yes, impressive but still wrong.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Conservatives are so bent out of shape, they use "Russia Today" as a source for information. WTF!!!!!! RT is owned by the Russian Government and is generally regarded as an instrument of the FSB formerly the KGB. It's an updated Pravda.
As for the content....well it'd the same old Heartland institute talking points, this time spoken by the anti Thunberg. To me it's one of the most transparent pieces of deception yet on this subject. How anyone could think this is, in any way a counter to Thunberg is hilarious.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

How anyone could think this is, in any way a counter to Thunberg is hilarious.

I suspect she agrees with you. "The Anti Greta" monika is a media spin.

She's just a German teenager providing her informed opinion on youtube and now media chanels are picking her up. She does her own research, articulates her own points, writes her own speeches and seems happy to go toe to toe on a debate with anyone.

So yeah, any comparison with Greta falls short pretty quickly.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Paradox said..

Conservatives are so bent out of shape, they use "Russia Today" as a source for information. WTF!!!!!! RT is owned by the Russian Government and is generally regarded as an instrument of the FSB formerly the KGB. It's an updated Pravda.
As for the content....well it'd the same old Heartland institute talking points, this time spoken by the anti Thunberg. To me it's one of the most transparent pieces of deception yet on this subject. How anyone could think this is, in any way a counter to Thunberg is hilarious.

The Guardian. Enough said.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..
yes, impressive but still wrong.

How articulately said, you have swayed me for sure.

Was it the concern for young people being stressed for no reason or that she thinks Greta is probably a "super nice person" that you had an issue with?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..

Paradox said..

Conservatives are so bent out of shape, they use "Russia Today" as a source for information. WTF!!!!!! RT is owned by the Russian Government and is generally regarded as an instrument of the FSB formerly the KGB. It's an updated Pravda.
As for the content....well it'd the same old Heartland institute talking points, this time spoken by the anti Thunberg. To me it's one of the most transparent pieces of deception yet on this subject. How anyone could think this is, in any way a counter to Thunberg is hilarious.

The Guardian. Enough said.

Heartland Institute. Enough said.

I think she'd make a great populist politician.

Spin, the ability to make opinion sound like truth and that straight face.

She's perfect.

Very impressive paradox.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

sgo said..
yes, impressive but still wrong.

How articulately said, you have swayed me for sure.

Was it the concern for young people being stressed for no reason or that she thinks Greta is probably a "super nice person" that you had an issue with?

I think it's the fact that it's all her own work that discredits her.
"Climate models are just computer games. They don't reflect real world data." hmmm... fraid not. "CO2 is insignificant." hmmm wrong again.

Indeed Notwal.

Climate change deniers are usually just shooting from the hip.

This one appears to be no different.

She could probably convince more than a few people that CO2 has no effect on the 400deg+ temps on Venus.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..

Paradox said..

Conservatives are so bent out of shape, they use "Russia Today" as a source for information. WTF!!!!!! RT is owned by the Russian Government and is generally regarded as an instrument of the FSB formerly the KGB. It's an updated Pravda.
As for the content....well it'd the same old Heartland institute talking points, this time spoken by the anti Thunberg. To me it's one of the most transparent pieces of deception yet on this subject. How anyone could think this is, in any way a counter to Thunberg is hilarious.

The Guardian. Enough said.

I mean, how bent out of shape are you that you think a comparison with Russia Today is .......the Guardian......You're in loon territory there mate.

Who here is qualified to tell us climate models aren't just computer games? She said words to the effect that Co2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas compared to water vapour and that the hydrological cycle swings whatever which way with the ever-changing climate. Nobody would disagree with the second statement, although in the current climate our science communicators would consider it unwise to express it so bluntly.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..Who here is qualified to tell us climate models aren't just computer games?

Seriously? You talk about qualifications but who is she to tell anyone that they are games? She's totally unqualified.

Your supposition is self defeating.

Implying something is a game is the oldest trick in the propagandist's book.

We shouldn't take this kid too seriously.

No one here is qualified enough to dispute the models, the data analysis and the findings in this field including you Ian and paradox.

That is the point thank you. Don't you see the irony of your statement above? If we're not qualified how is a teenager going to be any more qualified?

Russia Tonight also peddles a plethora of common conspiracy theories from 9/11 inside jobs to claims that the Boston Marathon bombing was a US government inside job. RT is a Russian government propaganda tool.

It's disappointing that paradox has to stoop so low to make a point. Quoting Chinese state media would have been equally reliable.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Ian K said..Who here is qualified to tell us climate models aren't just computer games?

Seriously? You talk about qualifications but who is she to tell anyone that they are games? She's totally unqualified.

Your supposition is self defeating.

Implying something is a game is the oldest trick in the propagandist's book.

We shouldn't take this kid too seriously.

No one here is qualified enough to dispute the models, the data analysis and the findings in this field including you Ian and paradox.

That is the point thank you. Don't you see the irony of your statement above? If we're not qualified how is a teenager going to be any more qualified?

