• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Has Greta studied this?

Notanumber

A Free Man
What Greta has been saying is not only what the consensus of climate scientists have concluded but even what common sense should tell us. With overall temperatures clearly increasing in recent decades, and now with what we know how both CO2 and methane gas does in terms of heat retention, it's all really quite logical.

OTOH, if one believes more in right-wing politicians and their media, then they may draw a different opinion even if it doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny and even logic.

Can the consensus stand up to scrutiny or will it all unravel when the thread is pulled?

How much cobalt is in that Tesla that she borrowed from Arnold?

What is the current annual global supply of cobalt?

If other sources are found, how much fossil fuel will be consumed in the extraction and smelting processes?

What are the health issues associated with cobalt?

We have just elected a right-wing party to run the UK and it looks like even they have been listening to Greta. Heaven knows what crazy policies the defeated left-wing parties would have introduced.
 
Last edited:

Notanumber

A Free Man
This is a matter of debate only for scientists, not for the rest of us. And the vast majority of scientists are in agreement on this point.

I would agree with you if it were only those scientists that were going to suffer the consequences.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Can the consensus stand up to scrutiny or will it all unravel when the thread is pulled?
The only thing that will "unravel" if we don't take actions to counter CC is human and animal life on Earth. If you can't see that based on what clearly is happening, you have my sympathy.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
The only thing that will "unravel" if we don't take actions to counter CC is human and animal life on Earth. If you can't see that based on what clearly is happening, you have my sympathy.

You would have my sympathy if you could answer my questions.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You would have my sympathy if you could answer my questions.

I've been following the science on this for decades now from peer-reviewed scientific sources since I am a scientist (now retired), so maybe actually do some homework on this. Heck, even the Wikipedia article on "climate change" is at least halfway decent, plus it includes links to numerous studies. But would you actually willing to spend the time doing this? I have my doubts but hope you will.

Anyhow, nuff said by me.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
We ALL trust scientists, most of the time. You, me, all of us. Why is it in this case that you choose NOT to trust scientists?
And that is a valid point. The impression that I get from these deniers is that they believe most scientists are either quite ignorant on the subject and/or are blatantly dishonest.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
We ALL trust scientists, most of the time. You, me, all of us. Why is it in this case that you choose NOT to trust scientists?

I would have no problem trusting scientists if all scientists were given the same platform to present their case and accept scrutiny.

We are supposed to be past the times when we had to accept whatever the high priest told us without question.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I would have no problem trusting scientists if all scientists were given the same platform to present their case and accept scrutiny.

We are supposed to be past the times when we had to accept whatever the high priest told us without question.

Dude, that's not how science works in general, and it's not how scientists are dealing with this issue. ALL science comes under harsh peer review. Not public review, not corporate review... PEER review.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
We need more experts of this quality.


This is the challenge that he issued.


If CO2 levels were declining towards the 150-ppm level, we would have cause for concern.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
We need more experts of this quality.

The question we must always ask is whether any individual "expert's" views hold up to harsh, peer review scrutiny. So any expert you trot out needs to be subjected to the same rigor as any other scientist. If he's correct, then his ideas will hold up to scrutiny. End of story.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
The question we must always ask is whether any individual "expert's" views hold up to harsh, peer review scrutiny. So any expert you trot out needs to be subjected to the same rigor as any other scientist. If he's correct, then his ideas will hold up to scrutiny. End of story.

Many other scientists believe what he is saying. No one has refuted his presentation. It’s in video, it’s in print, it’s in peer reviewed scientific papers and it has not been refuted by a single person.

Why has no one shot him down in flames if he is wrong?
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
I would have no problem trusting scientists if all scientists were given the same platform to present their case and accept scrutiny.

We are supposed to be past the times when we had to accept whatever the high priest told us without question.

Are you stating that scientists who have an alternative theory do not have the same platform?

Seems disingenuous to me.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Many other scientists believe what he is saying. No one has refuted his presentation. It’s in video, it’s in print, it’s in peer reviewed scientific papers and it has not been refuted by a single person.

Why has no one shot him down in flames if he is wrong?
Where is the peer review? You do realize that he is not an expert in the field. His work has not gone through proper peer review.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Many other scientists believe what he is saying. No one has refuted his presentation. It’s in video, it’s in print, it’s in peer reviewed scientific papers and it has not been refuted by a single person.

Why has no one shot him down in flames if he is wrong?
He has been shot down in flames. What makes you think that he has not been thoroughly refuted?
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
We need more experts of this quality.


This is the challenge that he issued.


If CO2 levels were declining towards the 150-ppm level, we would have cause for concern.

Hasn't Patrick Moore made some dubious claims unsupported by data? Like the earth is actually cooling? And glyphosate is not harmful to humans?

