Greta Thunberg

[bovrill]

 

[Scribus]

View attachment 852709

Having been a staunch critic of electric vehicles for three or four years now I find it interesting how the the questioning of them is slowly spreading without the aid of the mainstream media. If this picture had been posted a couple of years ago then I doubt that it would have got the likes it attracts now, so is the mainstream media losing its grip? Yes, I think it is and its not a question of true news V. fake news, it's more about trusting the source and the establishment is slowly losing that trust as it's version of events is so often contradicted by what comes through the web.

 

[renewablejohn]

Having been a staunch critic of electric vehicles for three or four years now I find it interesting how the the questioning of them is slowly spreading without the aid of the mainstream media. If this picture had been posted a couple of years ago then I doubt that it would have got the likes it attracts now, so is the mainstream media losing its grip? Yes, I think it is and its not a question of true news V. fake news, it's more about trusting the source and the establishment is slowly losing that trust as it's version of events is so often contradicted by what comes through the web.

Thats because it really is a non story. You normally get at least one idiot a day running out of fuel on the M60 around Manchester.

Watch: The stretch of motorway where one driver every day runs out of fuel

CCTV footage shows cars having to dodge vehicles that have come to a stop in the fast lane

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

 

[wanton dwarf]

You asked me at #156 and 161 to answer the question I had already answered at #155. You reminded me at #163 that you had asked. It is not my problem if you do not read what is in front of you. I continue to have the utmost difficulty in responding to you in a reasonable manner when you do not even know what you have posted and the responses to these posts. Indeed it seems pointless attempting to have a debate with you.

You're answer is below. But there is no mention of the role played by CO2 at 180ppm. You admit that the Earth's orbit did change, but do not acknowledge the fact CO2 was not a major factor at 180ppm nor the other significant temperature reducing circumstances such as 1km of Ice over Europe (Both hemispheres).

My point was CO2 does not play a major role, but you bypass this statement and instead push more theory about CO2 in some other epoc.

I'll state it again, CO2 does not play a major role in the Climate.

Nor was any of the other factors such as Ice reflection (which was a a maximum) and the water cycle which was at a minimum. Nor was life abundant with many areas being desert due to a lack of moisture.

All you have admitted is the Sun is a major player.

It seems everyone accepts that ice ages have come and gone in the past. How did they end? A bit of guesswork is the usual story, but try Refs.3 and 4 for some decent modern research. You may also recall what happens in the event of a quick release of CO2 Ref.5. At the same time I am happy to go along with the notion that they ended with a change in the tilt of the Earth’s orbit . Ref.6.

Again you move the narrative back on to GHG's. There are several problems with this.

1) You avoid all other mechanisms at play which are the most significant by magnitudes of order.
2) You avoid the fact that the mechanisms at play in 1) such as the water cycle will increase as the energy levels increase from the Sun.

“To understand why certain GHGs are so important it is necessary to also know the climate sensitivity to the different gases and their relative feedback (forcing) effect on the climate. For example Methane and Nitrous Oxide are more forcing than CO2 so a given amount in the atmosphere has a much greater effect than the same amount of CO2. An increase in GHGs creates an imbalance between energy (heat) entering and leaving the earth. Wv is indeed a most powerful GHG, but despite its power, the reason it has very little effect on our temperatures is because it condenses. Clouds form and it may fall to the ground as the rain we all need to survive. Nevertheless, the small effect it does have is a positive one, thereby increasing temperatures further. As temperatures increase yet more this positive effect will also increase, giving rise to yet higher temperatures.

I don't agree with the way you move the narrative away from the water cycle as a whole to just water as a GHG.

The whole water cycle is one of cooling .. to be very clear the rapid movement of energy into the atmosphere via evaporation magnified by wind (Indeed the weather) where it cools, condenses and falls as rain or snow. You see this rapid movement in hurricanes and typhoons - this is how they grow.

You say and I note NASA also says that the net contribution of water as a "Climate Gas" is net positive.

