The “anti-Greta”

[Gadgetmac]

jshell said:

jshell said:

Randy Winkman said:

Exactly. Are we really supposed top believe that it's in the interests of the oil industry that we are all told not to use oil?

Ok, how do you stop using oil? No phone, no tablet, no TV, no tyres, no drugs, paint, polymers, jet fuel, lubricants, practically no clothes, no plastic, no fuel, no fertiliser...etc...etc...

Please explain how the human race removes its dependency on oil?

No-one?

Who said that oil for use in manufacturing would stop overnight and that essentials wouldn't continue to be made from oil until alternatives are found, which may be never.

[Gadgetmac]

Electro1980 said:

turbobloke said:

SeeFive said:

gazza285 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

As many as Greta and Anti-Greta put together.

It doesn’t really matter.

Very few food critics are Michelin starred chefs, but they can see through a dodgy jus and snotty foam to understand that the ingredients underneath are half baked.

Spot on. When a major doom'n'gloom paper from a major climate research team is withdrawn from a major journal due to the discovery of a major error which came to light when an independent scientist pointed out that the authors didn't know (or knew, but didn't apply) the difference between random and systematic errors, the smell is redolent of a climate chef cooking flueless. See Resplandy et al 2019

Note that random and systematic error is within the scope of UK school physics (A-level). See e.g. 3.1.2 at the link (pdf).

https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/physics/spe...

Climate alarmists would like to see comment restricted to an approved list of gurus, their approved list of course, however the above fiasco and the anti-Greta both poke a neat hole in that nonsense.

Come back to me when all of the research is retracted and the your sides research is the majority. That’s how science research works. You can’t just ignore or dismiss it because you don’t like it. Withdrawal of papers is not proof that the consensus is wrong, it shows the process works.

He's brilliant at picking out the one in ten thousand paper and holding it up as an example of the current science. It's called mis-representation.

[Jinx]

Gadgetmac said:

He's brilliant at picking out the one in ten thousand paper and holding it up as an example of the current science. It's called mis-representation.

It only takes one paper. All the papers showing stomach ulcers were linked to stress - where are they now?

[Gadgetmac]

Jinx said:

Gadgetmac said:

He's brilliant at picking out the one in ten thousand paper and holding it up as an example of the current science. It's called mis-representation.

It only takes one paper. All the papers showing stomach ulcers were linked to stress - where are they now?

So has that one withdrawal overturned the scientific consensus then?

[voyds9]

Gadgetmac said:

Who said that oil for use in manufacturing would stop overnight and that essentials wouldn't continue to be made from oil until alternatives are found, which may be never.

And who gets to decide this rate of change.

We already have a government that says you can't buy a petrol or diesel cars after 2033 irrespective of if there is a viable alternative in place.

[turbobloke]

voyds9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Who said that oil for use in manufacturing would stop overnight and that essentials wouldn't continue to be made from oil until alternatives are found, which may be never.

And who gets to decide this rate of change.

We already have a government that says you can't buy a petrol or diesel cars after 2033 irrespective of if there is a viable alternative in place.

Nuttery can be gov't policy, as per the wider 2050 lunacy.

[Gadgetmac]

voyds9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Who said that oil for use in manufacturing would stop overnight and that essentials wouldn't continue to be made from oil until alternatives are found, which may be never.

And who gets to decide this rate of change.

We already have a government that says you can't buy a petrol or diesel cars after 2033 irrespective of if there is a viable alternative in place.

I haven't heard anything remotely approaching the banning of oil based products in manufacturing for essentials. You're setting up a straw man.

[Killboy]

So why does PH not raise the money or get a petroleum company to sponsor this girls travels over to UK to build a movement?

[Getragdogleg]

Gadgetmac said:

Electro1980 said:

turbobloke said:

SeeFive said:

gazza285 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

As many as Greta and Anti-Greta put together.

It doesn’t really matter.

Very few food critics are Michelin starred chefs, but they can see through a dodgy jus and snotty foam to understand that the ingredients underneath are half baked.

Spot on. When a major doom'n'gloom paper from a major climate research team is withdrawn from a major journal due to the discovery of a major error which came to light when an independent scientist pointed out that the authors didn't know (or knew, but didn't apply) the difference between random and systematic errors, the smell is redolent of a climate chef cooking flueless. See Resplandy et al 2019

Note that random and systematic error is within the scope of UK school physics (A-level). See e.g. 3.1.2 at the link (pdf).

https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/physics/spe...

