Global Student Strike for Climate Change

[RUPERTKBD]

Just now, Lancaster said:

If the a major talking point is "the science is settled", it is very important to figure how it is supposedly claimed to be settled.

Even the whole "97% of scientists believes in climate change" is bogus. 

 

I've skimmed the list for the 11000 "scientists"... and it's not just a few rogue signatories... a substantial amount of people shouldn't be given any weight in the debate.  I don't care what some PhD candidate in Communications thinks about climate change.... that person's opinion is as valid as Kim Kardashian, another person who I don't give a crap about. 

 

 

Whatever the purpose, whatever the intention... you never make stuff up to prove a point.  If this is in a court of law, committing fraudulent acts will immediately compromise your credibility and will ultimately make you lose your case.  The climate change debate is unfortunately moving towards that direction.  

that's not what the claim is. it's a sneaky little dodge by the CC deniers. The actual claim is 97% of Climate scientists:

 

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

Quote

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

 

This is probably the 100th time I've posted this link on CDC. Most times it's ignored by the deniers, although some of the more adventurous try and write it off as a bunch of guys "trying to maintain their funding".

 

It's pretty tough to try and make the claim that NASA and the IPCC are "Fake News!"

[RUPERTKBD]

BTW: Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the show Morrow was part of:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsiders_(Australian_TV_program)

 

Quote

 

Outsiders is an Australian television news and commentary show broadcast on Sky News Australia.^[1] The show is currently co-hosted by editor of The Spectator magazine Rowan Dean, The Friday Show host Rita Panahi, and The Daily Telegraph opinion editor James Morrow, and features long-form discussion of political issues between conservative contributors.^[2][3]

The show is broadcast from the Sky News Centre in the Sydney suburb of Macquarie Park. The series debuted in a pilot episode on 4 December 2016,^[1] and began airing weekly in 2017,^[4] before the format expanded to a two-hour Sunday morning edition and hourly primetime episodes in 2018.^[5] From October to December 2018, the show aired late at night, four times a week.^[6]

The show debuted with three co-hosts, two of whom were fired for separate controversial comments. Former Labor leader Mark Latham was the show's primary host until his employment was terminated by Sky News on 29 March 2017, following several controversial statements made on the show.^[7] On 2 November 2018, former Liberal MP Ross Cameron became the second co-host to be sacked, after making racist remarks on the program.^[8]

The format was designed as a response to the long-running ABC program Insiders, which many conservatives see as aimed towards the "inner-city leftist class".^[2] The hosting trio described themselves as "Trump's Aussie mates"^[9] and proudly boasted "absolutely no balance whatsoever", intending to "do the opposite of [Insiders host] Barrie Cassidy".^[2] In 2017, the program aired at 10am AEDT, beginning as Insiders concluded, but in 2018, the program added a second hour, beginning at the same time as Insiders and competing with it directly.^[1]

The program was the second format co-hosted by both Cameron (following the now-defunct Keneally and Cameron) and Latham (who continued co-hosting Jones + Co until his sacking), and is the first hosting role for Dean. It was developed following the appearance of all three men on an episode of Paul Murray Live.^[10]

 

 

[inane]

Speaking of Australia

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/12/australia-fires-rage-out-of-control-catastrophic-day

 

Twiddling thumbs... 

[Lancaster]

7 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

that's not what the claim is. it's a sneaky little dodge by the CC deniers. The actual claim is 97% of Climate scientists:

 

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

This is probably the 100th time I've posted this link on CDC. Most times it's ignored by the deniers, although some of the more adventurous try and write it off as a bunch of guys "trying to maintain their funding".

 

It's pretty tough to try and make the claim that NASA and the IPCC are "Fake News!"

This video helps explains that 97% part a bit better.

 

 

[Baer.]

19 minutes ago, inane said:

Speaking of Australia

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/12/australia-fires-rage-out-of-control-catastrophic-day

 

Twiddling thumbs... 

People will live in the driest deserts in the world and still complain that their yard is on fire. Lol.

[RUPERTKBD]

2 hours ago, Lancaster said:

This video helps explains that 97% part a bit better.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you think a video posted by America Uncovered, would give more reliable information than the many scientific organizations in the link that I posted, but here's what I was able to find out about your source:

 

https://www.patreon.com/americauncovered

Quote

About America Uncovered

America Uncovered is a satirical news show. We aim to bring you interesting stories that reflect a variety of perspectives. And sometimes they're even mildly funny. As of October 2019, we produce roughly 2 episodes/posts per week.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Youtube videos are about as reliable a source of information as Facebook and Twitter.

