Another "deeply disturbed" column from the Murdoch stable.

[Caracus2k]

What an incredibly stupid and short sighted comment. Our governments have displayed time and time again that they'll take industrial growth over climate change any day of the week. This girl has opened herself to the world to speak for every child who wants the planet to have a future. She has opened herself up to ridicule, but everything she does is positive and for positive change.

What a silly comment....

See what happens to a democratically elected party that tries to implement the policies of the environmental activists and you will rather quickly be disabused of the notion that it's the politicans that are the reason we haven't implemented the likes of policies like the 'green new deal'.


And you have the audacity to call other people "incredibly stupid"!

 

[StriderX]

I didn't comment on the 'rest'?

You can argue that it's wrong to ridicule someone with an opinion in the basis of a condition like autism without resorting to "won't someone think of the children" line.

If Greta and her supporters want her to be treated seriously, in a political enviroment, then she can expect the same sort of scrutiny and ridicule that other poltical actors are subject to.

Attacking her for this isn't scrutiny, and i don't think she's ever tried to say she's a climatologist so that doesn't wash either, she's merely another voice from a specific group of people who has grown from a single protest in Sweden. To attack her and not the message she's politely sending on behalf of tens of thousands of scientists (who appear to be rather ignored), is far more childish than she is.

What a silly comment....

See what happens to a democratically elected party that tries to implement the policies of the environmental activists and you will rather quickly be disabused of the notion that it's the politicans that are the reason we haven't implemented the likes of policies like the 'green new deal'.


And you have the audacity to call other people "incredibly stupid"!

It's downright retarded to look at the evidence and say the economy is more important, Global growth could very well be negative by the end of the century (very likely sooner) due entirely to the effects of worsening environmental conditions.

See the policies as saving the economy... and suddenly it's not "stupid".

 

[wesimmo]

I didn't comment on the 'rest'?

You can argue that it's wrong to ridicule someone with an opinion in the basis of a condition like autism without resorting to "won't someone think of the children" line.

If Greta and her supporters want her to be treated seriously, in a political enviroment, then she can expect the same sort of scrutiny and ridicule that other poltical actors are subject to.

And yet you haven't condemned his words, which I think says a lot about why you're trying to argue this point.

And what scrutiny was there in that article? It was a hatchet job to try and taint her opinion by claiming she was mentally ill.

 

[NVP]

You lose your "child" privellege when you make yourself a public figure lecturing politicians in my view.

Can't have it both ways.

Excuse me, but why? Are politicians not there to serve the people? Are children not allowed to voice opinion to those who serve them?

 

[Minusorange]

What an incredibly stupid and short sighted comment. Our governments have displayed time and time again that they'll take industrial growth over climate change any day of the week. This girl has opened herself to the world to speak for every child who wants the planet to have a future. She has opened herself up to ridicule, but everything she does is positive and for positive change.

And you don't think it's short sighted to attempt to control a climate that has been changing for billions of years regardless of whether we've been here or not, a climate that is affected by numerous factors both from terrestrial and extraterrestrial sources ?

This human obsession with trying to keep a constant temperature range for the planet is just insane and the method of taxing everyone to try and curb it is even more ******* retarded

Are you willing to give up your roads and homes to fight climate change ? because I would argue they are some of the biggest contributions to our affect on the planets climate. It's no wonder the planet is warming quite fast if we concrete/tarmac over everything and create little heat zones in our towns and cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island but nobody dares attempt go after our concrete jungles because they know, nobody would be willing to give it up to save the planet

It's a ******* joke and this kid is only being a figurehead for climate change because she's been told we're bad and causing it, I doubt she's done anything remotely close to actually researching anything about it

 

[StriderX]

And you don't think it's short sighted to attempt to control a climate that has been changing for billions of years regardless of whether we've been here or not, a climate that is affected by numerous factors both from terrestrial and extraterrestrial sources ?

