlier posts.
Keep going.

Hal3000 · 18-10-2019 11:46pm

Tell me how wrote: »

She has a year put in to her demonstrations.
She didn't win the Nobel Prize.

If you were around in the 50's, you'd probably have been complaining that Rosa Parks was getting a lot of attention for just sitting on her ar*e.

Oh sorry a year... my mistake. She totally deserves it now.

Tell me how · 18-10-2019 11:46pm

biko wrote: »

Nigel Farage vs Extinction Rebellion protester Sarah Lunnon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vOxgzIeSt4

Did you actually watch/listen to that?

Nigel was simply coming out with the same rhetoric which we have seen on this thread. Very interesting where she asked him to come and meet climate scientists and he refused to say he would meet, unless there are scientists representing both sides. She correctly pointed out that there aren't many scientists on his side but he's thinking is that if we get 1 scientist from either side, at least we can pretend it's a 50/50 argument. It isn't.

Also, his comment on planting loads of trees was interesting. This is a guy who suggested that the whole of northern UK is sitting on a goldmine of natural gas and should carry out wholesale fracking and here he is lamenting that the environment is different to what it was in the past.

It was funny when he had to question the purpose of the extinction rebellion but agreed with her that the reason she is on the show is because the rebellion has created awareness leading to her being invited on.

Reading the comments on it were not too dissimilar to reading this thread. Lot's of blase statements without any consideration of reality.

Oh, not to mention, Nigel Farage........ hardly a bastion of society and advocate for common good.

Thanks for posting it, it said a lot.

gozunda · 18-10-2019 11:47pm

Tell me how wrote: »

You're now posting quotes from her which undermine your earlier posts. Keep going.

You're Funny . Exact same quotes from greta etc as previous. But hey you also know that.

rafatoni · 18-10-2019 11:53pm

Has Veruca Salt got her golden egg yet?

JJayoo · 19-10-2019 12:22am

Tell me how wrote: »

She has a year put in to her demonstrations.
She didn't win the Nobel Prize.

If you were around in the 50's, you'd probably have been complaining that Rosa Parks was getting a lot of attention for just sitting on her ar*e.

That's some comparison.....

Tell me how · 19-10-2019 12:43am

JJayoo wrote: »

That's some comparison.....

You think people saw Rosa in that light in 1955?
I am 100% sure that many of the personalities railing against Greta here would have been lined up to rant about her not knowing her place.

KyussB · 19-10-2019 4:31am

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

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

Oh look, a book from another bullshit artist with ties to Koch-funded think tanks - who has penchant for pretending that issues, long since settled by climate scientists, are still current...

If the IPCC's review process is so open, that even a propagandist like yourself can get on the review working group - then that's just an argument in favour of their openness to being critiqued - I'm sure they'll make short work of your review contributions...

You are going to contribute to the review, right? Seeing as you have so much to offer them with your 'expertise'...

KyussB · 19-10-2019 4:36am

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

Yea it's like his implied aim of undermining such a document is meant to make his - already blatantly propagandistic - posting in this thread more credible somehow, rather than just showing/confirming a penchant for fraudulent/deceitful behaviour...

KyussB · 19-10-2019 4:52am

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.

Oh look, a writer associated with Koch-funded think tank, and another link from a Koch-funded think-tank - both think tanks having zero credibility in anything, having a many decades long history of deceit...

It's the typical whack-a-mole propaganda tactic from Libertarians: Consistently presenting sources who don't have any scientific credibility, but have oodles of notoriety for being associated with propagandists.

SafeSurfer · 19-10-2019 6:43am

Tell me how wrote: »

You think people saw Rosa in that light in 1955?
I am 100% sure that many of the personalities railing against Greta here would have been lined up to rant about her not knowing her place.

So those who are sceptical about the sudden climate panic are “deniers” in the same vein as those who deny the Holocaust ever happened and now you are “100% sure”, not 97% sure, but “100.% sure” that if current posters were alive 70 years ago you would know how they felt about the issues of the day in the 1950s?

And you wonder why people are sceptical?

KyussB · 19-10-2019 7:58am

If you want to see a true example of 'greenwashing', and a green energy scheme demanding mountains of cynicism, the biomass industry is the one to look at:
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/10/14/the-great-biomass-boondoggle/

TLDR - burning forests for fuel, with opaque supply chains that include wood from protected forests, and counting this as zero-carbon 'renewable' energy, despite both increasing carbon emissions and reducing carbon sinkage from forests.

A genuine massive scam, worsening emissions and attracting significant government subsidies - and a major issue even with EU policy...

Tell me how · 19-10-2019 9:43am

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So those who are sceptical about the sudden climate panic are “deniers” in the same vein as those who deny the Holocaust ever happened and now you are “100% sure”, not 97% sure, but “100.% sure” that if current posters were alive 70 years ago you would know how they felt about the issues of the day in the 1950s?

