Greta Thunberg

TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
Even though this goes against my argument, there is some truth in what you say. Organisations do like to bend data to suit their desired outcome, I see it all the time in my line of work, but the data is there for others to use, the reasons for the adjustments are there for all to read and the methodology for calculating and filling in the blanks are there for all to challenge. People are free to create their own charts. If you're not going to go and do your own analysis then at some point you have to ask yourself, who do I trust more, the scientists and the mathematicians or the politicians and the businessmen? The temperature increase might be a blip in the history of the world, of course, but evidence such as CO2 parts per million, coral reef bleaching and giant floating islands of plastic certainly aren't.
Click to expand...
I have some sympathy for your argument, but only some.

In reality I think there is bending of the "truth" from all quarters. Climate change has become a political movement, and not just amongst politicians. Scientists may also have non-scientific motivations and reasons to justify to themselves why data might be "adjusted". It's become heresy to even suggest that climate change may not be quite as bad as we feared. Scientists are concerned about their reputation, their funding, their jobs and so nearly all of them are forced to go with the flow.

Sometimes, I would suggest a bending of the truth may be done with all best intentions. For example scientists may spot some data which implies a certain result and may chose to bury it, in case the public misinterpret it. As happened with the IPCC deleted emails on data from Chinese weather stations which did not fit the models. They *thought* they were doing the right thing.

I find the BBC's position astonishing and appalling in equal measure. Here you have an institution whose guiding principles at the very core are to provide clear, unbiased and honest reporting and not to take a political stance on anything. Of course we know journalists have their own leanings so inevitably there's sometimes some slant or another. However, in direct contradiction with and defiance of their charter, they have decided *as a policy decision* to not report on any articles which suggest climate change is less of a threat than we currently believe. Any and all reports questioning it are suppressed, Orwellian state-style. This is an absolute disgrace IMO.

It is idiotic policies like this which have led to people called Bubble with pink hair, chaining themselves to the Shell building. Bubble knows absolutely fuck all about climate science and cannot be blamed for the hysteria which has been whipped up by people who should know better. Climate change is happening, but is manageable. It's very slowly progressing and we may even be able to reverse it over the coming centuries. And yet Bubble thinks we'll all be dead in 10 years and so is acting as she does. Understandably if you thought that.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I have some sympathy for your argument, but only some.

In reality I think there is bending of the "truth" from all quarters. Climate change has become a political movement, and not just amongst politicians. Scientists may also have non-scientific motivations and reasons to justify to themselves why data might be "adjusted". It's become heresy to even suggest that climate change may not be quite as bad as we feared. Scientists are concerned about their reputation, their funding, their jobs and so nearly all of them are forced to go with the flow.

Sometimes, I would suggest a bending of the truth may be done with all best intentions. For example scientists may spot some data which implies a certain result and may chose to bury it, in case the public misinterpret it. As happened with the IPCC deleted emails on data from Chinese weather stations which did not fit the models. They *thought* they were doing the right thing.

I find the BBC's position astonishing and appalling in equal measure. Here you have an institution whose guiding principles at the very core are to provide clear, unbiased and honest reporting and not to take a political stance on anything. Of course we know journalists have their own leanings so inevitably there's sometimes some slant or another. However, in direct contradiction with and defiance of their charter, they have decided *as a policy decision* to not report on any articles which suggest climate change is less of a threat than we currently believe. Any and all reports questioning it are suppressed, Orwellian state-style. This is an absolute disgrace IMO.
Click to expand...
You don't need to keep putting the word 'adjusted' inside quotes as though there is some impropriety about it, the data is admittedly changed as per their explanations. Others are free to create their own charts and algorithms from the same data and quantify those but nobody appears to be doing so, and some instead choose to attack people who are trying to create a picture to understand if or how something affects something else. I don't really know about the IPCC stuff but I do know there were adjustments made due to the different type of temperature monitoring equipment from weather station to weather station (and from time periods to time periods) which caused a change in the data. Perhaps they couldn't confirm the accuracy of the values/equipment and thought it best to not include it.
 
blueinsa said:
Back into your safe space mate.
Click to expand...

Watched it for you after all, a brilliant parody that totally undermines the position of climate change activists with its devastatingly accurate portrayal of a girl some on the other side of the argument feel is being exploited but thankfully is still open to mockery. Some great science to debunk the myths in there as well. Well done for liking it from your safe space
 
A festive message from Greta to all Bluemooners, “How dare you have a fucking Merry Christmas.”

Article from The Times today;
A golfer was criticised yesterday for comparing Ms Thunberg to Hitler and Stalin. The European Tour winner Gonzalo Fernández-Castaño posted on Twitter that his flights produced 23 tonnes of carbon dioxide last year. In the caption, he wrote: “Another year in the books! Enjoy @GretaThunberg.” When one fan replied that it was not a good look to be mocking Time magazine’s person of the year, the Spaniard, 39, hit back: “So what? Adolf Hitler was @TIME Person of the Year in 1938. So was Stalin, not once but twice.”
 
Last edited:
Again.....Greta is not the problem.

Her financial backers and PR team are.

German railways had their cards marked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.