I've been wondering about the use of terminology and language in "Climate Science". This also has a reference to the massaging of temperature data by "Climate Scientists" who use the justification of the cooling effect of the sea - which I note has been in existence for 3.8 Billion years.

If "Climate Science" acknowledged ALL elements in existence and the effects on the environment then there is no justification for adjusting temperatures in the first place because this would already be factored in and indeed SHOULD have been factored in over 100 years ago not a few years ago.

But I'll point again .. you highlight a net positive BUT at the height of the last Ice Age with CO2 at 180ppm water vapour, rain and snow was at a minimum with sea levels 200 metres lower than today. There is no significant warming by water as a GHG because if there was then it would again be a race condition to a frozen planet.

I am not dodging anything and I have no agenda.

Oh I see, so the fact your son is a Climate Scientist and you have spent a significant amount of your time reading and supporting Climate Science is not representative of having an agenda.

True, you have made the observation many times, but that is what it is, an observation or personal opinion; and here we go again with your swithering as to whether CO2 has a teeny weeny effect or none at all. Make up your mind one way or the other and as previously requested of you, if you settle for a positive but “insignificant” (to use a former term of yours) amount tell me how much you consider that insignificant amount to be.

I don't have to make my mind up and nor does anyone else who is observing. It is for people to make a judgement on whether the actions of others match up with the rhetoric.

Like most people I spend most of my time working making a living. Not spending most of my time creating rhetoric and "Science" such as attributing the rainfall of the Amazon rain forest to the amount Amazonian beef cows drink.

For example NASA creating a new mission to the moon using the most powerful rocket ever created .. obviously Carbon Neutal. Or Richard Branson with his Space Tourism. Both adovcates of "Climate Science" but doing the complete opposite of what they preach.

It has taken me almost a decade and a half to realise I'm manipulated by Climate Science to only look at what you call GHG's when the reality is every single part of the Earth and our solar system has an effect on our environment.

Quite startling when you read a BBC article saying we have "Hotest Temperatures" which only talks about Green House Gases when the fact is we've been having "Hotest Temperatures" on average for approximately 25,000 years and will continue to have them until we head into an Ice Age. But of course there is no mention of that fact depsite it being the most significant factor in our environment bar none.

We do have increase temperatures due to Human Action .. but I wonder how much of that is actually people playing with numbers on a spreadsheet to manipulate temperatures to suite an agenda, power and money.

 

[Old McDonald]

Oh I see, so the fact your son is a Climate Scientist and you have spent a significant amount of your time reading and supporting Climate Science is not representative of having an agenda.

I have had a quick read of your post, and as usual find your response difficult to follow on first reading. What more do you want me to say about CO2 not being a major factor in ending ice ages? I may or may not respond to the rest of the post depending on whether I can deduce if there is anything new to debate. It is a waste of time otherwise.

I must however take great exception to the remarks above since they are downright untrue. In other words - lies.

My son, Dr. Iain McDonald, MSci(Hons), MSc, PhD is an astrophycist and a Research Fellow in the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics at Manchester University. His MSci was in Astrophysics, MSc in Radio Astronomy and Phd on Stellar Mass Loss in Globular Clusters.

He is not a "Climate Scientist" but he does need to know something about climate, the Earth's atmosphere and obviously further out "there". He appears to have some international recognition in his field and was on BBC radio last week discussing the present state of the star Betelgeuse.

Here you go with "significant" again. I have spent some time over the last ten years actually learning about the atmosphere and the present global warming. I was asked to review a chapter in a report entitled "Zero Carbon Britain 2030" by the Centre for Alternative Technology. It was on land use and agriculture in the future and one of the other reviewers (his name appears immediately after mine in the credits) was George Monbiot. How much time have you spent reading about the climate?

