Greta Thunberg person of the year.

[Notanumber]

Those denying climate change have reason to be biased (regulations that reduce pollution also reduce profits), but what would the overwhelming majority of scientists have to gain by making it up? Think logically, kid.

Unbiased scientists are not promoting pollution Grandpa.

This childhood hero has just died but his career died when he dared to speak up against the Climate Change movement.

David Bellamy, botanist and environmentalist who with his muffled delivery and arm-waving enthusiasm was a natural star of television – obituary

 

[Altfish]

Not me.
I'm old. I don't have any kids.

Let the parents of toddlers decide what kind of world their children will inherent. It doesn't matter what I do. They'll vote for the Trumps, and keep their big cars and tax abatements and tariffs and whatever.

I won't care. I'll be dead.
Tom

So will I but I do have kids and grandkids and I care for their future

 

[Altfish]

Talk about jumping on the political bandwagon.

BBC Fact check Corbyn claim: Labour would have to plant 200 trees a minute to reach pledge

JEREMY CORBYN launched astonishing pledge on Wednesday when he announced his party would plant two billion trees by 2040 - the equivalent of 200 trees a minute, according to the BBC.

BBC Fact check Corbyn claim: Labour would have to plant 200 trees a minute to reach pledge

Following the announcement of the proposal, however, BBC journalist Chris Mason broke down the mathematics of Labour’s ambitious plan.

In a tweet, he stated: “Labour wants to plant 2 billion trees by 2040.

“That is, roughly, 100 million/yr Or 8.3 million a month.

“2 million a week, 300,000 a day, 2,400 an hour, every hr, 24hrs/day, 200 a minute #GE2019.”

Why do you only post bad things about your opponents - have you nothing positive to say about your side?

 

[Altfish]

Exactly, but this feels like a stunt to me; one that'll obviously not
sway the scientifically illiterate and willfully ignorant.

IIRC Time magazine person of the year reflects the most influential person - didn't Trump have the honour a few years back.

 

[Notanumber]

Why do you only post bad things about your opponents - have you nothing positive to say about your side?

At least I have a side.

Have you nothing positive to say about your side?

Are you saying that it is a bad thing that Corbyn has pledged to plant two billion trees?

 

[Altfish]

At least I have a side.

Have you nothing positive to say about your side?

Are you saying that it is a bad thing that Corbyn has pledged to plant two billion trees?

What do you not understand about being disenfranchised? No party represents my views, I like some policies from most parties and hate some from most parties.
I vote negatively to try to prevent the one I dislike the most.

 

[Notanumber]

What do you not understand about being disenfranchised? No party represents my views, I like some policies from most parties and hate some from most parties.
I vote negatively to try to prevent the one I dislike the most.

Are you saying that it is a bad thing that Corbyn has pledged to plant two billion trees?

 

[Altfish]

Are you saying that it is a bad thing that Corbyn has pledged to plant two billion trees?

Do you not understand English, I said nothing of the sort and would support the planting of trees.- I also support leaders who attend the Environmental debate on TV... now who was it who failed to turn up and were replaced by ice blocks?

 

[Notanumber]

Do you not understand English, I said nothing of the sort and would support the planting of trees.- I also support leaders who attend the Environmental debate on TV... now who was it who failed to turn up and were replaced by ice blocks?

Was it at that debate that Corbyn made his pledge to plant two billion trees?

 

[Altfish]

Was it at that debate that Corbyn made his pledge to plant two billion trees?

I've not a clue, I don't watch TV debates

 

[Notanumber]

I've not a clue, I don't watch TV debates

Why moan about it then?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Unbiased scientists are not promoting pollution Grandpa.

This childhood hero has just died but his career died when he dared to speak up against the Climate Change movement.

David Bellamy, botanist and environmentalist who with his muffled delivery and arm-waving enthusiasm was a natural star of television – obituary

He admitted that he based his claim on discredited data:

"A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large proportion (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating.[21] George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was from discredited data originally published by Fred Singer, who claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science: however, Monbiot proved that this article had never existed.[22] Bellamy subsequently accepted that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times in 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming",[23] although Bellamy jointly authored a paper with Jack Barrett in the refereed Civil Engineering journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers, entitled "Climate stability: an inconvenient proof" in May 2007.[24]"

David Bellamy - Wikipedia

It comes down not to bias or unbias in scientists, but if their claims appear accurate with given data. Unfortunately, climate change appears to be a real problem.