And you wonder why people are sceptical?

Ever hear the phrase, 'if someone shows you who they are, believe them'?

Within the last page or so one poster implied the climate issue can never be fixed because of the family planning practices of people in Africa.

A number of other posters are very heavily involved on threads relating to immigration, asylum seekers and Mr Trump, all the time exhibiting a consistency in their view point. So yeah, I am 100% sure they would not have been supportive of Rosa in 1955.

And lets be clear, because I know what the next post would likely be, I said certain posters, not all posters, certain posters.

And, if you think me having an opinion which may be wrong (I am human after all), validates peoples scepticism on the climate, then again, that just shows you (or they) don't understand how science works.

gozunda · 19-10-2019 9:50am

Tell me how wrote: »

You think people saw Rosa in that light in 1955?
I am 100% sure that many of the personalities railing against Greta here would have been lined up to rant about her not knowing her place.

I note you do not like other posters simply showing what greta is claiming is rubbish and has little to do with what the scientists are saying and that her travels in the US and elsewhere amount to little more than a hypocritical PR stunt. Greta does not need thrown underneath the bus - the greta fanclub seems to have done that fairly spectacularly themselves

Gaoth Laidir · 19-10-2019 2:29pm

Who is this Rosa?

Tell me how · 19-10-2019 2:36pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Who is this Rosa?

Don't worry about it.

gozunda · 19-10-2019 6:32pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Who is this Rosa?

I think Tmh is bizarrely referencing Rosa Parks who helped highlight and bring an end to discrimination and segregation during the civil rights era in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

Quite hilarious that a wealthy kid from a privileged background could be held in comparison. We know greta thinks her childhood was stolen by all the adults but seriously?

JJayoo · 19-10-2019 8:14pm

gozunda wrote: »

I think Tmh is bizarrely referencing Rosa Parks who helped highlight and bring an end to discrimination and segregation during the civil rights era in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

Quite hilarious that a wealthy kid from a privileged background could be held in comparison. We know greta thinks her childhood was stolen by all the adults but seriously?

Ya like how does that even pop into a person's head.

Straight onto the ignore list.

Gaoth Laidir · 19-10-2019 8:49pm

Just in case Greta's reading this, don't worry, the Arctic has not lost any sea ice in the past decade. The trend has been flat, the flattest of the satellite era. I think you maybe forgot to mention it.

Gaoth Laidir · 19-10-2019 8:51pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Don't worry about it.

I wasn't worried, I was just wondering who she was.

Pa ElGrande · 20-10-2019 12:55am

KyussB wrote: »

The hockey stick graph was a non-issue, down to wide margins of error - multiple different independent datasets, compiled by different people, replicated very similar temperature findings - it's a non-issue among scientists, only propagandists/doubt-peddlers go on about it still.

Au Contraire. It is a major issue otherwise the propagandist Al Gore would not have used it in his movie, which an English court ruled the movie contained several inconvenient untruths.

Return of the Hockey Stick

In a recent post Marcel Crok described his initiation into the climate wars as a young science journalist and discovering that two Canadians (Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre) had proved false Michael Mann’s modern warming spike. As he says correctly:

The arguments of the critics were not difficult to refute and the work of the two Canadians stands firmly to this day. I was intrigued by the quite aggressive and also defensive reaction of the climate scientists. Up to this day the criticism of the Canadians has never been fully addressed by the climate science community or the IPCC. Wasn’t this about the progress of science?

<snip>

Conclusion:

“Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.” – John Christy, Examining the Process concerning Climate Change Assessments, Testimony 31 March 2011

source

Remember the IPCC is an international committee, it is not evidence. Argument by authority is not proof of anything except that a committee paid to find a particular result can produce a long document. It took one person to prove Mann and his cohort of scientists and the IPCC who published it were wrong.

If name calling is the best you can do? I could be an SJW Maoist or a member of the CATO institute but my opinions don’t affect ice core data or the historical temperature record. Mann and the IPCC got caught publishing shoddy work with no accountability to this day.

gozunda · 20-10-2019 1:27am

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Au Contraire. It is a major issue otherwise the propagandist Al Gore would not have used it in his movie, which an English court ruled the movie contained...

Remember the IPCC is an international committee, it is not evidence. Argument by authority is not proof of anything except that a committee paid to find a particular result can produce a long document. It took one person to prove Mann and his cohort of scientists and the IPCC who published it were wrong.

Just to add to your comment- the Hockey Stick issue is indeed very relevant and shows that even the most august bodies can get their findings badly wrong

As detailed there are at least two examples where the UN has presented incorrect figures regarding greenhouse gas emissions

The issue with the 'hockey stick' data reported following a recent court case taken by another scientist

Of note the Hockey Stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001). As you detailed Al Gore variously brandished it around the place in his film - " An Inconvenient Truth".