I was a sceptic about anthropogenic effects, and the draft of the whole report was adamant that man was responsible for what is in historical terms, a fairly quick increase in temperatures. To counteract that, and to counteract the desire of some to kill off most of the livestock in Britain (and the rest of the world) I needed to know something about it. I read both sides of the debate and after some time reached the conclusion that anthropogenic increases of GHGs were a contributing factor to temperature increases. I also decided that ruminants were an extremely small part of GHG emissions. I did not quantify it, merely reached that opinion, and so should everybody else if they read http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2008-atmospheric-methane.html a report from the Max Planck Institute "Belching Ruminants - a minor player in atmospheric methane" - a report to which I have linked numerous times in various places over the last few years.

I have not changed my views since reaching the above conclusions. I repeat for the umpteenth time, I do not agree that we are in an apocalyptic moment or even in the dire circumstances that Miss Thunberg's handlers portray. If you consider that means I support Climate Science then so be it. My only agenda is to live as long as possible, retiring in the not too distant future and spend a lot of time fishing (for the table) and gardening, also for the table.

Note: I somehow managed to put a single line outline in the middle of the post and do not have the computer skills to remove it. It originally contained the title of my son's PhD.

 

[RushesToo]

@wanton dwarf You really are rather annoying. Logical, well argued, scientifically referenced and informed, opinions do not seem to engage your brain. Your keyboard skills remain surprisingly strong.

 

[Danllan]

...Oh I see, so the fact your son is a Climate Scientist and you have spent a significant amount of your time reading and supporting Climate Science is not representative of having an agenda...

Having a child who does X, Y or Z needn't mean that the parent shares an interest or has a related agenda.

 

[Old McDonald]

@ wanton dwarf
I have re-read your post a couple of times. I will not copy it, but refer to various statements that are completely and utterly incorrect. I will not reference you where you missed what has been posted to make you wrong, because it is quite plain that you have not properly read my posts and references the first time around, otherwise you would not, as you continually do, make factual errors as to what I have and have not posted. I repeat your phrase to me “It is not my fault if you do not (you said cannot) read what is in front of you” so please do not respond unless and until you actually do read what has previously been posted.

I have not bypassed your claim that CO2 does not play a major role. I have given you a lot of information about CO2 and other GHGs, explaining why they are collectively often combined as CO2e. I have made no mention of the Sun being a major player, although obviously it is.

Of course I move back to GHGs. That is what Miss Thunberg is all about and this thread has the title of her name. You are wrong that I avoid all other “mechanisms”. Do you fully understand the water cycle? It appears not from some of your posts, including the one above. I have posted already about increasing water vapour levels. The water cycle is not one of cooling. You acknowledge this, or at least comment that I state that the net contribution of water is positive. Naturally that is in agreement with NASA because water vapour is a very strong forcer of temperature and it will increase as more wv is held in the atmosphere due to higher temperatures.

I have already told you I have no knowledge about alleged adjustments of temperature and I have never addressed the issue other than to previously answer a question of yours about the allegation. You also already know that climatologists do take all factors into account.

Yesterday I addressed your lie that my son is a Climate Scientist. Maybe you believed banjo when he claimed that I made a living from being in the Green movement.

Of course you do not have to make up your mind as to whether or not GHGs have some positive impact on temperatures, you can continually be as inconsistent as you wish and sometimes acknowledge they do and other times claim they do not. It does make it impossible to know how to respond to your swithering except to ignore it. You refer to what I call GHGs as if it was something I have made up. There is no hope for you with that attitude.

You mention yet again that you spend a lot of time working to make a living. I am 25 or thereabouts years older than you and still working full time on my holding. So what. That is what most posters on here do - work. I did take Christmas afternoon off this time. The year before I worked through to dark. Again, so what. I am sure there are plenty of other posters on here who put in a decent shift on Christmas Day.

Your penultimate paragraph appears, so far as I can work out from what you posted, that temperatures have been rising for about 25,000 years. You are forgetting, or perhaps do not know about, the two Dryas periods, not forgetting the Little Ice Age.

