Greta Thurnburg is Times Magazine Person of the Year 2019

[DarkTZeratul]

If Alex Jones makes a JPEG of NASA data then puts in on his site, it doesn't change the truth of the matter and the source is still NASA.

No, but given his history of making up bullshit I'm unlikely to trust that Alex Jones has accurately presented that data in his JPEG and would ask anyone to show me the data directly from NASA instead. Which is exactly the situation with the data you presented from Watts Up With That, which is a blog that routinely lies and disseminates false information regarding Climate Change. Because it's such an untrustworthy source, we're going to automatically assume that any data sourced from them is at best misleading and at worst flat-out wrong, and ask for a more reliable source of data.

[Jehct]

All this whining about China and India is nothing more than a ruse to let the most polluting companies in the world get away with their behaviour.

Such a ruse. I have so many big boy bucks invested in these companies! totally lol... Thank you for enlightening me with those links though.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

What did I miss? How in frozen hell did Alex Jones enter the thread top?

[PC2]

No, but given his history of making up bullshit I'm unlikely to trust that Alex Jones has accurately presented that data in his JPEG and would ask anyone to show me the data directly from NASA instead. Which is exactly the situation with the data you presented from Watts Up With That, which is a blog that routinely lies and disseminates false information regarding Climate Change. Because it's such an untrustworthy source, we're going to automatically assume that any data sourced from them is at best misleading and at worst flat-out wrong, and ask for a more reliable source of data.

For you it does. It didn’t even hit the first page for me... might say something about the sites you visit or the way you searched.

PC2 is trying to justify using poorly framed data to prove that SLR hasn’t accelerated in the last 120 years. And then he’s trying to claim it’s not because if you only look at a small window it appears stable, even though I provided studies that say differently... usual climate denier BS.

It's not a problem DarkZeratul and Vegas82. Simply go here for the same data;

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

[PC2]

I already gave you data that shows SLR has been increasing in the last 120 years. You choose to claim it's not because if you look at a small enough window it has been relatively stable. Usual climate denial BS. BTW, sea levels were basically stable until the industrial revolution. Then they started rising. As we entered the late-20th the speed they were rising increased by 50%. With the current situation they're predicting we could see as much as 2M of rise in the next 80 years. Have fun denying science kiddo.

As long as you know that projecting historical data can't determine the future that is what is important. I wish it could since we'd be in utopia if we could pre-determine the future.

[PC2]

Riiiight, except I already linked you a review of over a thousand models that did just that and found they were remarkably accurate. Care to try again?

How can we know they are accurate if the future hasn't arrived yet. That makes no sense. I truly wish it were the case that those projection-based models could pre-determine the future so that we could know everything ahead of time. Sadly that isn't case.

[Shadowferal]

Because we passed the future they predicted... this is basic logic and if you bothered to read the sources provided instead of just looking for pictures you might have caught up by now.

You got stamina.
I never have that much debating libertarians. The world can burn and they'll still deny it.

[PC2]

Because we passed the future they predicted... this is basic logic and if you bothered to read the sources provided instead of just looking for pictures you might have caught up by now.

I think I see your misunderstanding now. No model, no matter how many times it has been confirmed in the past can ever pre-determine that it will be correct in the future. That's called projection of repeated past confirmations which can never pre-determine the future.

Think of a model as similar to a theory. The GTR has been confirmed as true many many time, yet that never indicates that the theory will continue to be correct into the future. In fact we know with certainty that every model and theory will be proven to be insufficient because an approximation based system can't be proven right, they can only be proven wrong.

[Edge-]

I think I see your misunderstanding now. No model, no matter how many times it has been confirmed in the past can ever pre-determine that it will be correct in the future. That's called projection of repeated past confirmations which can never pre-determine the future.

Think of a model as similar to a theory. The GTR has been confirmed as true many many time, yet that never indicates that the theory will continue to be correct into the future. In fact we know with certainty that every model and theory will be proven to be insufficient because an approximation based system can't be proven right, they can only be proven wrong.

So the entire business of forecasting based off of past data/trends is bunk? Better tell governments, multi-billion dollar international corporations, and the rest of the professional world about this. Because I don't think they got this memo.

Models aren't perfect, and the people that build them will readily tell you this. But they're still immensely useful for a whole lot of things when it comes to preparing for the future, even if they can't actually predict the future.

[PC2]

Yeah. You don’t even know what a scientific theory is, hint: it’s not the same as a hypothesis. And the fact that you think we can’t show a model that accurately predicted 40 years of climate change was right is... special. Good luck with the ignorance. I’m not going to waste any more time on you today.

Vegas82 you're not getting my point. Just because something "was right" in the past doesn't mean that can be projected such that it pre-determines the future. No model, no matter the number of confirmations will ever be able to pre-determine the future because it's inevitable that an approximation will fail to account for reality. Models can't be proven right, they can only be proven wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

So the entire business of forecasting based off of past data/trends is bunk? Better tell governments, multi-billion dollar international corporations, and the rest of the professional world about this. Because I don't think they got this memo.

Models aren't perfect, and the people that build them will readily tell you this. But they're still immensely useful for a whole lot of things when it comes to preparing for the future, even if they can't actually predict the future.

If you are expecting them to pre-determine the future then yes they are bunk if that is your expectation. Forecasting can't and never will be able to pre-determine the future because that fundamentally doesn't make any sense. The future is unpredictable in principle.

