[Cog]

Greta has influenced people alright. Just not in the way that climate activist think.

[rockdoc123]

The editorial board of Nature Magazine does not speak for the hundreds of climate scientists who publish there. Their opinion is worth about the same as the janitor at the local mall

[Plantagenet]

Greta has influenced people alright. Just not in the way that climate activist think.

You'll have to debate that with NATURE.

The most prestigious scientific journal in the world just named Greta Thunberg to their list of the 10 people who most mattered in science in 2019.

prestigious-science-journal-names-greta-thunberg-to-top-10-most-influential-list

Not everyone accepts the value or the validity of scientific research, often for religious or political reasons. Nonetheless, this is a notable honor for Greta and, at least from a scientific perspective, a very prestigious endorsement of what she has been saying.

Here is NATURE's statement on Greta, one of their top 10 in science for 2019.

At a US congressional hearing on climate change in September, Greta Thunberg slid a slim bundle of papers across the table towards lawmakers. It was a special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, predicting dire consequences as the world warms. “I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” she told the legislators. “I want you to unite behind the science and I want you to take real action.”

Scientists have spent decades warning about climate change, but they couldn’t galvanize global attention the way that Thunberg did this year. The Swedish 16-year-old has outshone them — and many are cheering her along.

“Some may wonder why a teenage girl should get more credit and attention for publicly lamenting a well-known dilemma than most climate researchers get for years of hard work and effort,” says Sonia Seneviratne, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. But Thunberg is candid and her outrage unvarnished, and that is powerful, says Seneviratne. “As scientists, we normally don’t dare to express the truth in such heartfelt simplicity.”

Many researchers hail Thunberg in particular for focusing attention on climate change and its catastrophic impacts. What she has achieved should motivate climate researchers to carry on with their science despite slow political action, says Seneviratne.

“Greta has inspired scientists along with activists and policymakers,” says Angela Ledford Anderson, director of the Climate and Energy programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC. In July, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced sweeping measures to reduce carbon emissions, and acknowledged that the protests Thunberg ignited “drove us to act”.

But perhaps Thunberg’s biggest influence will be on the next generation of scientists, Anderson says. “Her mobilization of young people shows the rising generation expects science to inform policy,” she says, “and may inspire many to become scientists themselves.”


Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

The most prestigious scientific journal in the world

BS. In whose opinion? Yours? It's a general Science Journal much like Science. Certainly not "most prestigious" for any specific field.
Climate Scientists if they want to reach their peers (the whole point of publishing) will publish in Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophysical Research Letters, Bulletin of the American Meterological Society etc.
If their research is specialized in another field but speaks to Climate Change they will tend to publish in their own journals.
It is doubtful the Editorial Board even knows about these researchers or their contributions.

There are currently 84 Editors on the board of Nature. Of that only 3 have anything marginally to do with clmate change (and thats pushing it). Any credibility of comments made on who has made important contributions to climate change is, hence, demonstrably absent.

[Plantagenet]

The most prestigious scientific journal in the world

In whose opinion? Yours?

No....in the opinion of people who study the prestige and importance of scientific journals.

Why do I have to explain even the simplest things to you?

Don't you know anything at all?

The reasons for this are simple.

1. Nature (and Science) have a long great history, going back to the 19th century, of publishing extremely important and groundbreaking scientific papers.

2. When you look at the numbers on rejection rates, NATURE and SCIENCE are the most difficult scientific journals to get a paper into, because so many scientists around the world are trying to get their very best work into these journals.

3. Another quantitative way to measure the importance of the papers published in journals is to look at what is called the citation index or impact factor, i.e. how many other scientists read those articles and then cite them in their own papers. NATURE has been ranked the #1 journal in terms of the number of citations of journal articles, and this numerical criteria indicates papers published in Nature and Science are the most important papers being published in science, i.e. they are the most influential papers in science as shown by the fact that they are cited more often then those in any other journal.

--------------

I know from your comments in another thread that you think journals published for particular disciplines like the "Mud Loggers Gazette" are just as prestigious as SCIENCE and NATURE, but the numbers don't lie. When you look at submission and rejection numbers and the impact factor calculations it is clear your point of view is not supported by the data.

CHEERS!

[rockdoc123]

No....in the opinion of people who study the prestige and importance of scientific journals.

Why do I have to explain even the simplest things to you?