 

[LuisDantas]

Great job Greta!

View attachment 35139

View attachment 35138

Taste and respect are good things, pal.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd wager she has handlers. The whole thing is silly, anyway; if people aren't listening to scientists, why would they listen to some sassy brat?

Because people are not very rational?

 

[Notanumber]

He admitted that he based his claim on discredited data:

"A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large proportion (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating.[21] George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was from discredited data originally published by Fred Singer, who claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science: however, Monbiot proved that this article had never existed.[22] Bellamy subsequently accepted that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times in 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming",[23] although Bellamy jointly authored a paper with Jack Barrett in the refereed Civil Engineering journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers, entitled "Climate stability: an inconvenient proof" in May 2007.[24]"

David Bellamy - Wikipedia

It comes down not to bias or unbias in scientists, but if their claims appear accurate with given data. Unfortunately, climate change appears to be a real problem.

It just goes to prove that if you stick your head above the parapet there are plenty ready and waiting to chop it off.

Project Fear is a successful method of stifling debate. Those that Blaspheme against the promoters of the Climate Change ideology must be punished and be seen to be punished.

David was a great man and deserved better than what he received.

David Bellamy - Wikipedia

Fortunately, there are an ever-growing number of experts prepared to put everything on the line to tell the truth.

 

[Altfish]

Why moan about it then?

It is democracy in action; Johnson and Farage have constantly shown themselves to be cowards who run away from detailed questions.

 

[Notanumber]

It is democracy in action; Johnson and Farage have constantly shown themselves to be cowards who run away from detailed questions.

You would not be alone. The viewing figures must have been very low and not worthy of any star attractions.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It just goes to prove that if you stick your head above the parapet there are plenty ready and waiting to chop it off.

Project Fear is a successful method of stifling debate. Those that Blaspheme against the promoters of the Climate Change ideology must be punished and be seen to be punished.

David was a great man and deserved better than what he received.

David Bellamy - Wikipedia

Fortunately, there are an ever-growing number of experts prepared to put everything on the line to tell the truth.

I don't doubt he was a great person. I respect that he appeared willing to admit the data he used wasn't reliable. That's the mark of a true scientist.

I agree that scientists should be free to challenge the mainstream, but they must do so with accurate data and arguments. They will be scrutinized; that's part of science. If their arguments are shown to be invalid or data inaccurate or unreliable, they must be willing to accept the feedback or present new arguments or evidence.

So far, I have not seen anything significant to change my personal assessment that climate change is something to be taken seriously.

 

[metis]

I don't doubt he was a great person. I respect that he appeared willing to admit the data he used wasn't reliable. That's the mark of a true scientist.

I agree that scientists should be free to challenge the mainstream, but they must do so with accurate data and arguments. They will be scrutinized; that's part of science. If their arguments are shown to be invalid or data inaccurate or unreliable, they must be willing to accept the feedback or present new arguments or evidence.

So far, I have not seen anything significant to change my personal assessment that climate change is something to be taken seriously.

Exactly, as science isn't the opinions of just one person or even a handful of them as we work in conjunction with one another, thus building on each others works even if we're in disagreement. As one who worked on such a project several decades ago, much cooperation and effort by many go into this.

But beware of those who say X is against whatever, because often what you'll find out if you check out what the person actually said and why, you often see that it's only one part that they may not be willing to swallow, but not the whole enchilada.

When the NAS, the #1 scientific source for both the Executive and Legislative Branches here in the States, say climate change is very much real and largely caused by human activity, one can pretty much take that to the bank.

 

[Notanumber]

I don't doubt he was a great person. I respect that he appeared willing to admit the data he used wasn't reliable. That's the mark of a true scientist.

I agree that scientists should be free to challenge the mainstream, but they must do so with accurate data and arguments. They will be scrutinized; that's part of science. If their arguments are shown to be invalid or data inaccurate or unreliable, they must be willing to accept the feedback or present new arguments or evidence.

So far, I have not seen anything significant to change my personal assessment that climate change is something to be taken seriously.

The bigger they are the harder they fall.

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael 'hockey stick' Mann | Climate Dispatch

The perpetrator of the biggest criminal “assault on science” has now become clear: Dr. Mann utterly damned by his contempt of the court order to show his dodgy data.