Has Greta studied this?

Subduction Zone · Jan 11, 2020

Notanumber said:
Promoters of Climate Change rely on character assassination and lengthy lawsuits funded by their wealthy backers.

Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann's Climate Lawsuit! | PSI Intl

Mann and his backers are using the same tactic with Mark Steyn’s court case.

Mark Steyn: ‘Michael E Mann, Loser’ – Calls Mann ‘Doctor Fraudpants’ – Mann loses lawsuit against skeptical scientist

For a start, although Mann always presents himself as the victim, it is important to remember that, in this case as in mine, he is the plaintiff: He chose to sue – and without that conscious choice there would be no legal action. So, when Mann says there was no “finding that Ball’s allegations were correct”, Ball did not allege anything: That is a legal term and the only allegations before the Court were Mann’s, in his statement of claim against Ball. Those Mann allegations have been dismissed with prejudice – so, in layman’s terms, Mann lost and Ball won.

No, I already refuted that. The case was taking too long. The judge thought that Ball was an idiot and that no one in their right mind would believe him. And Ball claimed poor health. Throwing a case out of court and saying that the person being sued is an idiot is hardly winning.

If you want others to take you seriously try to find better sources.

By the way, Mann will not have to pay Ball's attorneys. Ball is responsible for that himself. Mann only has to pay the relatively minor "court costs".
Legal Dictionary - Law.com

gnomon · Jan 11, 2020

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Yet it condenses and when it rains or snows that greenhouse gas does not contribute to global warming. Carbon dioxide, methane and other gasses we release into the atmosphere have a much longer life in the atmosphere. The OP video completely ignored this fact.

Salvador · Jan 11, 2020

epronovost said:
Solar activity was considered and rejected, so were change in the Earth's orbit and volcanic activities. Man made global warming due to carbon dioxyde polution is the only theory that can explain the current level of global warming and has actual evidence to back it up.

As for the OP, if he thinks that a 20 minutes video on Youtube is such a revolutionnary leap in our understanding of climate, maybe he should ask the producer to publish his findings in a scientific paper and collect his Nobel prize.

Altfish said:
WOW! What a surprise, a Reddit thread called Climate Skeptics posts anti Climate Change propaganda - next think you know oil company chairman will be saying the same.

When recognised independent scientists are publishing peer reviewed papers confirming that it is a hoax, come back to me.

sun rise said:
The liars are out in full force trying to substitute superstition for science by denying the truth that AGW exists and is affecting the Earth.

exchemist said:
The comment about water vapour is quite funny, displaying, as it does to anyone who understand the greenhouse effect, how little you know about it. But in your case, no argument is worth the trouble. The concrete is fully set already.

Subduction Zone said:
... Here I have offered to go over the basics of just the Greenhouse Effect. Again, no takers. Just like creationists they do not want to know, they want excuses to keep believing as they have been believing.

gnomon said:
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Yet it condenses and when it rains or snows that greenhouse gas does not contribute to global warming. Carbon dioxide, methane and other gasses we release into the atmosphere have a much longer life in the atmosphere. The OP video completely ignored this fact.

A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hind-casting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century."

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/...el-inmcm5/

Please let's agree this one degree of climate change should be considered as being rather quite "unalarming" for most persons. Right?

gnomon · Jan 11, 2020

Salvador said:
A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hind-casting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century."

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/...el-inmcm5/

Please let's agree this one degree of climate change should be considered as being rather quite "unalarming" for most persons. Right?

No.

Subduction Zone · Jan 11, 2020

Salvador said:
A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hind-casting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century."

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/...el-inmcm5/

Please let's agree this one degree of climate change should be considered as being rather quite "unalarming" for most persons. Right?

I looked into the poster. He has a bit of a history of misrepresenting data. Can you find a reliable source?

epronovost · Jan 11, 2020

Salvador said:
A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hind-casting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century."

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/...el-inmcm5/

Please let's agree this one degree of climate change should be considered as being rather quite "unalarming" for most persons. Right?

