Canadian Politics Today

hey meester chilipeppers... less DUMB tagging, more posting! Signed - the "community"

Sometimes I hope lightning strikes your keyboard, and you lose the ability to type.

This out of Germany ... and WOW!
Could the right-wing climate-change deniers be any more disgusting?!!
Vile personal attacks on a teenager because of her success in promoting awareness of climate change.
Absolutely VILE behaviour from so-called adults.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/14/germanys-afd-attacks-greta-thunberg-as-it-embraces-climate-denial
Germany’s rightwing populists are embracing climate change denial as the latest topic with which to boost their electoral support, teaming up with scientists who claim hysteria is driving the global warming debate and ridiculing the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg as “mentally challenged” and a fraud.
...
The party, whose members have been seen handing out climate change denial leaflets at school climate strikes, has ratcheted up its anti-Thunberg rhetoricahead of the EU parliamentary elections this month. Its candidates have made comparisons between the Swedish teenager and a member of a Nazi youth organisation and called for her to seek treatment for what Maximilian Krah, an AfD candidate for the EU elections, called her “psychosis”.
...
Attacking Greta, at times in fairly vicious ways, including mocking her for her autism, became a way to portray the AfD’s political opponents as irrational.”


Any party that hinges it's platform on such child abuse should be subject to disbanding and other appropriate legal punishments.
Disgusting **** creeps!
The FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY no doubt supports them financially in such degraded behaviour, likely encourages these attacks ON A TEENAGER!

ABSOLUTE FILTH, ALL OF THEM !!

You mean the teen that has been shamelessly exploited by alarmists for propaganda. Talk about the kettle calling pot black. This is also the same teen that claims to see CO2 in the air. Suggesting that she Mentally challenged and/or suffering from psychosis seems like a factual statement.

I guess the far right climate denier idiots such as the AfD must be feeling a little feeble in their position if they need to attack a little girl such as Gretta to try to grab a headline. 

Links?

I gave you a link in my post. That is what the underlined text means. And if alarmists wish to exploit a teen by making her a spokes person for alarm-ism then her credibility is a valid target for critics. The idea that she should be able to spout incoherent nonsense and everyone has to bite their tongues because she is a child is ridiculous.

I gave you a link in my post. That is what the underlined text means.

PROOF of nothing.

And if alarmists wish to exploit a teen by making her a spokes person for alarm-ism then her credibility is a valid target for critics.

No.
Prove she is exploited by "alarmists", and attack their credibility.
A child is never a "valid target" for abuse by adults.
(I have to actually tell you that?!!!)

The idea that she should be able to spout incoherent nonsense and everyone has to bite their tongues because she is a child is ridiculous.

So ... critique what she says.

But the vile and abusive personal attacks against a child as reported above ... that's the behaviour of criminals.

She is a child with a huge following, and that's a disturbing thing to the fossil fuel privateers.
But it is no justification for fossil fuel funded child abuse.

PROOF of exploitation.
Or are you just a filthy fossil fuel predator who would victimize a child?
Sick to death of those scum, who would stoop to child abuse as just another handy weapon to make more blood money.

I hate those fossil fuel scum. They once lured me to their white van with the promise of "candy."

Smoothing and error correction requires knowledge of the subject matter.  Even a mathematician has limited ability to assess things like cofactors, or independence of variables.  While it's possible that the thousands of knowledgable scientists that have read this work said nothing, it's not believable to me.

Well that is the problem. You place too much weight on the idea that every narrow domain is so specialized that someone who is not a professional academic cannot read the literature and learn what is needed to provide a knowledgeable assessment. People with a lot of knowledge of math, statistics and the datasets in question have looked at these issues and provided more than adequate arguments that Mann's methods are junk and violate the basic rules of statistical analysis. I personally have enough knowledge of statistics to read the claims and counter claims to know that the critics have the better argument yet despite that many professional climate scientists refuse to acknowledge the obvious. This is why I say any scientific question that cannot be settled with replicable experiments is subjective and the answers change depending on the biases of the academics providing the answers.

Of course they could but are they ?   And if so, how did they convince you ?

They convinced me only in the areas where experimental replication can be used to validate the claim. In this case it is the warming effect of CO2 and a measurable increase in air and ocean temperatures over the last few decades. However, this tells us nothing about the amount of warming we will have to deal with or the consequences. The only thing that has been established is that it could be a big problem and therefore it would be prudent to act.

Because people allow them to define points of discussion in the debate.  The incredible thing is that the science is far more discrete and has more capacity for objective exploration than the economics, and than our approaches to the problem.  And yet the debate on the science seems to be the more contentious one.

This is entirely the fault of alarmists who decided that they would usurp the authority of science in order to push policy choices that are questions of values rather than science. This forced people who do not share the values and priorities of the alarmists to attack the science. If the alarmists had instead acknowledged that the decision on what to do about the science is a question of values then the science would have been left out of the debate (i.e. people would have agreed on the science but used arguments based on values to argue for their preferred policy choices). To provide an analogy: science may diagnose someone with cancer and provide treatment options but the question of what treatment to follow is a question of values.

wow! How insightful of you - who knew scientists are humans! Of course, what you're really doing is, as you've done several times on "the other board", get suckered right into the TimG play. Are you at all surprised he's pulled out his tried&true - the Mann!  You're the ultimate TimG enabler! What you did, what you're continuing to do, is take the circumstance of a couple/few scientists and a few hacked emails from a decade ago to allow TimG to use that once again to ply his false/fake narrative; one that purposely intends to denigrate ALL world-wide scientists by collectively impugning their integrity, honesty and honor... to ply his false/fake narrative that prevailing science (what he's just referred to as, "the glorious consensus") is simply a, as he's recently called it, "a popularity contest"!

You seem to be saying that I should deny obvious facts because they help his argument.  That's a great example of a Waldo thing.

in regards Hackergate, you're the one that said there was NO THERE, THERE... in your enabler mode (the MH thing) you then proceed to make hay over a couple of scientists and a few emails. The so-called TimG "argument" is his false/fake narrative that you're playing into.