Climate alarmists would like to see comment restricted to an approved list of gurus, their approved list of course, however the above fiasco and the anti-Greta both poke a neat hole in that nonsense.

Come back to me when all of the research is retracted and the your sides research is the majority. That’s how science research works. You can’t just ignore or dismiss it because you don’t like it. Withdrawal of papers is not proof that the consensus is wrong, it shows the process works.

He's brilliant at picking out the one in ten thousand paper and holding it up as an example of the current science. It's called mis-representation.

You have to pick through them because the believer side spits them out at such a rate. Its like a one sided race to issue as many papers as possible to dominate the argument with numbers.

"we have thousands of papers published that all say the same thing" how can you argue with that ?

[Getragdogleg]

Gadgetmac said:

voyds9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Who said that oil for use in manufacturing would stop overnight and that essentials wouldn't continue to be made from oil until alternatives are found, which may be never.

And who gets to decide this rate of change.

We already have a government that says you can't buy a petrol or diesel cars after 2033 irrespective of if there is a viable alternative in place.

I haven't heard anything remotely approaching the banning of oil based products in manufacturing for essentials. You're setting up a straw man.

Well, not really. Which sector uses the most oil ? Manufacturing or transportation ?

The image associated with "big oil" is the smoky tailpipe and traffic jam, its the posterchild for the enviro movement. hence the imminent ban on i.c.e cars....

[jshell]

Getragdogleg said:

Gadgetmac said:

voyds9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Who said that oil for use in manufacturing would stop overnight and that essentials wouldn't continue to be made from oil until alternatives are found, which may be never.

And who gets to decide this rate of change.

We already have a government that says you can't buy a petrol or diesel cars after 2033 irrespective of if there is a viable alternative in place.

I haven't heard anything remotely approaching the banning of oil based products in manufacturing for essentials. You're setting up a straw man.

Well, not really. Which sector uses the most oil ? Manufacturing or transportation ?

The image associated with "big oil" is the smoky tailpipe and traffic jam, its the posterchild for the enviro movement. hence the imminent ban on i.c.e cars....

They don't get it. You can't produce oil without the stuff they don't want. Petrol and diesel as a waste product of the manufacturing industry?

Oil is here to stay.

[Gadgetmac]

Getragdogleg said:

Gadgetmac said:

Electro1980 said:

turbobloke said:

SeeFive said:

gazza285 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

As many as Greta and Anti-Greta put together.

It doesn’t really matter.

Very few food critics are Michelin starred chefs, but they can see through a dodgy jus and snotty foam to understand that the ingredients underneath are half baked.

Spot on. When a major doom'n'gloom paper from a major climate research team is withdrawn from a major journal due to the discovery of a major error which came to light when an independent scientist pointed out that the authors didn't know (or knew, but didn't apply) the difference between random and systematic errors, the smell is redolent of a climate chef cooking flueless. See Resplandy et al 2019

Note that random and systematic error is within the scope of UK school physics (A-level). See e.g. 3.1.2 at the link (pdf).

https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/physics/spe...

Climate alarmists would like to see comment restricted to an approved list of gurus, their approved list of course, however the above fiasco and the anti-Greta both poke a neat hole in that nonsense.

Come back to me when all of the research is retracted and the your sides research is the majority. That’s how science research works. You can’t just ignore or dismiss it because you don’t like it. Withdrawal of papers is not proof that the consensus is wrong, it shows the process works.

He's brilliant at picking out the one in ten thousand paper and holding it up as an example of the current science. It's called mis-representation.

You have to pick through them because the believer side spits them out at such a rate. Its like a one sided race to issue as many papers as possible to dominate the argument with numbers.

"we have thousands of papers published that all say the same thing" how can you argue with that ?

Yes, that's exactly why all of these climate scientists and scientific institutions are conducting research and publishing papers, so that the scientific community can say "we have thousands of papers published that all say the same thing" how can you argue with that ?

[Gadgetmac]

Getragdogleg said:

Well, not really. Which sector uses the most oil ? Manufacturing or transportation ?

The image associated with "big oil" is the smoky tailpipe and traffic jam, its the posterchild for the enviro movement. hence the imminent ban on i.c.e cars....

Yes, really. Nobody is saying....nope...it's a lost cause with some people.

[Captain Smerc]

When Greta's collide

[Gadgetmac]

Getragdogleg said:

Well, not really. Which sector uses the most oil ? Manufacturing or transportation ?

