Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,308
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
We've now reached Level 2
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
We've now reached Level 2
We get the same comment on every page now, how utterly boring
Way to go to further evidence how a 16 year old instil what I can only presume to be fear/threat, perhaps it's you that is the broken record. One broken record shows an observation, yours center on weird insults about sex and rape.
Seriously who sounds like the broken record?
Last edited:
Tbh even someone you despise for whatever reason, that is making noise in an area that is good / important, is a necessary thing for us humans to start thinking as a singular object rather than just ourselves.
Take for instance Jade Goody, no one liked her but she increased screenings of cervical cancer due to her media presence when dying.
Look at that situation now, screenings have dropped dramatically because she's been forgotten.
As I see it, love Greta or hate her, as long as she or anyone similar sit there in the back of the worlds mind, people will think twice about what they are doing.
Take for instance Jade Goody, no one liked her but she increased screenings of cervical cancer due to her media presence when dying.
Look at that situation now, screenings have dropped dramatically because she's been forgotten.
As I see it, love Greta or hate her, as long as she or anyone similar sit there in the back of the worlds mind, people will think twice about what they are doing.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,308
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
That knotting is partially their rejection of social medias currently unbridled (it's out of the box) role, and it's ability to manipulate people, when those people have not necessarily understood the facts;
the/her implicit demonization of scientific advances, as J.Ball re-iterates, causes undue/adverse psychological problems with those uninformed children.
his/Balls comment on nuclear reactors being a 'better' solution is accurate no ?
Not an original comment, but, if government was based significantly on a technocracity, would the climate outcome be more favourable. (for brexit too)
There doesn't seem to be any qoutes from Ball's bristol presentation so his (climate denial) conviction was itself trial by social media.
the/her implicit demonization of scientific advances, as J.Ball re-iterates, causes undue/adverse psychological problems with those uninformed children.
his/Balls comment on nuclear reactors being a 'better' solution is accurate no ?
Not an original comment, but, if government was based significantly on a technocracity, would the climate outcome be more favourable. (for brexit too)
There doesn't seem to be any qoutes from Ball's bristol presentation so his (climate denial) conviction was itself trial by social media.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,308
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Johnny Ball is about expert on the subject as the milkman or 85 year old John next door who worked on the sewers.
I'd rather believe David Attenborough.
Critical thinking isn't enough, you can't pass off a Doctor in Nuclear Medicine as a Doctor in Cell Biology and consider the statements on Cell Biology from the former Doctor as relevant. It's self-evidently not credible. Even less so when they aren't even in any academic field whatsoever and are literally an entertainer.
Just because someone 'tells it as it is' is not a reason to listen to them, holding beliefs just because it annoys someone else is simply unhealthy.
Just because someone 'tells it as it is' is not a reason to listen to them, holding beliefs just because it annoys someone else is simply unhealthy.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 2,136
You could just ignore her... GOD FORBID. That's why it's funny.
You don't think the demonization of scientific progress, to children, is the wrong message, or that the nuclear alternative is dead in the water ?
For those people who do not read facts themselves, popular figures that try to communicate options in laymans term, are beneficial to society
all it takes, is a few good men ... and all that.
(there was an R4 article today about all the misnomers about definition of a goods night sleep, people taking 8 hours as opposed to 7 have same mortality as 4 or 5 hours)
For those people who do not read facts themselves, popular figures that try to communicate options in laymans term, are beneficial to society
all it takes, is a few good men ... and all that.
(there was an R4 article today about all the misnomers about definition of a goods night sleep, people taking 8 hours as opposed to 7 have same mortality as 4 or 5 hours)
Nuclear power might have been well advised in say the 90's, building them now is a waste of expense, just seeing how long it's taken to ATTEMPT to build one is bad enough. The fact is that it's not the children that are the issue, it's the adults who nimby the **** out of it.
They’re already doing something. Young people changing their lifestyle before they get to attached to it is far more useful than trying to change the opinions of old fuddies like you.
Plant the idea that air travel is bad in the mind of a 16 year old and it’ll take a lot of work to persuade them to fly more for example.
The biggest issue with climate change and environmental issues in general is people don’t want to change from what they’re used to. Young people don’t have that baggage.
Realistically the pace of change is not going to be enough if the science is right.
All we can do is try and tread water for the next 50 years until what we put in place today (fossil fuel use reduction, birth rate reduction, economic and farming changes etc) starts to have a proper impact.
This is where those complaining about countries with larger populations are partly right. Developing countries are going to be the “problem” in future because they’re trying to bring their populations to the level of a developed country in 20 years. Hence why we need to lead by example and show that you can still (hopefully) have our standard of living with a lesser impact than we currently do.
Not that Greta is specifically targeting developed countries. Most of her speeches and actions have been at international conferences which include developed and developing countries. She’s talking to the US, EU AND China, India and other developing nations.
Last edited:
Well good job we’ve had 22 years to improve our models since that paper came out...
(To be candid that paper was released a full 10 years before I studied climate change at university.)
You say it as if it’s somehow not already known?
CO2 can lag temperature increases, it can also lead temperature increases. The correlation is that they are generally hand in hand.
Here’s a basic explanation of why your climate sceptic link doesn’t refute anything.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362
And a far more detailed one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Note, the second one is actually a few years old, showing this has been known for a long time.
And no, CO2 isn’t a pollutant, but many of the other emissions produced at the same time when hydrocarbons are burned are.
I think this is a factor - not specifically to CO2 - that is still poorly appreciated with climate change. Similar kind of lack of appreciation of such a factor lead to Chernobyl cooking off when readings were still below a critical threshold but past a point of no return.
Your faith in failed climate models amuses me....
Where is the empirical evidence of high sensitivity?
Here is a newer one if it helps: https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Conclusion The obvious question to the AGW advocates is “Has the greenhouse effect increased with man-made greenhouse gas emissions?” This analysis shows that there has been no significant increase in the greenhouse effect since 1960. The greenhouse effect as characterized by the normalized greenhouse factor has increased by only 0.19% from 1960 to 2008. The temperature change from 1960 attributable to AGW is less than 0.1 o C. The extrapolated temperature change attributable to AGW at doubled CO2 concentration is 0.26 o C. Delaying the start date of the analysis year by year to 1970 gives calculated climate sensitivities that vary about the 0.4 Celsius value. The data shows that the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity at doubled CO2 concentration of 3.0 o C is unrealistic.
Where is the empirical evidence of high sensitivity?
Here is a newer one if it helps: https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Conclusion The obvious question to the AGW advocates is “Has the greenhouse effect increased with man-made greenhouse gas emissions?” This analysis shows that there has been no significant increase in the greenhouse effect since 1960. The greenhouse effect as characterized by the normalized greenhouse factor has increased by only 0.19% from 1960 to 2008. The temperature change from 1960 attributable to AGW is less than 0.1 o C. The extrapolated temperature change attributable to AGW at doubled CO2 concentration is 0.26 o C. Delaying the start date of the analysis year by year to 1970 gives calculated climate sensitivities that vary about the 0.4 Celsius value. The data shows that the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity at doubled CO2 concentration of 3.0 o C is unrealistic.
This is one of the big worries. Even if We manage to start scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere and drop down to 250ppm again, temperatures may still continue to rise, creating its own feedback loop.