Greta!

[girlsmiley]

She is a young person who believes she is doing what needs to be done. What should've been done years before she was born probably. The fact that she's stayed the course is admirable in itself.

You may be miffed at her, oppose or be a jerk. Or you know, you could take it all with a grain of salt and try not to be a fuckwit. I know, it's hard sometimes.

When I think about who else made an impact I think about David Lange. David Lange did his part in the 80s because there were concerns about the future of the planet. Same principle.

The way I see it, discussions may help shed a bit of light on things.

You'd think more people would be open to listening and learning instead of pretending like they're experts on everything. You'd think they'd cut the petty insignificant shit for a second for the betterment of the planet.

Dont you see? We need young people like Greta because most of us just don't have the energy and the patience required to deal with the fuckwits of the world.

 

[trysail]

https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/image6.png


​

 

[jaF0]

Triedandfailed just prove temps ARE increasing.

 

[trysail]

By 2025 Germany will have spent $580B to make electricity nearly 2x more expensive & 10x more carbon-intensive than France’s.

Forbes

Is that the very definition of stupid?

​

 

[coati]

All this Greta worshipping is stupid.

Her rabid critics are the ones who are really doing the worshipping. That's precisely why she is so effective.

It's very similar to the AOC phenomenon-- a young woman with strong opinions is perceived as the ultimate threat by chauvinistic right-wingers.

 

[jaF0]

The matter at hand is unresolved as to cause and solution(s), if any. The little twit needs to go home, hush and let the adults hash it out. I got no use for kids.

 

[phrodeau]

All worshipping is stupid, but thinking that a teenager is being worshipped is even more stupid.

 

[BotanyBoy]

All worshipping is stupid, but thinking that a teenager is being worshipped is even more stupid.

Regularly tries to convince the rest of us that Government is our lord and savior....the more totalitarian and controlling the better.

 

[suurfer]

Her rabid critics are the ones who are really doing the worshipping. That's precisely why she is so effective.

It's very similar to the AOC phenomenon-- a young woman with strong opinions is perceived as the ultimate threat by chauvinistic right-wingers.

AOC and Greta are nothing more than brands, or mouthpieces for whoever propelled them. They are in that position because they were allowed to advance.

In saying that, I think that it was a good PR move, because her presence drew the attention to a burning issue that most of us are too lazy to bother about.
-- Up to a point. Until her handlers started meddling by starting lawsuits that arbitrarily target specific countries, France in particular, where laypeople are already steuggling.



The other thing that bugs me is this: How come her peers from underdevelopped countries, who tried much larger things, haven't been given any publicity?

It’s not just Greta Thunberg: why are we ignoring the developing world’s inspiring activists?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/05/greta-thunberg-developing-world-activists

 

[trysail]

Professor Jordan Peterson On Climate Change and Climate Policy at the Cambridge Union
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY&feature=youtu.be

6½ minutes of common sense.​

​

 

[coati]

It’s not just Greta Thunberg: why are we ignoring the developing world’s inspiring activists?

Now you sound like Trump, whining, "So unfair, so unfair."

True activists just do their thing every day of the year. For them, it is not about being a star on the Apprentice. For them, it is about doing the right thing.

Some get broad recognition. Some don't. There are actually strategic advantages available to both groups.

 

[coati]

Triedandfailed just prove temps ARE increasing.

He does this all the time. Failed attempts at the old game of how to lie with statistics.

In this case, he not-so-cleverly used a 160 degree scale to describe a temperature increase range that is less than 2% of that scale.

His other cheap tactic is to quote opinion pieces from other hacks.

 

[trysail]

Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1915-1950 are reliable?

You don't really expect a rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad or in Ukraine during the famine or all over Siberia?



Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?

Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or "The Great Leap Forward?"



Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?

Please don't tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.



Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).

Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?





Are you kidding me?


​

 

[suurfer]

Talk about obsession. You Had to bring your guys' retarded Trump /R-L politics into this.

I'm not even American, and Silvergurl and JaFo are liberal as, yet we all disagree with bringing a child too deep into such complex matters.

Now you sound like Trump, whining, "So unfair, so unfair."

True activists just do their thing every day of the year. For them, it is not about being a star on the Apprentice. For them, it is about doing the right thing.

Some get broad recognition. Some don't. There are actually strategic advantages available to both groups.

While her initial presence was good as a wake-up call to think about our children (up to the point when she unilaterally targetted France et al),
the skeptic in me keeps wondering:

What groups propelled her?
They could well be genuine Climate change activists, but genuine movements have always been hijacked by interest groups.

