Trump mocks teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg

Future gen don't exist. You can't take anything from them and they don't have a say.

 

Stick a thermometer in your butt.... and you go tell me that the margin of error of that peace of "junk" equipment aint accurate and the margin of error is far too great.

That is some cheap "ass" equipment and you know it. How dare you claim that measuring the temperature around the globe with state of the art equipment aint trust worthy. Utterly total nonsense.

 

It would accurately be measuring the temperature of my butt, but nothing beyond that.

It isn't. There aren't enough "state of the art" stations. More thermometers are needed. HUNDREDS of MILLIONS more...

 

It only proves even an amateur can measure a temperature accurately with a flimsy peace of crap.
And here you are a scientist can not match that! HILARIOUS.

I wouldn't know why. There are weather forecasts in every country. Them thermometers are already there.
That you do not trust the outcome because it bursts your precious bubble is of no concern of me and of no valid argument.

 

Study up on Statistical Mathematics.

What is being measured is the temperatures of particular locations, not the temperature of the Earth as a whole. Temperatures can vary by as much as 20degF per MILE. You need hundreds of millions of thermometers if you wish to measure the temperature of the Earth within any usable margin of error.

 

Enough with the misinformation. We've already gone over this. You don't need hundreds of millions of thermometers to measure the mean temperature of Earth. I know this because a lot of people are doing it. Just because YOU can't figure it out doesn't mean that it can't be done. Plus, reanalysis does use hundreds of millions of observations to measure the mean temperature of Earth. Regarding the temperature gradient first understand that the probability of this happening at any two adjacent points that are 1 mile apart is actually very long then understand that it doesn't matter in the context of a mean temperature over the course a month or year because at these temporal scales frontogenesis is noise that washes out and finally understand that it doesn't matter anyway because reanalysis already handles this appropriately. So your argument is factually incorrect in multiple different ways.

If you disagree with the accuracy already published by the umpteen different institution who publish a global mean temperature then let's see how YOU do it. I'll get you start download the source code (here) for NASA's GISTEMP. That lets you recreate their dataset exactly as they do it. Perform whatever statistical analysis you feel is appropriate and publish your findings. There is fame, glory, and likely a lot of money in the offering if you can shock the world with a revelation that know else has figured out in over a century of performing this procedure. Give it a shot.

 

I mock her because any person who purports to speak with authority - yet never allow herself to be questioned or challenged - should and must be mocked. If she can not stand the heat she should stay out of the kitchen. Apart from that, she spouts absolute bunkum.

 

Do you believe that the Earth is not warming or that humans do not play a significant role in that warming?

 

Thats the same as asking... do you think a bullet in the head does not kill people? Just because I say responsible people can handle guns. Thunberg and XR (which is quickly becoming defunct and seen as pathetic) are not arguing that the climate changes/varies over a given period of decades. They are saying we will ALL be extinct in the near future, an apocolypse is upon us. They are also DEMANDING through violence and shutting down central London that WE, the ordinary people, stop driving and flying et al. and the government does that now, laws to stop me driving and flying on holiday. While the XR members and THunberg abuse every possible known transport facility for their own publicity and 15 minutes of fame. I dont care about apocolypse now crap.

 

Extinction Rebellion is seen as a joke, by the vast majority of British people. They have lost their silly Hippie, middle-class cultish protest. The narrative in Britain has swung right around against them. Thousands of them have been arrested. No one likes them or cares about them. The sooner these morons are shut down completely the better. The really good thing resulting from this is that the XR cult is seen for what it is - a joke. It gives me faith that reasonable, right-thinking people are dominating the narrative in Britain. Of course, the leftie liberals still think "link" Piltdown Man was real.

 

...hard pass on that analogy.

I just wanted to clarify your opinion on climate change. Is it fair to say that you believe the Earth is warming and that humans are a significant factor in that warming; however, you disagree with the theory that climate change is a significant threat and/or that we need to significantly alter our lifestyles and behavior to adjust for that threat?

 

It is not fair to say that I believe the Earth is warming. Hence my reference to "Piltdown Man". Everything in life evolves thus requires an equal evolvement, an adjustment in human behaviour. There is no evidence of changes in our planet which can or will be changed by ending the use of cars or airplane or ships or TVs. My main stance is to do with the constant aiming all problems at ordinary people... I must change - I must get rid of my TV or car - I must stop flying - who is doing the ordering of this? Rich Film Stars, rich sports stars - rich politicians on the leftie side. Picture Johny Depp twittering, from beside his massive heated swimming pool on his 500 acres with Heliport.... "you plebs must stop driving to your workplace for your few dollars per day... you are destroying the planet"!! LOL LOL Not me. I dont care.