Apparently not very bright are you?....you stated it was the "most prestigious" and then you give your opinions but no opinions from actual Climate Scientists, of which you are not. It is by no means the "most prestigious" to scientists in my fields and I'm sure it isn't to scientists in the field of Climate Science. Many groundbreaking papers have been published in the Journal of Climate and others which is where those scientists would publish when they want something read.

Acting condescending when in fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about simply highlights further your ignorance.

Nature (and Science) have a long great history, going back to the 19th century, of publishing extremely important and groundbreaking scientific papers.

which simply means they are old journals. Philosophical Transactions is almost as old and contains more of the ground breaking Climate Science than either of these. In fact given the real advances in Climate Science didn't even happen until after the eighties (about 100 years after Nature and Science were first on the scene) the age of the journal doesn't matter one iota

When you look at the numbers on rejection rates, NATURE and SCIENCE are the most difficult scientific journals to get a paper into, because so many scientists around the world are trying to get their very best work into these journals.

Ever been on an editiorial review board? Apparently not or you would understand the decision process as to what does and doesn't get published. There are some famous ground breaking papers that were eventually published after having been refused by several journals previously. This is a meaningless statistic.

3. Another quantitative way to measure the importance of the papers published in journals is to look at what is called the citation index or impact factor, i.e. how many other scientists read those articles and then cite them in their own papers. NATURE has been ranked the #1 journal in terms of the number of citations of journal articles, and this numerical criteria indicates papers published in Nature and Science are the most important papers being published in science, i.e. they are the most influential papers in science as shown by the fact that they are cited more often then those in any other journal.

Doesn't matter if it is all about papers on cellular biology or the like. Again we are talking about Climate Science not science in general. Please tell us all how when less than 5% of the Editorial board has ever had anything whatsoever to do with Climate Science that they can be the judge of who has made a groundbreaking contribution in that field. Short answer is they can't.

I know from your comments in another thread that you think journals published for particular disciplines like the "Mud Loggers Gazette" are just as prestigious as SCIENCE and NATURE, but the numbers don't lie. When you look at submission and rejection numbers and the impact factor calculations it is clear your point of view is not supported by the data

You must get tired of behaving like an imbecile. Scientists (which I am) publish their papers in journals where they will be read by their peers in order to exchange ideas and get feedback. The number of citations is less important than the nature of those citations (i.e. summary papers on a particular topic versus papers discussing alternative theories). Science doesn't advance by someone citing your paper, it advances by someone who discusses the findings of your paper in the context of their own work or the work of others. This is why the numbers do, in fact, lie.

But case in point in the latest issue there is zero Research papers in Climate. In the previous issue there are 24 research papers and zero on Climate. In the one before that 6 Research papers and zero in Climate. In comparison in the most recent Journal of Climatology there are 16 reserach papers, 16 of which are on Climate. In the most recent issue of Journal of Geophysical Research Atmosphere there are 33 research papers of which 33 are on Climate.

But knock yourself out. As I said before please continue with the cringe worthy worship of a 16 year old girl's scientific knowledge and contributions. I'm sure it's doing wonders for your reputation....as it were.

[Revi]

Okay Boomers...

Meanwhile Greta has arrived back in Sweden, and is discovering how quickly the news cycle moves on. COP 25 was pretty much a bust, and the world has a very short attention span.

It's not going to be good from now on.

Some like it hot...

[Newfie]

Revi,

Insightful post.

I think it’s interesting that a young lady can make such a splash while all the big wig politicians and humanitarians (Soros and Gates) can’t seem to get it going.

I also admire Gore for his attempts to bring climate change awareness. I know he was ill received, his message MAY have been somewhat hyperbolic, but it was fairly accurate in the scheme of things.

It shows how set most humans are in their thinking.

[Plantagenet]

Greta Thunberg named "Game Changer of the Year" by GQ magazine---a UK Men's magazine

gq-men-of-the-year-2019-greta-thunberg



The accolades continue to roll in for Greta Thunberg from all areas of society.....she's been named one of the top 10 people in Science for 2019 by the prestigious science journal NATURE and person of the the year for middle-brow TIME magazine and now Game Changer of the Year by GQ---a UK men's magazine.

If only her efforts to get the UN to fix the phony Paris Accords had been as successful!

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

The accolades continue to roll in for Greta Thunberg from all areas of society.....she's been named one of the top 10 people in Science for 2019 by the prestigious science journal NATURE and person of the the year for middle-brow TIME magazine and now Game Changer of the Year by GQ---a UK men's magazine.