You end up with more swithering saying that there is some man induced temperature rise. Although perhaps that is just you being hypothetical or rhetorical.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Having a child who does X, Y or Z needn't mean that the parent shares an interest or has a related agenda.

He has stated an interest which includes reading the work.

 

[wanton dwarf]

My son, Dr. Iain McDonald, MSci(Hons), MSc, PhD is an astrophycist and a Research Fellow in the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics at Manchester University. His MSci was in Astrophysics, MSc in Radio Astronomy and Phd on Stellar Mass Loss in Globular Clusters.

I can only take what I've read in passing before in other posts. You can call it a lie if you wish and I won't take offence - given what you have written in the past I have taken what I had written to be the case.

Do you fully understand the water cycle? It appears not from some of your posts, including the one above. I have posted already about increasing water vapour levels. The water cycle is not one of cooling. You acknowledge this, or at least comment that I state that the net contribution of water is positive. Naturally that is in agreement with NASA because water vapour is a very strong forcer of temperature and it will increase as more wv is held in the atmosphere due to higher temperatures.

I think this aptly describes to me the complete difference between us.

You conflate water vapour with the whole water cycle as does the NASA literature. To me reading the NASA website it's very poorly written to the extent that it is very unclear what is actually meant. The way language is used, any kind of mix of the water cycle could be used for any particular hypothysis. You mix up wv and the water cycle as well - water vapour is a subset of the water cycle and the effects of wv in the atmosphere COULD include cloud, rain, snow and ice .. or indeed not .. evaporation might be included or not.

Your penultimate paragraph appears, so far as I can work out from what you posted, that temperatures have been rising for about 25,000 years. You are forgetting, or perhaps do not know about, the two Dryas periods, not forgetting the Little Ice Age.

No I'm not aware of these occurrences by name. I am aware of various incidiences which include a warming period in the middle ages and if I remember correctly there have been times where the Thames has frozen. But on average each successive decade is warmer than the next unsurprisingly - I'm yet to see any Climate Scientist take issue with the coverage of the BBC or The Guardian however.

You end up with more swithering saying that there is some man induced temperature rise. Although perhaps that is just you being hypothetical or rhetorical.

Humans create errors either intentionally or by mistake eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50989423

This is what I'm talking about as regards manipulation of temperature data, although it only gives the "Climate Science" opinion.

NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data

Scientists at NASA—as well as other groups—constantly work to ensure that the data being used to estimate global average temperatures are as accurate as possible. As time goes on, updates can lead to small changes to estimates for previous years. These changes, however, are much too small to...

climatefeedback.org

All Science starts with "Swithering" .. if it wasn't then there would be no science to be done would there ? as everything would be known instantaneously.

I note other scientists disagree with the extreme opinions of the IPCC .. and they are ostrasized rather than their opinions and others taken into account.

 

[Danllan]

He has stated an interest which includes reading the work.

There is a clear difference between being interested in one's child's work and being interested or supporting the subject matter of that work. For example, I delight to go through my daughter's drawings and writing, but I have very little actual interest in unicorns and in no way advocate their pursuit.

 

[Old McDonald]

He has stated an interest which includes reading the work.

I can only take what I've read in passing before in other posts. You can call it a lie if you wish and I won't take offence - given what you have written in the past I have taken what I had written to be the case.

I am going to have to be rude to you. Either you cannot read properly, or fail to understand what is written. If you have a mental problem (eg dyslexia) then I sympathise, as I do with others, or those with limited education, and my history on this forum shows that I do support them against those who mock. If you do not have such a problem then you should not become so involved in matters which you do not know about or cannot comprehend; for ignorance or failing to properly read is no excuse for the errors you make.

Nothing I have ever posted could possibly lead a person of average intelligence to conclude that my son is a Climate Scientist. It is of no consequence whether or not you take offence at me saying it is a lie when you claim he is a Climate Scientist, for that is what it is. Perhaps you should check the definition of Astrophysicist.