We passed the level of 1 degree celcius warming a little over five years ago and currently sit at around 1.2 degree of increase. Levels of carbon dioxyde is still rising. Maintaining a temperature rise at 1.4-1.5 rise is possible would be manageable, but it's extremely optimistic and would require a serious effort, much more than what is done right now. When you manage risks, it's better not to latch unto the most optimistic scenario and actually prepare for a more pessimistic, even if more unlikely one. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Current "middle of the road" scenario predict we will reach the 2 degree increase between 2030 and 2050 and about 3 degree increase by the end of the century. A change of 2 degree starts to get dangerous for many zones and countries of the world some of them heavily populated or startegic like Niger, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippine, Mexico, South Africa, Mali, Iran, Turkey, Israel and the South East US. Let's remember that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for about 200 years before dissipating.

Salvador · Jan 11, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
I looked into the poster. He has a bit of a history of misrepresenting data. Can you find a reliable source?

"Let us compare the temperature variation at the end of the 21st century according to the INM model with the data of other models from . Under scenario B1, the warming in 2091–2110 (with respect to 1991– 2010) is 1.7 K in the INM model."

Simulation of Climate Changes in the 20th–22nd Centuries with a Coupled Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Model E. M. Volodin and N. A. Diansky Institute of Numerical Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Gubkina 8, Moscow, 119991 Russia e-mail: [email protected] Received March 30, 2005; in final form, September 20,

http://ksv.inm.ras.ru/GCM_DATA_PLOTTING/documents/Volodin_Diansky_FAO_2006_42_3_en.pdf

Notanumber · Jan 12, 2020

Talking of Mark Steyn, this discussion raises some very good points.

Some will say that Mark is ridiculing the Climate Change ideology but all religions must be ridiculed regardless of the cries of Blasphemy.

As for the data models and the graphs, it boils down to GIGO.

Bear Wild · Jan 12, 2020

Notanumber said:
Talking of Mark Steyn, this discussion raises some very good points.

Some will say that Mark is ridiculing the Climate Change ideology but all religions must be ridiculed regardless of the cries of Blasphemy.

As for the data models and the graphs, it boils down to GIGO.

So your experts are a comedian, a mineral prospector, an economist, and a tv weather reporter. No wonder you are so confused. No one studying the science of the subject included. Maybe I am missing something? Are you actively doing research or associated with anyone actively doing research in climate? Are you attending meeting about the subject evaluating the new data coming in. I am not a climate expert but at least I have been attending meeting and conferences about the subject at the university of Texas at Austin. I have been trying to keep up on the latest research on the subject. Instead of posting a comedy skit, post some real scientific evidence to debate over.

Subduction Zone · Jan 12, 2020

Salvador said:
"Let us compare the temperature variation at the end of the 21st century according to the INM model with the data of other models from . Under scenario B1, the warming in 2091–2110 (with respect to 1991– 2010) is 1.7 K in the INM model."

Simulation of Climate Changes in the 20th–22nd Centuries with a Coupled Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Model E. M. Volodin and N. A. Diansky Institute of Numerical Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Gubkina 8, Moscow, 119991 Russia e-mail: [email protected] Received March 30, 2005; in final form, September 20,

http://ksv.inm.ras.ru/GCM_DATA_PLOTTING/documents/Volodin_Diansky_FAO_2006_42_3_en.pdf

Nice article. And it supports AGW. You may be a bit confused. Many science deniers are. There are some AGW alarmists. But most scientists are firmly ensconced in the real world. For example when it is claimed that low lying islands will become uninhabitable by the end of the century, they do not necessarily mean that they will be under water. To live a source of fresh water is a must. Long before the islands are covered they will lose their freshwater from rising sea levels.

