Climate change

Airborne_Again wrote:

They did. The thing is that in both cases you look at tiny pieces of fact and take it to be the whole truth, while overlooking all other facts. That is the essence of cherry picking.

Then you have to read more thoroughly. What I said was in fact two things:

• Svalbard is very special. This is due to the geographic position. But it’s also is a very good proxy for the insanely complex ocean currents, and their effects on the climate, and the other way around. Again, due to it’s geographic position. This is basically why the place is crowded with climate scientists from all over the world.
• The shrinking of the glaciers in the Northern hemisphere is a natural process that is inevitable. It’s simply the end of the ice age. It has happened several times before.

Now, increased CO2 might accelerate this natural process of melting the last tiny remnants of the ice age. However, this is for the time being just pure speculation. There is no way this can be proven to be the case. Because, the only thing we know with 100 % certainty to be a fact, is that shrinking of glaciers is bound to happen regardless. How fast or slow, and why they sometimes melt fast, sometimes slow, is unknown. It is however expected by climate scientist that they will disappear, and the main reasons are well understood. Earth’s orbit and a wobbling axis of rotation mainly, together with a north pole in the middle of the ocean. This is “randomized” by ocean currents, volcanoes and whatnot.

Ask a climate scientist if the melting of glaciers is due to global warming and he/she will answer YES. He/she may even say it is the archetypical example of what global warming will do, and does. IMO, neither media nor politicians understand what this YES really means not by the looks of it at least. They simply takes it as a sign from (the climate) god that we must eat less red meat, and increase the taxes on fuel

Airborne_Again wrote:

And how might that be?

I will bite, again…..because she is a virtue signaler, somewhat unstable, little girl. She is used and somewhat abused by her activist parents, activist factions and silly politicians who stand a vulnerable small girl up on podiums to preach to Presidents. They think it cool, and with the masses.

Is it just me or do any of you actually think this is normal?

I sat and watched her today in a park in Glasgow. Then sat and watched as the Rainbow Warrior blasted up the Clyde, despite being told not to by Scottish Plod. The Erskine bridge was closed for over an hour in case the mast hit the bridge. Dear God……It is all a giant pantomime……

I did find this somewhat amusing

When Governments forbid something, then do not prevent it, although they have the means to do so, they are encouraging the breakdown of order.
To be obeyed, do not give orders you cannot enforce, or will not enforce.

Yes I totally don’t get why the UK allows these dickheads to block a motorway by laying down on it. If I did that I would be arrested, so how do these clowns get away with it? Presumably because the PC media gives them coverage.

Greta is no doubt a heroine in her home country but elsewhere she is ridiculed for being a puppet, and for the various stunts like sailing in a big boat which used a huge amount of energy to manufacture. She undermines any scientific proposition which may underpin the climate change debate. The debate should be a serious one, but has become trivialised. The media is already poor at getting across a scientific message and this is not helping.

One has to wonder what the “Greta generation” will eventually do when they grow up. How many are they? What about Greta herself. Will she ever grow up and actually do something herself, or simply continue to be a “protest child” ?

But, she is not entirely wrong in that politicians are just bla bla bla Well, that and taxes

BeechBaby wrote:

I will bite, again…..because she is a virtue signaler, somewhat unstable, little girl. She is used and somewhat abused by her activist parents, activist factions and silly politicians who stand a vulnerable small girl up on podiums to preach to Presidents. They think it cool, and with the masses.

I don’t really know if your post is worth responding to, but anyway. In what sense is she “unstable”? Calling her “little” is just a way, well, belittling her. Her parents are not activists, where did you get that idea? Lots of people have claimed that she is a “puppet” but no one has ever managed to show any evidence for it.

Of course “climate deniers” hate her as she has attracted a lot of attention to the climate change issue.

Airborne_Again wrote:

I think that “climate deniers” are

1) Cherry picking. E.g. looking at temperatures at a single location like Svalbard. A different kind of cherry picking which was popular some years ago, was claiming to show that global temperatures were, in fact, decreasing. This was based on taking a high-temperature outlier year (1997) as baseline. That kind of argument ended when the last half of the 2010’s were found to have been even warmer than 1997.

Talking of cherry picking: On page 7 of the AR6 report we see yet another hockey stick where the medieval and roman warm periods “magically” have disappeared. It’s either bad executed science or deliberate manipulation as the politicians who don’t read 3000 pages quickly will jump in their seats and get scared.

Here’s an analysis of the graph

Airborne_Again wrote:

I think that “climate deniers” are

…and you should refrain from using that kind of language. It only has one purpose: to compare the other part to “holocaust deniers” etc. in order to shutdown the debate.

Michael_J wrote:

…and you should refrain from using that kind of language. It only has one purpose: to compare the other part to “holocaust deniers” etc. in order to shutdown the debate.

Point taken! I should not and I apologize.