Of course I take an interest in what he does, but I do not read any of his work because I do not understand the Physics involved. Here is a link to his homepage http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/index.html and if you care to look at the “About me” page you will find he has been lead author or co-author of 84 Astrophysics related papers with more in the pipeline – lead author in about 25 of those papers. You will also see where he has been invited to speak on matters of Astrophysics, including Cornell and Harvard universities as well as a wide range of countries around the world – a couple of times at NASA facilities too; additionally the number of conferences where he has been invited to speak. I can continue boasting about him and say that whilst he was still at school (Fortrose Academy, a local authority school) he was offered a £500 bursary by St Andrews University to do his undergraduate degree there. He had two Masters’ degrees and commenced his PhD at the age of 22. This was all related to Astrophysics and not Climatology.

He does have other interests and is an Honorary Fellow in Genealogical, Paleographic and Heraldic Studies at the University of Strathclyde.

I think this aptly describes to me the complete difference between us.

You conflate water vapour with the whole water cycle as does the NASA literature. To me reading the NASA website it's very poorly written to the extent that it is very unclear what is actually meant. The way language is used, any kind of mix of the water cycle could be used for any particular hypothysis. You mix up wv and the water cycle as well - water vapour is a subset of the water cycle and the effects of wv in the atmosphere COULD include cloud, rain, snow and ice .. or indeed not .. evaporation might be included or not.

You almost got that one correct. Water vapour is a subset of the water cycle and so it is conflated with the other states of water – clouds, liquid, snow and ice. All states are (not COULD be) taken into account (and evaporation) when considering the effect of the water cycle on temperatures. The net effect is one of forcing temperatures upwards.

No I'm not aware of these occurrences by name. I am aware of various incidiences which include a warming period in the middle ages and if I remember correctly there have been times where the Thames has frozen. But on average each successive decade is warmer than the next unsurprisingly - I'm yet to see any Climate Scientist take issue with the coverage of the BBC or The Guardian however.

If temperatures now are higher than 25,000 years ago, then, on average, every second, or whichever longer period you choose, has seen an increase in temperature, but your post at #244 reads as if there has been a continual increase in temperatures since then, which is clearly not correct.

Humans create errors either intentionally or by mistake eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50989423

This is what I'm talking about as regards manipulation of temperature data, although it only gives the "Climate Science" opinion.

NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data Scientists at NASA—as well as other groups—constantly work to ensure that the data being used to estimate global average temperatures are as accurate as possible. As time goes on, updates can lead to small changes to estimates for previous years. These changes, however, are much too small to...

climatefeedback.org

All Science starts with "Swithering" .. if it wasn't then there would be no science to be done would there ? as everything would be known instantaneously.

I note other scientists disagree with the extreme opinions of the IPCC .. and they are ostrasized rather than their opinions and others taken into account.

Of course people make mistakes, and it was rather foolish of the two who published the paper to do so without replicating their results first. She had no choice but to retract the whole paper after such an error. Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with my remarks you quoted.

You did not even read your own link did you? If you had you would have read that the UK Met Office’s comment included “the estimated global warming actually becomes smaller when taking into account all the adjustments”. It is good that you acknowledge the link gives the “Climate Science” opinion.

There is an enormous difference between someone swithering as to whether or not something is correct and your vacillation between two opposites.

Your last sentence is very banjoesque. You are aware of work by some unidentified scientists and claim that this work is not taken into account. It has to be in mainstream media for you to have accessed it and therefore taken into account by at least the publications in which it appears – but have you read it, and can you give us some guidance as to who these scientists are?

As previously posted on several occasions I disagree with all the extremists among those who accept that temperatures are rising, and at least in part due to human activity, especially the rantings of Miss Thunberg’s handlers through her mouth. Comments such as we have 8 years left to avoid catastrophe; blaming the Australian bushfires on Australian politicians; shifting the blame from personal overconsumption to governments and multi-national companies; and especially the reported fear it is having on young children who believe the world will end within a few years. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...rrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/ is an article about the apparent effect on children in the UK.