Russia Tonight also peddles a plethora of common conspiracy theories from 9/11 inside jobs to claims that the Boston Marathon bombing was a US government inside job. RT is a Russian government propaganda tool.

It's disappointing that paradox has to stoop so low to make a point. Quoting Chinese state media would have been equally reliable.

Woah, HG she is just an unqualified teenager with English as her second language. Why I am I "stooping" to anything by commenting that a young lady is impressive for her mind and ability to debate a topic? That was one interview, If you google her she is in all the news at the moment and seems to be gaining some momentum. She even embarrassed Piers Morgan 2 days ago on a British morning show.

Don't be so harsh. You are just peed off because she thinks Nuclear is a good solution for clean energy aren' you?

I can't fault any of her points though. CO2 is acknowledged as a relatively weak greenhouse gas. I dont believe there is any real debate that the science on the actual effect of CO2 on it's own is limited. All the models that give more than a degree or so of warming for a doubling of Co2 rely on fudge factors via positive feedbacks. Even the IPCC dont argue with that.

There is no hard data that links CO2 with any significant contribution to global warming. That is a fact, no matter how unpopular it is.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Ian K said..Who here is qualified to tell us climate models aren't just computer games?

Don't you see the irony of your statement above?

That was a follow up bit of irony aimed at the leading ironic statement "hmmm... fraid not" of Notwal.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

There is no hard data that links CO2 with any significant contribution to global warming. That is a fact, no matter how unpopular it is.

Try climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm for starters.

Select to expand quote

TheRodder said..Try climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm for starters.

Paradox said..
There is no hard data that links CO2 with any significant contribution to global warming. That is a fact, no matter how unpopular it is.

Oh come now TheRodder, we all know from paradox's enlightened posts that NASA is in on It.....

After all he said that they "deliberately mislead" us. Deliberately.

So case closed. No link between human GHG emissions and the greenhouse gas effect. All just a figment of someone's imagination.

To claim a mouthpiece of the Heartland Institute has any credibility is a joke. This is a group of industrialists who have long questioned the link between smoking and cancer and heart disease and take a large part of their donations from Exxon Mobil.

The Heartland Institute's core objective IS to spin misinformation and spread doubt.

Seibt is just the latest paid Heartland Institute misinformant.

Stooping very low indeed - promoting a group who actively worked to discredit the medical evidence that smoking caused cancer.

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

Kamikuza said..

log man said..

Paradox said..

Conservatives are so bent out of shape, they use "Russia Today" as a source for information. WTF!!!!!! RT is owned by the Russian Government and is generally regarded as an instrument of the FSB formerly the KGB. It's an updated Pravda.
As for the content....well it'd the same old Heartland institute talking points, this time spoken by the anti Thunberg. To me it's one of the most transparent pieces of deception yet on this subject. How anyone could think this is, in any way a counter to Thunberg is hilarious.

The Guardian. Enough said.

Heartland Institute. Enough said.

My bad:

What I meant was, someone who uses The Guardian as a source and considers it unbiased and accurate really shouldn't be pointing the finger at other people or sources.

I was making no other comment about the validity of the original post.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Paradox said..

Conservatives are so bent out of shape, they use "Russia Today" as a source for information. WTF!!!!!! RT is owned by the Russian Government and is generally regarded as an instrument of the FSB formerly the KGB. It's an updated Pravda.
As for the content....well it'd the same old Heartland institute talking points, this time spoken by the anti Thunberg. To me it's one of the most transparent pieces of deception yet on this subject. How anyone could think this is, in any way a counter to Thunberg is hilarious.

Take a look in the mirror cretin.

And while you're at it look up ad hominem.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
I mean, how bent out of shape are you that you think a comparison with Russia Today is .......the Guardian......You're in loon territory there mate.

We've been through this before. They can't get basic facts straight when it impinges their agenda, and while they might not be as extreme as other sources, they are in no way unbiased or entirely credible. Remember the media bias summaries?

I know, I know, it doesn't matter when your team is doing the propaganda push, but there are actually those of us that value facts and reality.

Select to expand quote

TheRodder said..

Try climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm for starters.

OK, thanks, ive looked at those sites. Not sure which bit you are indicating has proof that CO2 is a major contributer to global warming??

NASA Climate just refers to IPPC summaries and theoretical papers. And even our good ole political site by Mr Cook, Skeptical Science says this on the page you linked:

"Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up. What they don't agree on is by how much.

Laboratory tests and theroetical physics/chemisty tells us that CO2 can give a maximum of about 1degree or so of warming for a doubling from pre industrial levels, assuming the process is 100% efficient and there are no negative feedbacks (so could be a lot less). All estimates higher than that are based on theoretical positive feedbacks.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

To claim a mouthpiece of the Heartland Institute has any credibility is a joke. This is a group of industrialists who have long questioned the link between smoking and cancer and heart disease and take a large part of their donations from Exxon Mobil.

Thats some pretty hard allegations there. Can you link your factual sources on that??

You are pretty quick to ask for my proof, which I always oblige you with, i'd like to see yours now please.

