'How dare you': Greta Thunberg tears into world leaders over inaction at U.N. climate summit

What a ridiculous claim:

​

 

Do you ever feel the urge to check your claims for accuracy?

How many times does 0.3 go into 8.8?​

 

I call it “The dirty bedroom excuse”

“Awww! Muuuuuum! Why do I have to clean up MY bedroom when Billy doesn’t have to clean up his!”

 

Does such ultimately serve to change the facts of the presented matter? Does it do anything to invalidate the fact that Great Thunberg is not addressing the primary polluters of the world, and is instead limiting her message to the safest and cleanest of venues to be heard?

 

For the simple reason that, in the case of pollution production, size truly does matter.

 

Thousands? List of names please.

 

Er...we were talking about CO2 pollution, which Greta believes is real.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree"

I can't quickly find the actual number of "actively publishing climate scientists" in the world, though I'm sure that can be ascertained.

 

On the IPCC website

https://www.ipcc.ch/authors/

Each report may have over one hundred authors and each author is reviewing multiple research papers each with different authors

It is a pyramid effect with the IPCC reports at the top of that pyramid

Remember there have been 5 reports on each aspect of climate change - the physical basis, adaptation, mitigation as well as the synthesis reports and the special reports

They are currently writing the sixth update

 

And something should very very definitely be done about that

Gee wouldn’t it be nice if we had some international binding agreements on pollution? We could start with co2 and..............ooops!

 

Peer reviewed=likeminded scientists who don't want to risk funding.

 

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is essential to photosynthesis, and so to all life. Every living cell is carbon based and every single carbon atom in every living cell, pre-existed as a molecule of carbon dioxide, before earth's natural processes converted it into a living cell.

For every doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, there’s an average 35 percent increase in plant growth efficiency. They grow better in warmer and colder temperatures and in wetter and drier soils, make better use of soil nutrients, and resist diseases and pests better. Consequently, they expand their ranges, shrinking deserts and spreading into both colder (toward the poles) and warmer (toward the equator) regions. They also improve their fruit-to-fiber ratio. The result is more food for everything that eats plants—or eats something that eats plants.

Chemicals in air pollution

Sulfur dioxide

Nitrogen dioxide

Ozone

Benzene

Toluene

Dioxin

This claim is easily checked and falsified

 

What an absurdly false claim:


Who's not on that list? There are 11 countries dirtier than China and ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE countries with dirtier air than the US!

There are only EIGHT nations in the entire world with cleaner air than the US.

https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/EN.ATM.PM25.MC.M3/rankings

 

Easily checked and refuted



With all the great work we do to protect the environment, it's frankly painful to hear the ignorance stated so confidently, by some, that we are as careless in our attitude toward conservation as the dirtiest nations in the world, when in fact we do a world class job of cleaning up after ourselves.

 

I know that, and you know I know it.
Stop being deliberately fraudulent.

Greta - and most climate scientists - believe CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing potentially catastrophic climate change. That's why people refer to 'CO2 pollution' in a 'shorthand' manner (while those of us who have studied chemistry know CO2 is not actually a 'pollutant" .

Then we have actual air pollution from burning fossil fuels such as carcinogenic particulates and poisonous gases (oxides of N, S) and also from burning wood (harmful smoke particulates).

That's why VW and others are planning an exit from ICE vehicles, to meet ever more stringent government regulations

Then we have all other non-biodegradable waste and fossil based fertilisers and agricultural poisons that are contaminating the land and the sea.....for which you have supplied some data (while being deliberately misleading about my CO2 emissions data ie, China 1; US 2; India 3; and so on).

Conclusion: we are all in this together. Cooperation and coordination on a global scale is necessary, even if that terrifies your Conservative, individualistic, instincts.

The 3rd world will need assistance, in order to avoid traversing the first industrial revolution - based on fossil fuels - as we have done over the last 200 years.

 

So you admit the poster claiming "thousands of scientists" was talking out of her ass. I agree .

 

As I suspected your claim that "thousands of scientists say" is just talking out your ass. You have no real idea and are just reciting bumper sticker talking points.

 

And as I suspected you rejected truth

Did you bother to click on the link? Did you bother to actually look at any time at the citations within the IPCC reports?

So let us do a random sampling of ONE report and ONE chapter of that report to look at the papers cited - now this is only the first of 14 pages of citations supporting that single chapter

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf

Page 210 if you want to check me - the report is 1454 pages long so I don’t expect you to read the entirety and it is only ONE of the many many reports published by the IPCC

So, tell me, out of interest, how many people did you think were involved?

 

So you move the goal post from thousands of scientists accept the AGW hypothesis in full to thousands were "involved" at some level with the scientist that wholeheartedly endorse the AGW hypothesis . LOL

 

See the things you are NOT taking into account are this

1. This is global
2. Every country has climate scientists
3. Climate scientists are not the only ones doing research on the climate, indeed it is multidisciplinary
4. Climate scientists are not only employed in the government sector they are employed in the education sector, private sector, self employed etc etc etc
5. Climate science is a very very broad field with multiple disciplines adding a voice
6. Point five expands the group involved to include non scientists like economists and even sociologists

 

You do realize that the vast majority of "climate scientists" are nothing more than meteorologist like half the ditzy blondes reading the weather on your local news are don't you?

 

How did I “move the goalposts”?

This was my original post

Each IPCC report has more than 150 authors and lead authors but this number is augmented by many many more who take time out to do systematic reviews if the literature and does not include all of those people who wrote the papers being quoted

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf

Here is a list of reviewers for just ONE shorter report

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/03/2019Refinement_ListofAuthors190315.pdf

 

No because that is a fallacy
https://www.usq.edu.au/study/degrees/agriculture-and-environment/applied-climate-science

It used to be so many many years ago but is now a distinct scientific discipline requiring a mastery of subjects such as physics and statistics

 

Using a study or paper on an entirely different subject as source material for your hypothesis in no way means the author of that study endorses or is a participant in your hypothesis.

 

You can't have it both ways. First you claim "thousands of scientists " then when I point out that the vast majority of your so called scientists are nothing more than meteorologist you destroy your own argument by admitting there are very few actual scientists in this field and they have been created by the existence of the AGW hypothesis in a self promotion scheme to perpetuate itself and add an illusion of legitimacy.