Not much different than being nominated by Car and Driver for best-dressed athlete of the year. Interesting choice, but credibility completely lacking.

Lubas Motl, a theoretical physicist specializing in string theory who is a former professor at Harvard had this to say about Nature's top 10

At any rate, it's terribly disappointing to see that a journal that used to be good – although it has played no role in my interest in science whatsoever – chooses way over 50% of its "best scientists" according to some extremist political or identity politics criteria. The individuals at Nature who are responsible for this outrageous page are harmful agents and should be treated as harmful agents.

and this about Greta being in the mix:

Greta Thunberg... doesn't really surprise us. She is the role model for everything that is bad about the interactions between science and the general society in 2019. She is a whining spoiled brat who refuses to go to school and who is correspondingly scientifically illiterate because of that and who, with quite some success, persuades other people that her hateful hysterical outbursts may compensate for her laziness and caution. She is the exact opposite of a young person who is close to science. Every teenager who does at least 10% of the things that Greta does should be spanked for several hours so that he cannot sit on his bottom for a week.

But then again he's just a well-published scientist, not nearly as important or influential as GQ magazine, the hipster guide to how to make an ass of yourself in public.

[Plantagenet]

Greta Thunberg also won the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the "alternative nobel prize" a few months ago.

climate-striker-greta-thunberg-alternative-nobel-prize

And the reason Greta won? Greta was given the award for " inspiring and amplifying political demands for urgent climate action reflecting scientific facts," the prize foundation said.

I like that last bit.....the part about Greta's success in reflecting scientific facts. Climate Change deniers like to pretend that Greta isn't accurately presenting the science of climate change, but in reality Greta has received several signifiant awards for accurately presenting the science of climate change, including being named one of the top 10 people in science for 2019 by the prestigious scientific journal NATURE for her presentations on climate change. This earlier award, known as the alternative nobel prize also recognizes the work Greta has done in accurately and urgently communicating the ideas of climate scientists to the UN and other government bodies, as well as to the general public.


Award winner Greta Thunberg speaking to government officials about the scientific facts of global warming

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

reflecting scientific facts. Climate Change deniers like to pretend that Greta isn't accurately presenting the science of climate change, but in reality Greta has received several signifiant awards for accurately presenting the science of climate change

complete and utter horseshit.

She claimed that "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change". This is not supported by any science published anywhere. No credible scientific body has ever said anything of the sort nor has anyone been able to publish this opinion.

She claimed that as a result of climate change: "People are suffering, people are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing.” Which is complete claptrap. The IPCC has stated specifically that there is no evidence that climate change has had an impact on disasters displacing people. The lack of ability to link floods, heat waves, tornadoes, cyclones to human emissions is front and foremost in the IPCC documents. There are no ecosystems collapsing due to climate change that I'm aware of and even the Great Barrier Reef which suffered some setback due to high water temperatures a couple of years ago has mostly recovered.

She claimed: "We are in the beginning of a mass extinction…” there is zero evidence for that viewpoint. There are lots of species that have gone extinct over the past 200 years but there are also a considerable number of new species discovered (around 250 or so in 2018 alone) and species that were thought to have gone extinct reappear. There are many species that are threatened but the vast majority are threatened because of land use, population increase, hunting and other non-climate related issues. Of the 40,000 vertebrate species there have been 680 recognized as extinct since the 17th century (~1%) and none of those went extinct because of climate change.

She has stated that a warming of 1.5 degrees C will result in "irreversible chain reactions beyond human control" which again is not substantiated anywhere in the literature. This is a made-up talking point with the intent to create panic and nothing more.

In fact please show exactly some quotes where she has accurately presented the science of climate change. Give us the published references for those statements as well. Apparently you are her biggest fanboy so you probably have her speeches memorized. Please help us out here.

[Plantagenet]

...horseshit....

Your potty mouth is overflowing again. Please flush.

She claimed that as a result of climate change: "People are suffering, people are dying.....” Which is complete claptrap.

Not really.

For example, you must've missed all the news about the massive forest fires and the people evacuating and suffering and dying in places like Australia and California. These fires are a global phenomena, with some huge fires occurring right there in Canada. These extraordinary fires are a product of years of drought drying out the forests compounded with unprecedented heat waves, i.e. they are a product of climate change.