This human obsession with trying to keep a constant temperature range for the planet is just insane and the method of taxing everyone to try and curb it is even more ******* retarded

Are you willing to give up your roads and homes to fight climate change ? because I would argue they are some of the biggest contributions to our affect on the planets climate. It's no wonder the planet is warming quite fast if we concrete/tarmac over everything and create little heat zones in our towns and cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island but nobody dares attempt go after our concrete jungles because they know, nobody would be willing to give it up to save the planet

It's a ******* joke and this kid is only being a figurehead for climate change because she's been told we're bad and causing it, I doubt she's anything remotely close to actually researching anything about it

It's the difference between something that should have happened over hundreds or thousands of years all condensed into the 21st century, that is and always will be the issue. It is entirely within our remit to slow this back down to something we can manage on a timescale that isn't insane and damaging.

We will be ****** within 18 months going by recent reports if nothing is done in that time to push policies for the rest of the century.

Stop misrepresenting this, I like how you try to pass it off as not our fault and immediately try do a 180 and argue (without evidence) something that might have affect on it from a human standpoint, but of course it's engineered in a way to make it seem like we shouldn't do something.

RISIBLE AND UNHINGED.

It's like arguing that you shouldn't try to control a fire from spreading that you threw pure oxygen and propane into by saying you can't do anything about it, can apparently go to the moon, but can't stop slowly endangering the economy, endangering food and water security, the health of people in extreme weather, massive migrations and inevitable war that will come from this.

 

[Em3bbs]

Made some fixes for you as the news organisations you mentioned are in fact different entities and one of them has a different parent company... which seemingly has lead to some confusion.

Thanks for clearing that up Dowie. Stockhausen still has a lot to learn if he wants to become a black belt in RSS threads.

 

[wesimmo]

And you don't think it's short sighted to attempt to control a climate that has been changing for billions of years regardless of whether we've been here or not, a climate that is affected by numerous factors both from terrestrial and extraterrestrial sources ?

This human obsession with trying to keep a constant temperature range for the planet is just insane and the method of taxing everyone to try and curb it is even more ******* retarded

Are you willing to give up your roads and homes to fight climate change ? because I would argue they are some of the biggest contributions to our affect on the planets climate. It's no wonder the planet is warming quite fast if we concrete/tarmac over everything and create little heat zones in our towns and cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island but nobody dares attempt go after our concrete jungles because they know, nobody would be willing to give it up to save the planet

It's a ******* joke and this kid is only being a figurehead for climate change because she's been told we're bad and causing it, I doubt she's done anything remotely close to actually researching anything about it

She almost certainly done more research than you if your views above are not just pure trolling.

 

[NVP]

We will be ****** within 18 months going by recent reports if nothing is done in that time to push policies for the rest of the century.

Someone told me that 24 months ago...

 

[StriderX]

Someone told me that 24 months ago...

To be fair it's mostly one respected scientist pushing 2020 as serious roadblock before one of the target temperatures is unavoidable, with how each report gets more accurate, the levels of accelerants seem to increase every time or the oceans have absorbed more heat than expected.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

This is problem with a new science, it's accuracy increases and models push forward limits, the issue with such a big ecosystem to study is that once these limits are reached they could have orders of effects we can't model well enough because it was insane to think it would happen back then.

We've pretty much lost the game on 1.5, so it makes 2 more likely, which makes 3 far more likely... It could get to the point of desperate geoengineering as a quick fix.

 

[NVP]

Funny how nature do that.

 

[Minusorange]

Stop misrepresenting this.

I will when the scientists stop misrepresenting it

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st07500u.html

Is something that is NEVER discussed or even touched on by climatologists, I wonder why ? Is it because we're heading into a solar minimum and volcanoes are becoming more active, what do volcanoes put into the atmosphere ?

There's also relatively little science done on what effect the shifting poles will have on our climate

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00007-1

Look how far it's moving

Also cosmic rays, their effect on our climate is never mentioned

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm

Also relevant

https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/113...tree-reveals-secrets-of-earths-polar-reversal

Study of the ancient tree has just begun but Hogg said it would give a picture of the solar radiation in the earth's atmosphere during the excursion.

As the magnetic poles moved, the strength of earth's geomagnetic field weakened, letting in more cosmic radiation, he said.

And the tree would show what to expect during another polar excursion or reversal – which scientists said was not a matter of if, but when.

"We will have increased cosmic radiation. It will take out satellites and it might take out other communication infrastructure," Hogg said.