 

Oh there's evidence alright. And a lot of it. There is a 150+ years of it spanning many disciplines of science. It is known without a shadow of a doubt that increases in CO2 result in increases in radiative forcing on the plant and that humans are nearly 100% responsible for the 130 ppm increase from 280 ppm to 410 ppm. What isn't know with certainty is how much warming will occur and at what temperature various tipping point feedbacks will activate.

 

I have yet to see one so-called "expert" say/show... "this is the problem, here is empirical evidence, this is happening, this is specifically what is causing it and how and this is what we must do"... when a so-called "expert" speaks they always tell the ordinary person what to do, with politicians and two-faced film stars telling the rest of us what we are doing wrong. Not in my name they dont.

 

So here's the problem: You misunderstand the policy recommendations being made by those who are, legitimately, concerned by the human driven climate change. No one is suggesting that you get of your TV, your car, stop flying, etc. Even if you (or the celebrities which draw your ire) make the decision to live as environmental hermits, then the problem of climate change will continue almost completely unabated. The policy recommendations are almost exclusively focused on the biggest drivers of climate change - corporations and governments.

Now, making those alterations might indirectly affect your life by causing some aspects of your life to become more expensive and other aspects to become inexpensive and they might result in some differences to your consumer choices (electric vehicles becoming cheaper and gas vehicles becoming more fuel efficient and eventually phased out, for example), but there is - again - no one suggesting that you need to dramatically alter your lifestyle.

 

I don't misunderstand anything. It does not take a genius to see who the changes are aimed at. For example; Plastic floating in the sea is being disingenuously conflated with climate change. Sheeplike people, such as the Great Thunberg flock, encourage such conflation in the belief that most people are as thick as them. I can tell you that XR is literally a laughing stock in Britain. They are seen as mental cases. Which of course they are.
I have not seen one example of a government clamping down on the big corps - in UK it is seen for what it is... a back door way of bringing in socialism. With the weirdos (Greens etc) unbelievably appearing on TV saying... "I am doing my bit to save the planet, I have become a Vegetarian"!! This is the level of a dimwit 3-year-old. Then there is the issue of... who will suffer? not Johny Depp or George Clooney or Oprah Winfrey and the rest of the leftie brigade.

 

Read the IPCC AR5 WGI and WGII reports for a very brief summary of the science behind the cause and the problems that may arise as a result. I say "very brief" because it only scratches the surface of the science, but understand that it is still about 3000 pages and considers nearly 20,000 academic publications discussing the lines of evidence currently available.

In regards to you "what we must do" question...that is more open for debate and interpretation. The IPCC AR5 WGIII report only speaks in terms of what-if scenarios. It makes no recommendations as to what must be done. It only says if you do this then this will be the most likely result. Remember, we don't HAVE to do anything to mitigate the warming. That's up to the general public and politicians to decide whether we should mitigate it or adapt to it.

 

Define significant in context....

 

A non-random causal factor. In other words, the influence of humans on the global warming is not so small as to be confused with statistical noise. We actually are causing the warming, to a certain extent.

 

Take about some words that mean nothing.

 

Humans are a significant causal factor in the global warming. And while the typical understanding of that significance is a 5% p-value, the data supports the assertion that humans, through the emission of greenhouse gases, are responsible for nearly 100% of the recently experienced warming.

 

You might want to provide a link Mr Lawyer or look up copy right infringement....

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statistically_significant.asp
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

 

Ah yes an article that says the sun has very little impact on climate is one to be taken serious.
Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who have written 61 climate models. Each takes a slightly different approach to the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric chemistry.
The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation. ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland.

We cant predict Hurricanes path many times but you sure do trust these same models...

 

I agree.

Yes, we have.

Correct, but you do need that many thermometers if you wish to do so with any usable accuracy.

No, they aren't. Nobody is doing it with any usable accuracy.

It can't be done. Not enough thermometers.

No it doesn't.

Probability is actually rather high. There are multiple things that cause such temperature gradients.

Repetitious question already answered. (RQAA)

NASA is not science. NASA has no global temperature data.

NASA's "data" commits numerous math errors. I have already explained such errors.