[Lancaster]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

 

I'm not sure why you think a video posted by America Uncovered, would give more reliable information than the many scientific organizations in the link that I posted, but here's what I was able to find out about your source:

 

https://www.patreon.com/americauncovered

As far as I'm concerned, Youtube videos are about as reliable a source of information as Facebook and Twitter.

He isn't putting forth information, he's just breaking down the citations from the NASA source.  

He isn't denying climate change either, just venturing beyond the headlines.  

[RUPERTKBD]

Just now, Lancaster said:

He isn't putting forth information, he's just breaking down the citations from the NASA source.  

He isn't denying climate change either, just venturing beyond the headlines.  

Is he saying that NASA is incorrect on their assertions about the percentage of Climate Scientists who agree on Anthropogenic Climate Change? If so, I'll take NASA's word on it and if not, it has nothing to do with what I said.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

that's not what the claim is. it's a sneaky little dodge by the CC deniers. The actual claim is 97% of Climate scientists:

 

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

This is probably the 100th time I've posted this link on CDC. Most times it's ignored by the deniers, although some of the more adventurous try and write it off as a bunch of guys "trying to maintain their funding".

 

It's pretty tough to try and make the claim that NASA and the IPCC are "Fake News!"

If been proven false more than the 100 times you posted it. NASA is basing that off the Oreskes and cooks report which has been refuted and debunked over and over. Even Scientists that were chalked in pro side on that report have came out stated they were falsely quoted. Anyone still using that claim has deeply stuck there head in the sand. 
 

don’t believe American uncovered. How about 

forbes. 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/amp/

[inane]

17 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

If been proven false more than the 100 times you posted it. NASA is basing that off the Oreskes and cooks report which has been refuted and debunked over and over. Even Scientists that were chalked in pro side on that report have came out stated they were falsely quoted. Anyone still using that claim has deeply stuck there head in the sand. 
 

don’t believe American uncovered. How about 

forbes. 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/amp/

From your article

 

it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%

 

And

 

Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus.

 

So, ok? 

[Lancaster]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Is he saying that NASA is incorrect on their assertions about the percentage of Climate Scientists who agree on Anthropogenic Climate Change? If so, I'll take NASA's word on it and if not, it has nothing to do with what I said.

Umm... did you even watch the video?  He is using NASA's word and sources.  

 

As per the first source by NASA:

"Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.""

 

This means a few filters has been applied.  One being a glorified word search, another one only those with a position (those deemed inconclusive, etc., are not included).

 

This little part is how they got that 97%.  

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

 

11944 - 66.4% (no opinion given) = 4013

4013 * 32.6% (opinion that supports AGW) = 97%  <--- That is how they got the 97%

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

 

[UnkNuk]

2 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Umm... did you even watch the video?  He is using NASA's word and sources.  

 

As per the first source by NASA:

"Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.""

 

This means a few filters has been applied.  One being a glorified word search, another one only those with a position (those deemed inconclusive, etc., are not included).

 

This little part is how they got that 97%.  

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

 

11944 - 66.4% (no opinion given) = 4013

4013 * 32.6% (opinion that supports AGW) = 97%  <--- That is how they got the 97%

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

 

First, thanks Lancaster for posting that video from America Uncovered.  Very interesting.

 

When I've read that 97% of climate scientists supported AGW I assumed it meant 97% of all climate scientists.  I was surprised to learn that figure is qualified as explained in the video and in your post.

 

This doesn't mean, of course, that the 66.4% who didn't express an opinion don't support AGW.  In fact, they may have just been working on that assumption without stating it overtly in their paper.   

 

But making that qualification known is, IMO, useful and important.

 

That being said, what do you make of the Forbes article referenced by Forsberg that seems to suggest that 80% of scientists (I'm not sure whether it is talking specifically about climate scientists) support AGW to some degree?

[UnkNuk]

19 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/mickey-mouse-and-other-fake-scientists-revealed-as-signatories-on-climate-petition/ar-BBWqKGP

 

Not that I expected any of you to have read the report out side of the title, but had you did.....

 

"The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle. The most affluent countries are mainly responsible for the historical GHG emissions and generally have the greatest per capita emissions."

To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live, in ways that improve the vital signs summarized by our graphs. Economic and population growth are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel

"Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products"

"Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day, the world population must be stabilized"

 

Aka stop creating a demand for fossil fuels, stop eating meat, stop having kids....

 

Or is it still, do as I say, not as I do????

 

 

I'm not sure what your point is, Forsberg, though I may agree with it.