The image associated with "big oil" is the smoky tailpipe and traffic jam, its the posterchild for the enviro movement. hence the imminent ban on i.c.e cars....

Well it turns out that almost 70% of oil is used for transportation.



So the "image" would appear to be correct.

[Getragdogleg]

Gadgetmac said:

Getragdogleg said:

Gadgetmac said:

Electro1980 said:

turbobloke said:

SeeFive said:

gazza285 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

As many as Greta and Anti-Greta put together.

It doesn’t really matter.

Very few food critics are Michelin starred chefs, but they can see through a dodgy jus and snotty foam to understand that the ingredients underneath are half baked.

Spot on. When a major doom'n'gloom paper from a major climate research team is withdrawn from a major journal due to the discovery of a major error which came to light when an independent scientist pointed out that the authors didn't know (or knew, but didn't apply) the difference between random and systematic errors, the smell is redolent of a climate chef cooking flueless. See Resplandy et al 2019

Note that random and systematic error is within the scope of UK school physics (A-level). See e.g. 3.1.2 at the link (pdf).

https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/physics/spe...

Climate alarmists would like to see comment restricted to an approved list of gurus, their approved list of course, however the above fiasco and the anti-Greta both poke a neat hole in that nonsense.

Come back to me when all of the research is retracted and the your sides research is the majority. That’s how science research works. You can’t just ignore or dismiss it because you don’t like it. Withdrawal of papers is not proof that the consensus is wrong, it shows the process works.

He's brilliant at picking out the one in ten thousand paper and holding it up as an example of the current science. It's called mis-representation.

You have to pick through them because the believer side spits them out at such a rate. Its like a one sided race to issue as many papers as possible to dominate the argument with numbers.

"we have thousands of papers published that all say the same thing" how can you argue with that ?

Yes, that's exactly why all of these climate scientists and scientific institutions are conducting research and publishing papers, so that the scientific community can say "we have thousands of papers published that all say the same thing" how can you argue with that ?

Funding. Hard to justify that lovely non-job if you don't turn out something to show you are productive.

[Getragdogleg]

Gadgetmac said:

Getragdogleg said:

Well, not really. Which sector uses the most oil ? Manufacturing or transportation ?

The image associated with "big oil" is the smoky tailpipe and traffic jam, its the posterchild for the enviro movement. hence the imminent ban on i.c.e cars....

Well it turns out that almost 70% of oil is used for transportation.

Cool, if that is true then that marks the first time I have ever had a question answered by anyone in a climate thread in an informative way.

Edit; I see its "US Petroleum use" so not oil, the product Petroleum.

Again, it seems that the question was not answered. I asked about oil, barrels of oil. not petroleum. The main use for that is transportation, how unexpected.

So, you got close to being the first to answer honestly but fell at a detail yet again.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Friday 28th February 09:39

[Gadgetmac]

A simple Google throws up the same result if you swap the word Oil for Petrol.

So yes, unless you have data to the contrary it's 69%.

[anonymous-user]

Jinx said:

Gadgetmac said:

He's brilliant at picking out the one in ten thousand paper and holding it up as an example of the current science. It's called mis-representation.

It only takes one paper. All the papers showing stomach ulcers were linked to stress - where are they now?

Yup new evidence came along that disproved the existing consensus and a new scientific consensus emerged. That’s how it works.

Why hasn’t this happened with AGW? Hopefully your answer isn’t nonsense about left wing conspiracies and scientist on the take and a global plot to redistribute wealth.

[rodericb]

Getragdogleg said:

Gadgetmac said:

Getragdogleg said:

Well, not really. Which sector uses the most oil ? Manufacturing or transportation ?

The image associated with "big oil" is the smoky tailpipe and traffic jam, its the posterchild for the enviro movement. hence the imminent ban on i.c.e cars....

Well it turns out that almost 70% of oil is used for transportation.

Cool, if that is true then that marks the first time I have ever had a question answered by anyone in a climate thread in an informative way.

Edit; I see its "US Petroleum use" so not oil, the product Petroleum.

Again, it seems that the question was not answered. I asked about oil, barrels of oil. not petroleum. The main use for that is transportation, how unexpected.

So, you got close to being the first to answer honestly but fell at a detail yet again.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Friday 28th February 09:39

Here's where that info came from: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petrol... It doesn't give a straightforward set of numbers...