Low-lying atolls could become 'uninhabitable' earlier than thought | Carbon Brief

People that are not in the sciences jump to the wrong conclusion and then when the see how much sea levels will rise they inappropriately claim victory. And AGW is affecting storms, it is affecting forests. One can drive through huge forests in the western U.S. that have been decimated by a fungus carried by a beetle. A slight warming has changed where they live. Trees that used to have the protection of cold winters that killed the beetles no longer are protected and those forests are dying. When driving on a road of increasing elevation one can see the line of how far these beetles live. It can be rather amazing. I could try to dig up articles on that or even YouTube videos of a man explaining this. It is not as if the changes will occur over night. or in even twelve years. The worry is that in twelve years we may hit a point where there is no return for thousands of years or more.

Salvador · Jan 12, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
Nice article. And it supports AGW. You may be a bit confused. Many science deniers are. There are some AGW alarmists. But most scientists are firmly ensconced in the real world. For example when it is claimed that low lying islands will become uninhabitable by the end of the century, they do not necessarily mean that they will be under water. To live a source of fresh water is a must. Long before the islands are covered they will lose their freshwater from rising sea levels.

Low-lying atolls could become 'uninhabitable' earlier than thought | Carbon Brief

People that are not in the sciences jump to the wrong conclusion and then when the see how much sea levels will rise they inappropriately claim victory. And AGW is affecting storms, it is affecting forests. One can drive through huge forests in the western U.S. that have been decimated by a fungus carried by a beetle. A slight warming has changed where they live. Trees that used to have the protection of cold winters that killed the beetles no longer are protected and those forests are dying. When driving on a road of increasing elevation one can see the line of how far these beetles live. It can be rather amazing. I could try to dig up articles on that or even YouTube videos of a man explaining this. It is not as if the changes will occur over night. or in even twelve years. The worry is that in twelve years we may hit a point where there is no return for thousands of years or more.

I'm not denying climate shift happens, In fact, I'm now down right worried a couple degrees of global warming over the next few decades might cause mass migration of impoverished people who live near the oceans or warmer regions of Central American Banana Republics to migrate from their swampy diseased invested cesspool nations to our wealthy prosperous American constitutional Republic.

Perhaps we should agree to having an effective border security barrier between America and Mexico with a gator and snake filled moat in order to stop the waves of sickly illegal migrant hoards in their tracks. .

thumb-1337893812801-2012_04_24_savannah_ft_pulaski_moat_alligator_zoom.jpg

Pretty scary stuff! Right?

President Trump doesn't really want a snake and gator filled moat adjacent to border barrier fencing with spikes. However, I'm starting to think this might not be such a ridiculous idea.

Subduction Zone · Jan 12, 2020

Salvador said:
I'm not denying climate shift happens, In fact, I'm now down right worried a couple degrees of global warming over the next few decades might cause mass migration of impoverished people who live near the oceans or warmer regions of Central American Banana Republics to migrate from their swampy diseased invested cesspool nations to our wealthy prosperous American constitutional Republic.

Perhaps we should agree to having an effective border security barrier between America and Mexico with a gator and snake filled moat in order to stop the waves of sickly illegal migrant hoards in their tracks. .

Pretty scary stuff! Right?

President Trump doesn't really want a snake and gator filled moat adjacent to border barrier fencing with spikes. However, I'm starting to think this might not be such a ridiculous idea.

I don't know if the effects will be all that dire for Central America. The question is what happens when we invade Canada?

Salvador · Jan 12, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
I don't know if the effects will be all that dire for Central America. The question is what happens when we invade Canada?

Canada would be too liberal and too socialist for my liking; also, I get annoyed when I hear the word "about" mispronounced as "a boot". Another annoying speech habit Canadians have is that they say "eh" way too much. I find most non-Quebec Canadians to be very friendly and polite, but they seem so insincere when they supposedly empathize by saying "sore-ee" instead of correctly saying "sorry". I'm thinking it'd be wise for the United States not to take over Canada for making her the 51st state.

Notanumber · Jan 13, 2020

This thread is not about me, it is about Greta and those that are pulling her strings.

Has Greta ever taken part in an in-depth interview?

Has she ever made a presentation on stage with a question and answer section?