 

If you believe that AGW is a serious problem then it's probably true that a solution to it is population control, ceasing the use of fossil fuels and changing dietary habits.

 

However, I think it is unlikely (at least in the near future) that the world will come together and enact such a plan.

 

Thus, as has been mentioned before in this group, I think the solution to AGW (assuming one is needed which I realize you don't assume) will lie in technology.  The world should come together in a climate "moon shot" program and pump billions of dollars into technology that will extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere on a very large scale.  Hopefully one can be found.

[UnkNuk]

"Canada's plan to meet its greenhouse-gas emissions targets is among the worst in the G20, according to a new report card on climate action."

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-climate-action-1.5355517

 

As I mentioned, I don't think the world is going to be able to come together and solve AGW simply by cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.

[Lancaster]

31 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

First, thanks Lancaster for posting that video from America Uncovered.  Very interesting.

 

When I've read that 97% of climate scientists supported AGW I assumed it meant 97% of all climate scientists.  I was surprised to learn that figure is qualified as explained in the video and in your post.

 

This doesn't mean, of course, that the 66.4% who didn't express an opinion don't support AGW.  In fact, they may have just been working on that assumption without stating it overtly in their paper.   

 

But making that qualification known is, IMO, useful and important.

 

That being said, what do you make of the Forbes article referenced by Forsberg that seems to suggest that 80% of scientists (I'm not sure whether it is talking specifically about climate scientists) support AGW to some degree?

The vast majority of people probably believe that climate change is happening... just not the notion that it's "settled" that humans are the main culprit. 

The issue with the whole debate is that there's actually 2 different causes merged into one, GHG and pollution.  Everyone probably agrees that we should reduce pollution.  Just GHG.... that's iffy at best.  

 

Say if 50% of all scientists with specialties in climate change.... believes it's caused by humans... there's still 50% of equally as educated and inform specialists who aren't too sure about it.  For a group of people who make their judgement based on empirical evidence, apparently the evidence isn't quite that strong.  

 

Decisions based on incomplete information could be devastating in the long-run.  This isn't just some minute lifestyle changes like only turning down the heat and wearing a warmer sweater for winter.... it's countless jobs, the poverty rate, global economic development, family planning, technological advancements, even potentially wars/conflicts could arise from drastic measures.  There much easier solutions, but unfortunately all concerns will be automatically labelled as "climate deniers". 

 

I mean if the world just build 100+ thorium reactor, it would cut all emission by a huge fraction.  Unfortunately, it feels like the whole climate debate isn't really about the climate, it's more about control and profit.  

 

[infinitecarnage]

 

[RUPERTKBD]

I wasn't sure if this was the place for the following story, or the Wexit thread, but for those who criticize CC activists for not walking the walk, here's some action from one of the big guns:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html

 

Quote

 

A secretive startup backed by Bill Gates has achieved a solar breakthrough aimed at saving the planet.

Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius.

ssentially, Heliogen created a solar oven — one capable of reaching temperatures that are roughly a quarter of what you'd find on the surface of the sun.

The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.

"We are rolling out technology that can beat the price of fossil fuels and also not make the CO2 emissions," Bill Gross, Heliogen's founder and CEO, told CNN Business. "And that's really the holy grail."

Heliogen, which is also backed by billionaire Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, believes the patented technology will be able to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Cement, for example, accounts for 7% of global CO2 emissions, according to the International Energy Agency.

"Bill and the team have truly now harnessed the sun," Soon-Shiong, who also sits on the Heliogen board, told CNN Business. "The potential to humankind is enormous. ... The potential to business is unfathomable."

Unlike traditional solar power, which uses rooftop panels to capture the energy from the sun, Heliogen is improving on what's known as concentrated solar power. This technology, which uses mirrors to reflect the sun to a single point, is not new.

Concentrated solar has been used in the past to produce electricity and, in some limited fashion, to create heat for industry. It's even used in Oman to provide the power needed to drill for oil.

The problem is that in the past concentrated solar couldn't get temperatures hot enough to make cement and steel.

"You've ended up with technologies that can't really deliver super-heated systems," said Olav Junttila, a partner at Greentech Capital Advisors, a clean energy investment bank that has advised concentrated solar companies in the past.

That means renewable energy has not yet disrupted industrial processes such as cement and steelmaking. And that's a problem because the world has an insatiable appetite for those materials. Cement, for instance, is used to make the concrete required to build homes, hospitals and schools. These industries are responsible for more than a fifth of global emissions, according to the EPA.