It would be interesting to watch her trajectory, if she's impartial or focuses only on specific countries.

 

[phrodeau]

Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1915-1950 are reliable?

You don't really expect a rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad or in Ukraine during the famine or all over Siberia?



Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?

Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or "The Great Leap Forward?"



Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?

Please don't tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.



Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).

Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?





Are you kidding me?


​

I’d say that it’s more important to have accurate weather information during a revolution than otherwise. Why wouldn’t it be?

 

[Gypsytag]

AOC and Greta are nothing more than brands, or mouthpieces for whoever propelled them. They are in that position because they were allowed to advance.

In saying that, I think that it was a good PR move, because her presence drew the attention to a burning issue that most of us are too lazy to bother about.
-- Up to a point. Until her handlers started meddling by starting lawsuits that arbitrarily target specific countries, France in particular, where laypeople are already steuggling.



The other thing that bugs me is this: How come her peers from underdevelopped countries, who tried much larger things, haven't been given any publicity?

It’s not just Greta Thunberg: why are we ignoring the developing world’s inspiring activists?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/05/greta-thunberg-developing-world-activists

You're a stupid paki, nobody cares what you think.

 

[phrodeau]

Talk about obsession. You Had to bring your guys' retarded Trump /R-L politics into this.

I'm not even American, and Silvergurl and JaFo are liberal as, yet we all disagree with bringing a child too deep into such complex matters.



While her initial presence was good as a wake-up call to think about our children (up to the point when she unilaterally targetted France et al),
the skeptic in me keeps wondering:

What groups propelled her?
They could well be genuine Climate change activists, but genuine movements have always been hijacked by interest groups.

It would be interesting to watch her trajectory, if she's impartial or focuses only on specific countries.

What interest groups could you possibly refer to? In our consumer society, no for-profit companies are telling their customers to use less of their products.

 

[SalviaDivinorum]

Yeah, I totally see Soros, the industrial electric car conglomerates and other really important deep state players conspiring: "We'll get this skinny and serious little 16-year-old girl with Asperger's to sit all on her own in Sweden with a handwritten sign warning about the climate crisis and that's going to really impress the people were trying to reach; the rich middle classes who can afford to buy our electric cars or invest in our technology."

The truth is that nobody could have predicted the kind of reach that she has achieved - not Greta, not her parents, not activists in Sweden or elsewhere. And she's not responsible for the motivations of people who support her campaign (or have jumped on the bandwagon). She's only responsible for her own statements and actions. And her statements, again and again, are simply "listen to the scientists."

Jordan Peterson, of course, is not a climate scientist and the only question he was actually qualified to answer as a psychologist was the initial one in the clip that Trysail posted. And I actually agree with his answer - the climate crisis is not a question that will unite the world. We just need to read this thread to see that for ourselves.

But we do need a proper debate about what's happening with the climate but how that will come about it's difficult to say. When adult politicians, journalists, and other opinion makers spend more time mocking a 16-year-old girl than facilitating a civilized debate, it's difficult to see any progress on the issue.

There is no need to worry about Greta's education. She has finished elementary or compulsory school with top grades and is taking a sabbatical from her studies. Below are her grades.

Bild: A
Biologi: A
Engelska: A
Fysik: A
Geografi: A
Hem- och konsumentkunskap: B
Historia: A
Idrott och hälsa: B
Kemi: A
Matematik: A
Moderna språk, fra nska: A
Musik: A
Religionskunskap: A
Samhällskunskap: A
Slöjd: A
Svenska: B
Teknik: A

According to what I've Googled, the grades go from A (top grade) to E (lowest approved grade). F equals failed. She's pretty smart.

And Greta does smile when she thinks it's appropriate. This society needs to stop telling girls and women when to smile.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

But we do need a proper debate about what's happening with the climate but how that will come about it's difficult to say. When adult politicians, journalists, and other opinion makers spend more time mocking a 16-year-old girl than facilitating a civilized debate, it's difficult to see any progress on the issue.

There is no need to worry about Greta's education. She has finished elementary or compulsory school with top grades and is taking a sabbatical from her studies. Below are her grades.

Bild: A
Biologi: A
Engelska: A
Fysik: A
Geografi: A
Hem- och konsumentkunskap: B
Historia: A
Idrott och hälsa: B
Kemi: A
Matematik: A
Moderna språk, fra nska: A
Musik: A
Religionskunskap: A
Samhällskunskap: A
Slöjd: A
Svenska: B
Teknik: A

According to what I've Googled, the grades go from A (top grade) to E (lowest approved grade). F equals failed. She's pretty smart.

