Greta Thunberg to the UN

[Unidentified 2,930]

14 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think you are confusing response rate with the actual response.  The interesting thing to me is that 10% of the scientists who responded did not think climate change was occurring, that should be 0%.  Regardless, 47% of the scientists who responded did not believe it was manmade.  I realize that this study was done by Purdue, and not East Anglia University, but of course we know that institution's reputation for stretching the numbers to fit a political narrative.

 

What does East Anglia have anything to do with it? 

[Unidentified 2,930]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

For the bold assertion, please provide documented proof.

 

Plastic is used extensively for "green" technology as I have said before.  Do you have an alternative?

You do realize that climatology is a very new field that is multidisciplinary and not the exclusive group that studies the globe and its environment right?  In fact climatology is essentially an off-shoot of statistics.

Part of the entire topic of manmade climate change is over-population right?

Yes, I can give you an article ones I get back from work, don't have time to do it now. 

 

People have studied the climate for many many years. It might be that the term is new, but it's nothing new. 

 

There are more ways to make plastic other than using oil and more and more alternatives are being tested.

 

Part of it is over-population yes. That is why even some goes as far as saying people should have less children. It's going to get even harder to feed everyone. We just don't have to derail the conversation into abortion (i'm assuming that was what Ben was fishing for). I am sure there are several other posts where that can be discussed.  

[Dashinka 24,751]

11 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Yes, I can give you an article ones I get back from work, don't have time to do it now. 

 

People have studied the climate for many many years. It might be that the term is new, but it's nothing new. 

 

There are more ways to make plastic other than using oil and more and more alternatives are being tested.

 

Part of it is over-population yes. That is why even some goes as far as saying people should have less children. It's going to get even harder to feed everyone. We just don't have to derail the conversation into abortion (i'm assuming that was what Ben was fishing for). I am sure there are several other posts where that can be discussed.  

Plastics are plastics, it does not matter what the feedstock is.  Certainly there are some that have fillers to make them a little more "biodegradable", but for most of the challenging applications from "green" technology that use plastics, need very good performing material and those generally come from oil.

 

As to the climatologists, it does not matter if it was 19 or 190 questioned, the results of those that thought this was manmade was only 53%, not the 97-98% that is frequently cited.

 

 

[Unidentified 2,930]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Plastics are plastics, it does not matter what the feedstock is.  Certainly there are some that have fillers to make them a little more "biodegradable", but for most of the challenging applications from "green" technology that use plastics, need very good performing material and those generally come from oil.

 

As to the climatologists, it does not matter if it was 19 or 190 questioned, the results of those that thought this was manmade was only 53%, not the 97-98% that is frequently cited.

 

 

Yes, it matters and it also matters that the study was from 2014.  Lots of things have changed since then and it's after 2016 the consensus started to rise and this last year or so it's been pretty much 100%. Because we can see what's going on now. 

 

There are other options other than oil. They're still not good alternatives, they still need a long time to break down and they still produce CO2 while doing so. But they don't have oil in them.  Oil does not need to be the answer to everything. 

[Dashinka 24,751]

4 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Yes, it matters and it also matters that the study was from 2014.  Lots of things have changed since then and it's after 2016 the consensus started to rise and this last year or so it's been pretty much 100%. Because we can see what's going on now. 

 

There are other options other than oil. They're still not good alternatives, they still need a long time to break down and they still produce CO2 while doing so. But they don't have oil in them.  Oil does not need to be the answer to everything. 

Yes, I know, only 10 years left.  The consensus narrative was created way before 2014 if you look back in history.  Btw, I am still waiting for the poll that shows 100%, and anything from IPCC does not count. 

 

What is so interesting is how this mantra has morphed into a religious movement.  Back when it was commonly called "global warming" and a snowstorm would hit during a conference of these folks we were told it is not the weather they are interested in.  Now of course every weather event that occurs is labeled the result of manmade climate change.  It truly is an invasive religion.

 

 

[luckytxn 2,265]

Leave this here.

 

 

[Boiler 45,993]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Crusade

 

There is nothing new.

[Dashinka 24,751]

59 minutes ago, Boiler said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Crusade

 

There is nothing new.

Seems like an appropriate comparison.

[Unidentified 2,930]

7 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yes, I know, only 10 years left.  The consensus narrative was created way before 2014 if you look back in history.  Btw, I am still waiting for the poll that shows 100%, and anything from IPCC does not count. 

 

What is so interesting is how this mantra has morphed into a religious movement.  Back when it was commonly called "global warming" and a snowstorm would hit during a conference of these folks we were told it is not the weather they are interested in.  Now of course every weather event that occurs is labeled the result of manmade climate change.  It truly is an invasive religion.

 

 

Yeah some people just can't figure out the difference between the climate and the weather. 🙄 

[Unidentified 2,930]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

For the bold assertion, please provide documented proof.

 

 

 

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

[Unidentified 2,930]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yes, I know, only 10 years left.  The consensus narrative was created way before 2014 if you look back in history.  Btw, I am still waiting for the poll that shows 100%, and anything from IPCC does not count. 

 

What is so interesting is how this mantra has morphed into a religious movement.  Back when it was commonly called "global warming" and a snowstorm would hit during a conference of these folks we were told it is not the weather they are interested in.  Now of course every weather event that occurs is labeled the result of manmade climate change.  It truly is an invasive religion.

 

 

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002#back-to-top-target

[Dashinka 24,751]

1 hour ago, Unidentified said:

 

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

Sorry, I saw the lead author and the paper lost all credibility.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

36 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002#back-to-top-target

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

[Unidentified 2,930]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Wikipedia vs a peer-reviewed article lol. 

[Dashinka 24,751]

Just now, Unidentified said:

Wikipedia vs a peer-reviewed article lol. 

From Michael Mann.