We are all expected to believe everything that she says but all these experts with alternative arguments are to be ignored out of hand. Rather than counteract what they are saying they have to be personally discredited.

Notanumber · Jan 13, 2020

Wild Fox said:
So your experts are a comedian, a mineral prospector, an economist, and a tv weather reporter. No wonder you are so confused. No one studying the science of the subject included. Maybe I am missing something? Are you actively doing research or associated with anyone actively doing research in climate? Are you attending meeting about the subject evaluating the new data coming in. I am not a climate expert but at least I have been attending meeting and conferences about the subject at the university of Texas at Austin. I have been trying to keep up on the latest research on the subject. Instead of posting a comedy skit, post some real scientific evidence to debate over.

One of the comments under that video is very apt.

I quote – “Climate science: there's no need for climate protests in China because China is already communist”

Bear Wild · Jan 13, 2020

Notanumber said:
One of the comments under that video is very apt.

I quote – “Climate science: there's no need for climate protests in China because China is already communist”

What anti-intelligent postings after the video. China is a dictatorship in reality if you did not know that. Climate environmentalists are not communist. Meaningless ranting but after seeing the video I should not be surprised.

But wait there is more.

"My research shows that climate change is caused by grant money." Seriously? grant money increases global temperatures. This person does not have a high enough education to even understand what makes up climate. You have to wonder what this poster was smoking when the wrote this.

"Anything that comes out of the UN dictator's club is a crock." This idiot does not even understand what the UN is. Dictatorship really? I am not sure about the education level of this persons either but someone might want to tell him the UN is not a country.

"YES! It is TERRORISM that Greta T is using to terrify our children and the Globalists LOVE it! A fearful people are easily CONTROLLED!" Oh how ignorance is bliss for these people who clearly do not know what terrorism really is. How sheltered of a life can these posters have.

You must have something better than this!

Bear Wild · Jan 13, 2020

Notanumber said:
This thread is not about me, it is about Greta and those that are pulling her strings.

Has Greta ever taken part in an in-depth interview?

Has she ever made a presentation on stage with a question and answer section?

We are all expected to believe everything that she says but all these experts with alternative arguments are to be ignored out of hand. Rather than counteract what they are saying they have to be personally discredited.

Why are you fixated on Greta. She spoke out what she felt. Just because she sounds better educated than the president of the United States in not her fault. His responses to her make her look like the adult. Get over Greta and start reading the real climate research.

Bear Wild · Jan 13, 2020

Salvador said:
Canada would be too liberal and too socialist for my liking; also, I get annoyed when I hear the word "about" mispronounced as "a boot". Another annoying speech habit Canadians have is that they say "eh" way too much. I find most non-Quebec Canadians to be very friendly and polite, but they seem so insincere when they supposedly empathize by saying "sore-ee" instead of correctly saying "sorry". I'm thinking it'd be wise for the United States not to take over Canada for making her the 51st state.

Why would you even think Canada would want to be a part of the United States? I don't know where you live but you obviously are not familiar with all of the different speech in the United States. If you really don't know I could give you some.

Shaul · Jan 13, 2020

Facebook Glitch Reveals Father, Activist Behind Greta Thunberg's Facebook Page. Greta Responds.

gnomon · Jan 13, 2020

Notanumber said:
This thread is not about me, it is about Greta and those that are pulling her strings.

Has Greta ever taken part in an in-depth interview?

Has she ever made a presentation on stage with a question and answer section?

We are all expected to believe everything that she says but all these experts with alternative arguments are to be ignored out of hand. Rather than counteract what they are saying they have to be personally discredited.

No this thread is absolutely about you and the evidence you are presenting.

You presented evidence and it was shot down. Who cares about Greta? I don't.

The question is why you are making a thread about her and presenting absolutely garbage arguments.

Has Greta studied this?

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

RF's Swedenborgian

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

RF's Swedenborgian

A Free Man

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

RF's Swedenborgian

Veteran Member

RF's Swedenborgian

A Free Man

A Free Man

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member