That's why the potential of Los Angeles-based Heliogen attracted investment from Gates, the Microsoft (MSFT) co-founder who recently surpassed Amazon (AMZN) CEO Jeff Bezos as the world's richest person.

"I'm pleased to have been an early backer of Bill Gross's novel solar concentration technology," Gates said in a statement. "Its capacity to achieve the high temperatures required for these processes is a promising development in the quest to one day replace fossil fuel."

While other concentrated solar companies attacked this temperature problem by adding steel to make the technology stiffer and sturdier, Heliogen and its team of scientists and engineers turned to artificial intelligence.

Heliogen uses computer vision software, automatic edge detection and other sophisticated technology to train a field of mirrors to reflect solar beams to one single spot.

"If you take a thousand mirrors and have them align exactly to a single point, you can achieve extremely, extremely high temperatures," Gross said, who added that Heliogen made its breakthrough on the first day it turned its plant on.

Heliogen said it is generating so much heat that its technology could eventually be used to create clean hydrogen at scale. That carbon-free hydrogen could then be turned into a fuel for trucks and airplanes.

"If you can make hydrogen that's green, that's a gamechanger," said Gross. "Long term, we want to be the green hydrogen company."

For now, Heliogen is squarely focused on solar. One problem with solar is that the sun doesn't always shine, yet industrial companies like cement makers have a constant need for heat. Heliogen said it would solve that issue by relying on storage systems that can hold the solar energy for rainy days.

Now that it has made this breakthrough, Heliogen will focus on demonstrating how the technology can be used in a large-scale application, such as making cement.

"We're in a race. We just want to scale as fast as possible," said Gross.

After the large-scale application, Soon-Shiong said Heliogen would likely be ready to go public.

In the meantime, Heliogen will require a healthy dose of capital to scale and it's working with investors on a private round of funding. Soon-Shiong signaled he plans to invest more in Heliogen. Heliogen declined to provide information on how much money it has raised so far.

"This is an existential issue for your children, for my children and our grandchildren," Soon-Shiong said.

Heliogen's biggest challenge will be convincing industrial companies using fossil fuels to make the investment required to switch over. Gross said the company has been talking to potential customers privately and plans to soon announce its first customers.

"If we go to a cement company and say we'll give you green heat, no CO2, but we'll also save you money, then it becomes a no-brainer," said Gross.

Its biggest selling point is the fact that, unlike fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, sunlight is free. And Heliogen argues its technology is already economical against fossil fuels because of its reliance on AI.

"The only way to compete is to be extremely clever in how you use your materials. And by using software, we're able to do that," Gross said.

 

Nice to see a multi-billionaire that's interested in more than just making himself and his "friends" more billions.... (or in Bone Spurs' case, millions)

 

[UnkNuk]

3 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I wasn't sure if this was the place for the following story, or the Wexit thread, but for those who criticize CC activists for not walking the walk, here's some action from one of the big guns:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html

 

Nice to see a multi-billionaire that's interested in more than just making himself and his "friends" more billions.... (or in Bone Spurs' case, millions)

 

If they can actually pull this off they'll probably make a lot more billions!  

 

Which isn't a bad thing.  If people can actually make money by converting to green energy the transition will take care of itself.

 

That's why I'm hoping some one can invent a profitable large scale method of extracting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.  

[RUPERTKBD]

Just now, UnkNuk said:

If they can actually pull this off they'll probably make a lot more billions!  

 

Which isn't a bad thing.  If people can actually make money by converting to green energy the transition will take care of itself.

 

That's why I'm hoping some one can invent a profitable large scale method of extracting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.  

They can and I've been making that point for quite a while. the problem lies with the campaign of disinformation that is disseminated by powerful people with close ties to the energy sector. (including the one currently living in the White House)

 

There's also a cost associated with not doing do. What do you think the bill is for the cleanup after all the Hurricanes and Wildfires? They've been increasing in severity and there's no reason to think they won't continue to do so.

[UnkNuk]

6 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

They can and I've been making that point for quite a while. the problem lies with the campaign of disinformation that is disseminated by powerful people with close ties to the energy sector. (including the one currently living in the White House)

 

There's also a cost associated with not doing do. What do you think the bill is for the cleanup after all the Hurricanes and Wildfires? They've been increasing in severity and there's no reason to think they won't continue to do so.

Why would the traditional energy sector oppose such extraction?  Seems to me that such a technology could be the saving grace for oil and gas.  If the harmful byproducts of oil and gas could be removed and used profitably there wouldn't be so much opposition to oil and gas.

 

Yes? No?