 

[wanton dwarf]

I am going to have to be rude to you. Either you cannot read properly, or fail to understand what is written. If you have a mental problem (eg dyslexia) then I sympathise, as I do with others, or those with limited education, and my history on this forum shows that I do support them against those who mock. If you do not have such a problem then you should not become so involved in matters which you do not know about or cannot comprehend; for ignorance or failing to properly read is no excuse for the errors you make.

ZZZzzz

Totally uninterested in your opinion of me.

Nothing I have ever posted could possibly lead a person of average intelligence to conclude that my son is a Climate Scientist. It is of no consequence whether or not you take offence at me saying it is a lie when you claim he is a Climate Scientist, for that is what it is. Perhaps you should check the definition of Astrophysicist.

You really are self absorbed about your posts. I'm uninterested in your observations of my lack of deductions into some obscure post your wrote months ago.

You almost got that one correct. Water vapour is a subset of the water cycle and so it is conflated with the other states of water – clouds, liquid, snow and ice. All states are (not COULD be) taken into account (and evaporation) when considering the effect of the water cycle on temperatures. The net effect is one of forcing temperatures upwards.

Okay.

Give circumstances where the water cycle increases temperatures and is not just an expression of the environment - in other words energy manifest in the atmosphere from some other action of the water cycle (ie evaporation, wind, transpiration etc) such as clouds.

There are many circumstances where water cycle cools .. such as reflection on Ice & Snow .. evaporation .. rainfall etc

If temperatures now are higher than 25,000 years ago, then, on average, every second, or whichever longer period you choose, has seen an increase in temperature, but your post at #244 reads as if there has been a continual increase in temperatures since then, which is clearly not correct.

Yeah right .. pull the other one.

You did not even read your own link did you? If you had you would have read that the UK Met Office’s comment included “the estimated global warming actually becomes smaller when taking into account all the adjustments”. It is good that you acknowledge the link gives the “Climate Science” opinion.

This is what I'm talking about as regards manipulation of temperature data, although it only gives the "Climate Science" opinion.

I didn't state I agreed with the article .. but it gave you information about the temperature scenarios I was talking about given you stated you didn't know what I was talking about. Blaming me for giving you an example of something you were not aware of is cute.

Your last sentence is very banjoesque. You are aware of work by some unidentified scientists and claim that this work is not taken into account. It has to be in mainstream media for you to have accessed it and therefore taken into account by at least the publications in which it appears – but have you read it, and can you give us some guidance as to who these scientists are?

No I didn't say any of this. I said the quote below .. are you saying that all scientists agree with the IPCC ? Make your position clear rather than manipulating circumstances towards information I didn't give.

I note other scientists disagree with the extreme opinions of the IPCC .. and they are ostrasized rather than their opinions and others taken into account.

 

[Old McDonald]

ZZZzzz

Totally uninterested in your opinion of me.

I give up on you and will make no further attempt at debate.

You cannot follow the flow and content of a debate, not even remembering what you previously posted, leading to claims you have not posted things that are still there for all to see. Because of this you cannot follow responses to your posts, and, it is quite apparent, fail to read them properly, in turn making your further responses confusing, irrelevant or nonsensical.

 

[Mr Jones]

No idea of how to use a smartphone to send the link.

Google Climate and the money trail, our favourite Scandanavian teen gets a mention, and names the huge firms behind ms T.

 

[Still Farming]

 

[Highland Mule]

View attachment 858119

Except it’s not. It’s a copper mine in Chile. Well done for failing to fact check and spreading misinformation - keep that up and you’ll get a job working for Boris.

 

[renewablejohn]

Except it’s not. It’s a copper mine in Chile. Well done for failing to fact check and spreading misinformation - keep that up and you’ll get a job working for Boris.

You beat me to it.

 

[Highland Mule]

You beat me to it.

If you like, you can correct him in the other two places he’s spammed the forum.

 

[czechmate]

View attachment 858119

I think you omitted your “allegedly “