Also the UN were left with eggs on their collective faces when it was found and later admitted significant flaws in a report on agriculture and climate change. In this report they claimed that animal agriculture emissions were greater than that of transport - this was challenged by scientists and found to be solely based on flawed data calculations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html

Unfortunately that hasn't stopped absolute twats from repeating this piece of nonsense

No scientist worth their salt would ever insist that specific findings or research should never be challenged. Imo that type of dictate is usually the reserve of dictators and authoritarian style governments.

A quote that I think may be relevant as an analogy is "That the Camel is an Animal designed by a Committee". This analogy reminds us that an entity of many parts may on occasion, fail to make up an entirely convincing reality.

None of that denies climate change btw.

Queue some Koch type comments ....

Atlantic Dawn · 20-10-2019 1:33am

I still have not seen any explanation as to how sea levels will rise if icebergs in the sea melt. If I have 4 ice cubes in my JD N'Coke and they melt the level in my glass is identical before and after they have melted, it's basic science.

tuxy · 20-10-2019 1:43am

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I still have not seen any explanation as to how sea levels will rise if icebergs in the sea melt. If I have 4 ice cubes in my JD N'Coke and they melt the level in my glass is identical before and after they have melted, it's basic science.

I thought the issue was glaciers melting not icebergs. Not only because glaciers are massive compared to glaciers but they are also on land.

suicide_circus · 20-10-2019 4:49am

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I still have not seen any explanation as to how sea levels will rise if icebergs in the sea melt. If I have 4 ice cubes in my JD N'Coke and they melt the level in my glass is identical before and after they have melted, it's basic science.

you nearly had it solved there

sk8erboii · 20-10-2019 7:07am

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I still have not seen any explanation as to how sea levels will rise if icebergs in the sea melt. If I have 4 ice cubes in my JD N'Coke and they melt the level in my glass is identical before and after they have melted, it's basic science.

LMAO Just stop talking jesus
Its glaciers melting from land that raises sea levels. Not icebergs.

KyussB · 20-10-2019 8:07am

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Au Contraire. It is a major issue otherwise the propagandist Al Gore would not have used it in his movie, which an English court ruled the movie contained several inconvenient untruths.

Return of the Hockey Stick

Remember the IPCC is an international committee, it is not evidence. Argument by authority is not proof of anything except that a committee paid to find a particular result can produce a long document. It took one person to prove Mann and his cohort of scientists and the IPCC who published it were wrong.

If name calling is the best you can do? I could be an SJW Maoist or a member of the CATO institute but my opinions don’t affect ice core data or the historical temperature record. Mann and the IPCC got caught publishing shoddy work with no accountability to this day.

Oh look, two more people with connections to Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tanks, disputing climate science!

Neither of them climate scientists - they've economics degrees ffs... - neither of them taken seriously by the climate science community - neither of their controversies being present (settled more than a decade ago).

jackboy · 20-10-2019 9:48am

KyussB wrote: »

Oh look, two more people with connections to Koch oil-oligarch funded think-tanks, disputing climate science!

Neither of them climate scientists - they've economics degrees ffs... - neither of them taken seriously by the climate science community - neither of their controversies being present (settled more than a decade ago).

Do you believe that the hockey stick graph as presented in the Al Gore film is accurate?

weldoninhio · 20-10-2019 10:01am

sk8erboii wrote: »

LMAO Just stop talking jesus
Its glaciers melting from land that raises sea levels. Not icebergs.

So why the constant drama about ice sheets the size of “insert country” breaking off in the arctic?? If it’s not going to make a difference to anything?? More unneeded alarmism from the Greens??

KyussB · 20-10-2019 10:26am

jackboy wrote: »

Do you believe that the hockey stick graph as presented in the Al Gore film is accurate?

My post is referring to the two economists challenging the IPCC, not Al Gore's film. In general, whenever the hockey stick graph is referred to, it should include the margins of error in the data, not just a simple line graph - that pretty much erases any controversy.

gozunda · 20-10-2019 10:59am

KyussB wrote: »

My post is referring to the two economists challenging the IPCC, not Al Gore's film. In general, whenever the hockey stick graph is referred to, it should include the margins of error in the data, not just a simple line graph - that pretty much erases any controversy.

And yet it remains that Michael Mann refused to submit the data and calculations behind the famous hocky stick graph in a recent court case. He refused to produce this information despite the fact that he was ordered to produce them by a given a deadline. He lost the case and the authority to stand behind his hocky stick graph.

Even at the time when the graph was being proposed for inclusion in the then upcoming IPCC report. A series of leaked emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit in correspondence with one of the IPCC lead scientists shows that there were significant rows about whether the graph, should be used at all given that a number of other scientists research was in varience with Manns findings.