Honestly, he seems more corporate shill than scientist: Patrick Moore - SourceWatch

(I know Sourcewatch may be biased, but the information seems correct.)
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
He has been shot down in flames. What makes you think that he has not been thoroughly refuted?

Can you provide the link?

This is interesting –

“There are so many [climate] variables that we can’t control and when you do an experiment you have to control all the variables except the one you are studying if you want to get a clean result. There are even variables we do not even understand that we cannot control,” said Moore. “So it is virtually impossible to think of doing an experiment where we would be able to tweeze out the impact of CO2 versus the hundreds of other variables at work. Which is why you could never make a model that would predict the climate.”

“The president seems to say it is sufficient to say the ‘science is settled.’ It is hollow statement with no content,” the ecologist continued, adding later that fundamental changes should occur to the way American school children are lectured about climate change.

“Change the way our kids are being taught about this subject because if we don’t there will be a whole generation of people who are just blindly following this climate hysteria,” Morano quoted Moore as saying. “Our children are not taught logic, they are not taught what the scientific method is, and they are taught that carbon dioxide is pollution. They are told it is carbon now as if it were soot.”

After leaving Greenpeace following a decade-and-a-half of work with the world-renowned organization, Moore went on to form his own consulting company, Greenspirit, and was also appointed co-chair and paid spokesperson for the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a branch of the Nuclear Energy Institute lobbying group that seeks to "promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world."

Moore’s remarks were made the same week that RT reported that recently released data made public by the US government suggests the average temperature from coast-to-coast has decreased slightly during the last decade.

“Not only is there a pause in the posited temperature rise from man-made global warming, but a clearly evident slight cooling trend in the US Average Temperature over nearly the last decade,” former television meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote, citing statistics recently made available by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Can you provide the link?

This is interesting –

“There are so many [climate] variables that we can’t control and when you do an experiment you have to control all the variables except the one you are studying if you want to get a clean result. There are even variables we do not even understand that we cannot control,” said Moore. “So it is virtually impossible to think of doing an experiment where we would be able to tweeze out the impact of CO2 versus the hundreds of other variables at work. Which is why you could never make a model that would predict the climate.”

“The president seems to say it is sufficient to say the ‘science is settled.’ It is hollow statement with no content,” the ecologist continued, adding later that fundamental changes should occur to the way American school children are lectured about climate change.

“Change the way our kids are being taught about this subject because if we don’t there will be a whole generation of people who are just blindly following this climate hysteria,” Morano quoted Moore as saying. “Our children are not taught logic, they are not taught what the scientific method is, and they are taught that carbon dioxide is pollution. They are told it is carbon now as if it were soot.”

After leaving Greenpeace following a decade-and-a-half of work with the world-renowned organization, Moore went on to form his own consulting company, Greenspirit, and was also appointed co-chair and paid spokesperson for the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a branch of the Nuclear Energy Institute lobbying group that seeks to "promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world."

Moore’s remarks were made the same week that RT reported that recently released data made public by the US government suggests the average temperature from coast-to-coast has decreased slightly during the last decade.

“Not only is there a pause in the posited temperature rise from man-made global warming, but a clearly evident slight cooling trend in the US Average Temperature over nearly the last decade,” former television meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote, citing statistics recently made available by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Yes, Moore has an oversimplified view of how science is done. He makes the same mistake that many deniers do, since he can't do the research he assumes that no one else can. In your second video he demonstrated that he was not a scientist in the first sentence he spoke. But I am sure that you missed it.

You claimed that Moore's work was peer reviewed. It should have been easy for you to supply some of his work, but you did not post any. It appears that you know what you said was pure BS.

Since you like videos here is one where Moore gets ripped to shreds:


The narrator provides links to all of his claims if you go to YouTube and click on the "more".
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Yes, Moore has an oversimplified view of how science is done. He makes the same mistake that many deniers do, since he can't do the research he assumes that no one else can. In your second video he demonstrated that he was not a scientist in the first sentence he spoke. But I am sure that you missed it.

You claimed that Moore's work was peer reviewed. It should have been easy for you to supply some of his work, but you did not post any. It appears that you know what you said was pure BS.

Since you like videos here is one where Moore gets ripped to shreds:


The narrator provides links to all of his claims if you go to YouTube and click on the "more".

Is potholer54 the best expert on the climate that you can find?

Did he find an expert that refuted what Dr Moore said in this presentation?


Why are our leaders so determined to tax one of the earth’s best friends?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Is potholer54 the best expert on the climate that you can find?

Did he find an expert that refuted what Dr Moore said in this presentation?


Why are our leaders so determined to tax one of the earth’s best friends?

He is not an expert, but then neither is Moore. Why would I need an expert to refute an amateur? And you ignored the fact that not only did Moore refute him, he linked all of his sources that he used. Did Moore do that in any of his works? If not then he loses since he either could not or did not support his claims.
 
Top