And Greta does smile when she thinks it's appropriate. This society needs to stop telling girls and women when to smile.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/5c6243b7ac67b5fc27bda3b257a446b1/tenor.gif?itemid=4500407

http://www.celebquote.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/tumblr_lrcf33EmHS1qky090_large.gif

 

[ForkedTongue]

I'd be extremely grateful if you'd let me know when you hear or read a mainstream media news report on this retraction.

I'm certain the NY Times or the WaPo or Bloomberg or NPR or AP's Seth Borenstein will be the first to inform the public.

TIA




"Nature" Paper On Ocean Warming Retracted

by Retraction Watch

"...'Nature' is retracting a 2018 paper which found that the oceans are warming much faster than predicted by previous models of climate change.

The article, "Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition,” appeared at last October but quickly drew the attention of an influential critic who said the analysis was flawed.

The authors agreed, and within three weeks the paper received the following update:

"We would like to alert readers that the authors have informed us of errors in the paper. An implication of the errors is that the uncertainties in ocean heat content are substantially underestimated. We are working with the authors to establish the quantitative impact of the errors on the published results, at which point in time we will provide a further update."
​

At the time, Ralph Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., and a co-author of the article, was gracious about the error. The San Diego Tribune quoted the researcher saying:

"When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there. We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly."​

Now, nearly more than 10 months later, Nature is pulling the plug on the article..."

more...


​

​

My guess is that those who read the original study, read the retraction.
Peer review at work and working.

 

[BotanyBoy]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/5c6243b7ac67b5fc27bda3b257a446b1/tenor.gif?itemid=4500407

http://www.celebquote.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/tumblr_lrcf33EmHS1qky090_large.gif

Acts all tough with gifs.....hides from opinions he doesn't like behind iggy.....won't do shit to anyone.

 

[trysail]

...Peer review at work and working.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, you managed to get it completely back-asswards.


Resplandy et al passed climatology's "pal review" with flying colors. It took an unaffiliated individual (Nic Lewis) to point out the egregious errors in the paper which eventually led to its begrudging retraction (without much credit to Lewis).

A Major Problem With The Resplandy et al Ocean Heat Uptake Paper

by Nic Lewis
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/

"...The article,[iii] by Laure Resplandy of Princeton University, Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and eight other authors, used a novel method to estimate heat uptake by the ocean over the period 1991–2016 and came up with an atypically high value.[iv] The press release [v] accompanying the Resplandy et al. paper was entitled “Earth’s oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat per year than previously thought”,[vi] and said that this suggested that Earth is more sensitive to fossil-fuel emissions than previously thought.

I was asked for my thoughts on the Resplandy paper as soon as it obtained media coverage. Most commentators appear to have been content to rely on what was said in the press release. However, being a scientist, I thought it appropriate to read the paper itself, and if possible look at its data, before forming a view..."


more...

​

So, back to my original request:
​

I'd be extremely grateful if you'd let me know when you hear or read a mainstream media news report on this retraction.

I'm certain the NY Times or the WaPo or Bloomberg or NPR or AP's Seth Borenstein will be the first to inform the public.

TIA




"Nature" Paper On Ocean Warming Retracted

by Retraction Watch

"...'Nature' is retracting a 2018 paper which found that the oceans are warming much faster than predicted by previous models of climate change.

The article, "Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition,” appeared at last October but quickly drew the attention of an influential critic who said the analysis was flawed.

The authors agreed, and within three weeks the paper received the following update:

"We would like to alert readers that the authors have informed us of errors in the paper. An implication of the errors is that the uncertainties in ocean heat content are substantially underestimated. We are working with the authors to establish the quantitative impact of the errors on the published results, at which point in time we will provide a further update."
​

At the time, Ralph Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., and a co-author of the article, was gracious about the error. The San Diego Tribune quoted the researcher saying:

"When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there. We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly."​

Now, nearly more than 10 months later, Nature is pulling the plug on the article..."

more...


​

The silence of the supposedly non-partisan arbiters and reporters of truth— those paragons of objectivity— is deafening.

​

 

[phrodeau]

Acts all tough with gifs.....hides from opinions he doesn't like behind iggy.....won't do shit to anyone.

And you are...?

 

[DeYaKen]

Is that the very definition of stupid?

​

Frances electricity is largely nuclear generated.

 

[DeYaKen]

You're a stupid paki, nobody cares what you think.

We are overwhelmed by your eloquence.