So no the inclusions of some added margins of error is not going to erase the issues which this case has brought to the surface.

Science requires open access to data, so that other scientists can verify that the data is sound and findings are reproducible. This test has not been met.

Tuisceanch · 20-10-2019 11:04am

I don’t get it. What’s the problem with climate change, ice bergs melting and the sea level rising?
I mean the excess water just flows down the edge of the Earth.

weldoninhio · 20-10-2019 11:09am

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I don’t get it. What’s the problem with climate change, ice bergs melting and the sea level rising?
I mean the excess water just flows down the edge of the Earth.

Hold on, someone about 5 posts back has stated that icebergs melting has no effect on sea level, that it is glaciers melting that effects it. Which is it?

Tuisceanch · 20-10-2019 11:46am

Jimmy Garlic · 20-10-2019 11:47am

gozunda wrote: »

I think Tmh is bizarrely referencing Rosa Parks who helped highlight and bring an end to discrimination and segregation during the civil rights era in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

Quite hilarious that a wealthy kid from a privileged background could be held in comparison. We know greta thinks her childhood was stolen by all the adults but seriously?

They are trying to insinuate that anyone who questions the motives behind Greta and co is also a racist. Much like the start of this thread when it was insinuated that those who questions Greta must be paedophiles. Smear tactics.

sk8erboii · 20-10-2019 12:13pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hold on, someone about 5 posts back has stated that icebergs melting has no effect on sea level, that it is glaciers melting that effects it. Which is it?

It takes 2 seconds to google. And if you dont know you probably shouldnt have an opinion on climate change either.

KyussB · 20-10-2019 12:41pm

gozunda wrote: »

And yet it remains that Michael Mann refused to submit the data and calculations behind the famous hocky stick graph in a recent court case. He refused to produce this information despite the fact that he was ordered to produce them by a given a deadline. He lost the case and the authority to stand behind his hocky stick graph.

Even at the time when the graph was being proposed for inclusion in the then upcoming IPCC report. A series of leaked emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit in correspondence with one of the IPCC lead scientists shows that there were significant rows about whether the graph, should be used at all given that a number of other scientists research was in varience with Manns findings.

So no the inclusions of some added margins of error is not going to erase the issues which this case has brought to the surface.

Science requires open access to data, so that other scientists can verify that the data is sound and findings are reproducible. This test has not been met.

Except there are multiple data sets and studies other than Mann's replicating the hockey stick graph, with differing margins of error - yet the same general trend of warming.

The hockey stick graph certainly doesn't depend on any one persons work - neither does it fall on it...

That's why it's a complete non-issue.

Gaoth Laidir · 20-10-2019 12:53pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

So why the constant drama about ice sheets the size of “insert country” breaking off in the arctic?? If it’s not going to make a difference to anything?? More unneeded alarmism from the Greens??

Land-based ice (glaciers, Antarctic ice sheet) melting will contribute to sea-level-rise as it's now water in the ocean that was not previously there. However, in Antarctica even this is turning out to not be as fast as previously thought.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170502084037.htm

Sea ice doesn't contribute to sea-level rise but it does affect albedo (reflectivity). Less ice means more exposed sea to absorb solar heat. Oh, and remember the poor polar bears.

The Arctic sea ice trend is always used as a primary battering ram by the climate brigade, but they seem to be ignoring the recent flatlining (which has lasted for the last 25% of the total satellite era). They will only show the overall 40-year linear trendline, not the more indicative 5-year running mean. That would be an inconvenient truth.

Tuisceanch · 20-10-2019 1:26pm

Pa ElGrande · 20-10-2019 1:32pm

KyussB wrote: »

Except there are multiple data sets and studies other than Mann's replicating the hockey stick graph, with differing margins of error - yet the same general trend of warming.

The hockey stick graph certainly doesn't depend on any one persons work - neither does it fall on it...

That's why it's a complete non-issue.

It’s well-established that various proxies can be used to reconstruct rough approximations of past temperatures.

The problem occurs when they splice instrumental temperatures onto the end of proxy reconstructions. In the private sector, this is called "fraud." In government and academic climate "science" this is called Mike’s Nature Trick, "nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

It was Mann who first devised the "trick" of splicing in the thermometer record, which was eagerly copied by Phil Jones of the university of east Anglia climate research unit. And as Jones admits, it was very much a "trick" designed to fool governments, the media and the people.

From: Phil Jones

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Cheers
Phil

source

The intent was to hide the decline in proxy derived temperatures, where they overlapped the instrumental temperature records, during 20 year and 40 year periods when the real temperatures were rising but the proxy derived temperatures were falling. The problem for them being that if they did not hide the declines in the proxies, it would have shown that their tree ring-based temperature reconstruction methodology was unreliable, spoiled the hockeystick shape of the graph, and undermined the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk

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

Comments