I'm not saying don't make models, i'm saying don't invoke them as an authority that can't be proven wrong. If a predictive model can't be proven wrong then its got nothing to do with science.

[Draco-Onis]

Yeah. You don’t even know what a scientific theory is, hint: it’s not the same as a hypothesis. And the fact that you think we can’t show a model that accurately predicted 40 years of climate change was right is... special. Good luck with the ignorance. I’m not going to waste any more time on you today.

He thinks scientific calculations and models are bullshit at the same time he believes we don't need to worry about climate change because future science will fix it. I mean the fact that he doesn't get the contradiction in both of those stances tells you all you need to know.

[PC2]

He thinks scientific calculations and models are bullshit

If you are expecting them to pre-determine the future and if they can't be proven wrong then they most certainly are bullshit.

at the same time he believes we don't need to worry about climate change because future science will fix it. I mean the fact that he doesn't get the contradiction in both of those stances tells you all you need to know.

Of course not, i'm a huge proponent of technological problem solving as it relates to climate issues, in the present.

[Muajin76]

Hong Kong protestors ring a bell?!?!

Considering the fact that they destroyed parts of the city, f'd up the HK economy for a time, postponed flights, put thousands in danger and made bombs in their own college campuses, even destroyed them too. All for the sole purpose of getting their point across. Even the guy that started the whole thing *the one that murdered his pregnant gf* is considered a hero to them.

- - - Updated - - -

I think she deserves it, i'm pretty sure she doesn't believe so. Which is pretty cool.
Some think she is spreading the word of some unknown person/party. that she is just a mouthpiece for them, who knows. She's spreading awareness of what's going on in our planet on a grand scale, that's all that counts to me.

[Draco-Onis]

If you are expecting them to pre-determine the future and if they can't be proven wrong then they most certainly are bullshit.



Of course not, i'm a huge proponent of technological problem solving as it relates to climate issues, in the present.

The technology is not here yet so again you say we can't determine the future therefore the models are bull at the same time you are against preventive actions because the future that you say can't be determined will works itself out because of science.

[PC2]

The technology is not here yet so again you say we can't determine the future therefore the models are bull at the same time you are against preventive actions because the future that you say can't be determined will works itself out because of science.

Exactly yes on the bolded part, for the climate what we want is a strategy of 'problem solving' and not a strategy of 'problem avoidance'.

Regarding the "it will work itself out" I can't predict the future and say that because of the fact that the future is unpredictable in principle. With civilization there will never be guarantee of anything in the future, all we can do is maximize our problem solving efforts. Any kind of promise that people will fail or succeed is nothing but pure prophecy.

[Endus]

It's not a problem DarkZeratul and Vegas82. Simply go here for the same data;

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

And if you look at the second graph on that page, it clearly shows an accelerating rate of sea level rise.

Which you were denying. Despite the evidence contradicting you on that.

I think I see your misunderstanding now. No model, no matter how many times it has been confirmed in the past can ever pre-determine that it will be correct in the future. That's called projection of repeated past confirmations which can never pre-determine the future.

If you're talking about models "pre-determining" anything, then you do not understand what models even are, or how they're used.

You're using that willful ignorance as the basis to deny scientific validity to a methodology you flat-out do not understand.

The issue isn't with models and how they're used. The issue is with your lack of understanding of scientific modelling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

Think of a model as similar to a theory. The GTR has been confirmed as true many many time, yet that never indicates that the theory will continue to be correct into the future. In fact we know with certainty that every model and theory will be proven to be insufficient because an approximation based system can't be proven right, they can only be proven wrong.

1> We rely on GTR remaining consistent for a wide range of modern technologies. Haven't been proven wrong on that assumption yet.
2> Scientific theories are not "approximation based systems".
3> No fact can be "proven right", in the useless sense that you're using here. And in the useful sense that everyone else uses, yes, scientific theories are the result of a huge amount of repeated confirmations of the hypotheses therein.
4> Both models and theories are constantly open to being improved. That is literally how science works. You are, again, denying the scientific method itself.

[Deletedaccount1]

It really goes to show the sad state of journalism when she wins as an "activist" over tens of thousands of people in Hong Kong who are actually willing to die protesting to avoid living under a communist regime. I think we've gotten a little too comfortable in life when we start putting a farcical mouthpiece over people whose livelihood is legitimately being taken away.

[Theodarzna]

Adults attack children all of the time. Greta, Barron, that kid who’s getting bullied/bullying kids at school, your siblings and whatever? All have been attacked by adults at one point in their lives whether verbally or physically or mentally or other ways

It’s more so why they’re doing it. People are attacking her politics and the agendas people push through her rather than herself as an individual. You think someone cares about an average 16 year old kid? Dont kid yourselves.

Well, qualitatively, Barron is a-political. His political facts are merely being someone's kid. He has yet to voice a single opinion of his own.

Greta meanwhile is either her own political actor or the puppet of someone, but is the face of a movement.

Criticism of one is more valid than the other.

[szechuan]

Greta meanwhile is either her own political actor or the puppet of someone, but is the face of a movement.

Everytime someone is a face of the movement you all make up conspiracies, typical Republicans.

[matt4pack]

It really goes to show the sad state of journalism when she wins as an "activist" over tens of thousands of people in Hong Kong who are actually willing to die protesting to avoid living under a communist regime. I think we've gotten a little too comfortable in life when we start putting a farcical mouthpiece over people whose livelihood is legitimately being taken away.

Oh please. Here is your dear leader while the activists were being attacked.