She seems to do quite well on her own without anyone feeding her a script, and did well before Heartland offered to open some doors for her. I don't think labelling her as a mouthpiece quite fits does it?

In case it wasn't obvious, global warming is accelerating because of strong positive feedbacks such as melting ice, ocean acidification, unstable atmospheric and marine circulations amongst many others. These overwhelm slight negative feedbacks.

For some personal responses to the climate crisis from climate scientists see here:
www.isthishowyoufeel.com/

Select to expand quote

TheRodder said..
In case it wasn't obvious, global warming is accelerating because of strong positive feedbacks such as melting ice, ocean acidification, unstable atmospheric and marine circulations amongst many others. These overwhelm slight negative feedbacks.

It's not obvious at all. I have no idea how a slight lowering of the oceans ph (not acid by a long way) adds to global warming or how atmospheric and ocean circulation is creating or trapping heat either. Melting sea Ice theoretically reduces reflectivity but there are equally plausable theory's that at the poles the agle of the sun makes water more reflective than snow/ice....making it a negative feedback not a postive one.

If a warming planet had strong positive feedbacks we would have been cooked long before we crawled out of the oceans, but if you have hard data on any of that id be happy to change my view.

Thoery's and models do not overide hard facts and observations.

Select to expand quote

TheRodder said..
For some personal responses to the climate crisis from climate scientists see here:
www.isthishowyoufeel.com/

that's a bit gutting

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

TheRodder said..
In case it wasn't obvious, global warming is accelerating because of strong positive feedbacks such as melting ice, ocean acidification, unstable atmospheric and marine circulations amongst many others. These overwhelm slight negative feedbacks.

It's not obvious at all. I have no idea how a slight lowering of the oceans ph (not acid by a long way) adds to global warming or how atmospheric and ocean circulation is creating or trapping heat either. Melting sea Ice theoretically reduces reflectivity but there are equally plausable theory's that at the poles the agle of the sun makes water more reflective than snow/ice....making it a negative feedback not a postive one.

If a warming planet had strong positive feedbacks we would have been cooked long before we crawled out of the oceans, but if you have hard data on any of that id be happy to change my view.

Thoery's and models do not overide hard facts and observations.

Oh dear - you should educate yourself on some basic science before making more inane comments.

Select to expand quote

TheRodder said..

Oh dear - you should educate yourself on some basic science before making more inane comments.

I'd be glad to hear where im departing from basic science, or even established scientific facts.

How about you educate me where I am in error and which comments are inane?

Select to expand quote

TheRodder said..

Oh dear - you should educate yourself on some basic science before making more inane comments.

I'd have guessed that Paradox does have a scientific background.
( Not that that whether he does or doesn't should make any difference as to how we assess his posts.)

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

TheRodder said..
In case it wasn't obvious, global warming is accelerating because of strong positive feedbacks such as melting ice, ocean acidification, unstable atmospheric and marine circulations amongst many others. These overwhelm slight negative feedbacks.

It's not obvious at all. I have no idea how a slight lowering of the oceans ph (not acid by a long way) adds to global warming or how atmospheric and ocean circulation is creating or trapping heat either. Melting sea Ice theoretically reduces reflectivity but there are equally plausable theory's that at the poles the agle of the sun makes water more reflective than snow/ice....making it a negative feedback not a postive one.

If a warming planet had strong positive feedbacks we would have been cooked long before we crawled out of the oceans, but if you have hard data on any of that id be happy to change my view.

Thoery's and models do not overide hard facts and observations.

Your last statement is ironic - don't you see? Observations tell us that CO2 is rising every year due to human activity. There's no other explanation. Temperatures are also rising steadily on trend in line with this observation.

You expect us to believe on a hunch that it's largely natural - but without providing a scintilla of evidence.

You waste no time asking others to provide evidence but when it comes to your hypothesis that the warming we're experiencing is largely natural, you have no evidence to offer at all. So, share your evidence.

You're all over the shop.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..

That says it all then... you admit you have no idea about GHG's.

Your last statement is ironic - don't you see? Observations tell us that CO2 is rising every year due to human activity. There's no other explanation. Temperatures are also rising steadily on trend in line with this observation.

You expect us to believe on a hunch that it's largely natural - but without providing a scintilla of evidence.

You're all over the shop.

I dont think that conversation had any reference to GHG's, it was about positive or negative feedbacks to a warming atmosphere....so I really don't think I am the one that is all over the shop.

Correlation does not equal causation. Look it up, its a well established scientific principal. Otherwise our Pastafarian friends view that the global decline in pirates is a direct cause of Global Warming would hold up as well.

However I would say that there is as much correllative evidence between global warming trends and natural temperature variance as there is with CO2 increases. It doesn't mean either one is right or wrong, just that we really don't know and both are possible.

I'm not asking you to believe anything, in fact just the opposite, so stop putting words in my mouth, its all theory and projection and uncertainty. You are the one making claims, so how about you state what your claim is and support it with factual evidence?