So don't talk bull to me about misrepresenting the science, tell the scientists to not conveniently avoid discussing all factors that contribute to the climate changing on this planet

Oh and let's not touch on the "adjusting" of the actual data by the likes of Nasa and NOAA

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ea...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/...or-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

So tell me, who's really misrepresenting it all ?

 

[Caracus2k]

Excuse me, but why? Are politicians not there to serve the people? Are children not allowed to voice opinion to those who serve them?

Because if you want to be treated seriously as an agent in the political sphere you can't then say or have people say on your behalf that your should be treated differently when it comes criticism.

You can either be a child when it comes both ideas and criticism of not. You don't get to be treated seriously but yet be shielded from the criticism of you want to be a political activist.

 

[Caracus2k]

And yet you haven't condemned his words, which I think says a lot about why you're trying to argue this point.

I responded to a post that did even mention "the rest".

 

[Minusorange]

She almost certainly done more research than you if your views above are not just pure trolling.

Sure

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming

I guess she's done more research than this guy too

But one of the models actually works. According to University of Alabama’s John Christy and his colleagues, only the Russian model, designated INM-CM4, gets things right. So why not weight heavily on the model that is working? Perhaps because it has less global warming in it than all the other U.N. models?

Its successor, INM-CM5, is so good that it is the only one that diagnoses the “pause” in warming from 2002 to 2014. That the “pause” was real is obvious in the global surface temperature record that the that the IPCC relies upon most heavily, from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

It’s high time that the scientific community come clean about longstanding climate shenanigans. Averaging up a large number of models that don’t work well is guaranteed to produce an unreliable forecast. Using ones that get things right, like the two Russian models, is accepted best-practice in weather forecasting. With regard to forecasting methodology, new research at least moves climate science closer to the 20th century.

 

[ttaskmaster]

NVM

 

[NVP]

Because if you want to be treated seriously as an agent in the political sphere you can't then say or have people say on your behalf that your should be treated differently when it comes criticism.

You can either be a child when it comes both ideas and criticism of not. You don't get to be treated seriously but yet be shielded from the criticism of you want to be a political activist.

Ah I understand. You're not voicing opinion on his character assassination (which I now ask if you agree is unacceptable? [thanks Angus{for this system}]) but stating that she shouldn't be immune to criticism of her ideas? That I also agree with. It was the personal insults which are not warranted at either a child or adult, but as it was at a child "us adults" should step in to state it is unacceptable to insult anyone, let alone a child. Criticism of ideas is not encompassed under that.



I'm not too good at articulating what i am trying to say, but i hope you understood this post.

 

[StriderX]

Sure

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming

I guess she's done more research than this guy too

INM-CM4 is included in CMIP5 and INM-CM5 will be included in CMIP6 when it actually does a forecast...

 

[Minusorange]

INM-CM4 is included in CMIP5 and INM-CM5 will be included in CMIP6 when it actually does a forecast...

Do you even bother reading what is written ?

It’s high time that the scientific community come clean about longstanding climate shenanigans. Averaging up a large number of models that don’t work well is guaranteed to produce an unreliable forecast. Using ones that get things right, like the two Russian models, is accepted best-practice in weather forecasting. With regard to forecasting methodology, new research at least moves climate science closer to the 20th century.

It makes little difference if the most accurate model isn't weighted proportionately to it's accuracy vs the more numerous inaccurate models and instead its results are dwarfed by inaccurate results pushing figures higher than they really should be

So again I ask the question, who is truly misrepresenting ?

But if you want to blindly follow a 16 year old autistic girl into saving the planet then knock yourself out

 

[StriderX]

Do you even bother reading what is written ?



It makes little difference if the most accurate model isn't weighted proportionately to it's accuracy vs the more numerous inaccurate models and instead its results are dwarfed by inaccurate results pushing figures higher than they really should be

So again I ask the question, who is truly misrepresenting ?

But if you want to blindly follow a 16 year old autistic girl into saving the planet then knock yourself out

The real question is do you even bother reading, it's not even included yet so it's impact isn't even talked about, a scientific paper isn't just "LOL BIG LETTER KEY POINTS", there is at least several pages of discussion on the result and merits of the data presented.

https://nzc.iap.ac.cn/uploadfile/2016/0502/20160502033948931.pdf