Here is a link to an interesting review of all the climate disasters just in 2019. Please check it out:

2019-has-been-a-year-of-climate-disaster-

There are no ecosystems collapsing due to climate change that I'm aware of....

Perhaps you should look into this question a bit more and increase your awareness of this topic.

There are a very large number of scientific papers and reports coming out all the time about various ecosystems that are collapsing. Here in Alaska the disappearing sea in the Arctic is having devastating effects on large marine sea-going mammals like walrus and polar bears---they are literally starving to death. And warming in the seas is causing some fish species to disappear, causing bird starvation as the fish they depend on are no longer there. When you lose fish, birds, mammals etc. that is ecosystem collapse.

A recent scientific report that was widely reported in the MSM stated that the Brazilian rainforest ecosystem is collapsing and will soon became a savanna grassland. Thats a pretty clear case of ecosystem collapse, IMHO.

Etc. etc.

She claimed: "We are in the beginning of a mass extinction…” there is zero evidence for that viewpoint.

I don't know how you could've missed the huge numbers of scientific papers and news articles about the huge numbers of extinctions going on right now.

Here...let me help you. Check out this report from the UN:

nature-decline-unprecedented-report

She has stated that a warming of 1.5 degrees C will result in "irreversible chain reactions beyond human control" which again is not substantiated anywhere in the literature.

None of the changes caused by climate change are subject to human control. For instance, consider the fact that as the planet warms glaciers are going to melt and sea level is going to rise. That is a chain reaction that is not subject to human control, right? As the planet warms the atmosphere can hold more water. Again...not subject to human control, right? etc. etc. So Greta is 100% right in her statement.

Please help us out here.

Its been my pleasure.

Have a great day!

Cheers!

[dissident]

I will have to agree with basically all of rocdoc's posts above. Nature is pandering to cultural Trotskyism with its identity politics. And it is not some ultimate journal for anything. Mostly it is people with flashy results who want to publish there. Then they go back to their regular journals. But science is not sensationalism. It seems that G. Thunberg is being converted into some sort of climate authority. This is patent nonsense. At most she is a tool to hijack the voice of actual climate scientists.

Any public decision process that is founded on hysteria is a disaster in progress. And don't forget that throughout history the "good" has always been a fig leaf motive for anything and everything including the Inquisition and the gulags.

[rockdoc123]

Your potty mouth is overflowing again. Please flush.

You realize this is a word used in everyday speech in ranch country don’t you? I guess you are a delicate little flower. This is hardly profanity it is an expression that has been around as long as I can remember. Sorry, you feel triggered but perhaps you should grow a pair and join what we like to call “reality”. “potty mouth”? Really? How old are you? My 6 year old great nephew uses the same term but I’m sure he’ll outgrow it in a couple of years.

For example, you must've missed all the news about the massive forest fires and the people evacuating and suffering and dying in places like Australia and California. These fires are a global phenomena, with some huge fires occurring right there in Canada. These extraordinary fires are a product of years of drought drying out the forests compounded with unprecedented heat waves, i.e. they are a product of climate change.

No they are not tied to climate change by any climate scientist out there. In fact, Australia has seen significant fires previously with lower temperatures (Black Thursday Bushfires of 1850) and has seen much higher temperatures (in the late 1800’s ) with little in the way of wildfires. If you can produce a piece of research linking these fires to AGW then have at it.

On the contrary, what we do see is published information pointing to a reduction of Aussie fires over time.
Nick E. and Simmonds, I, 2017. Variability, trends, and drivers of regional fluctuations in Australian fire activity. Jour Geoph Res, Atmosphere. V122, pp 7445-7460

Here we utilize a satellite-based “active fire” (AF) product to statistically analyze 2001–2015 variability and trends in Australian fire activity and link this to precipitation and large‐scale atmospheric structures (namely, the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD)) known to have potential for predicting fire activity in different regions. It is found that Australian fire activity is decreasing (during summer (December–February)) or stable, with high temporal and spatial variability.

The fact of the matter is that Government policy has kept farmers in Australia from doing their traditional “back burns” in order to manage fire risk. That resulted in a huge buildup of fuel in the bush areas and once that starts burning you have out of control fires. This is very similar to the problems noted in Western North America….its a fire management issue not a climate issue. And it has also been demonstrated that California wildfires have been decreasing through time and the area burned in the major fires of 2017 is a fifth the area burned in 1930.

There are a very large number of scientific papers and reports coming out all the time about various ecosystems that are collapsing. Here in Alaska the disappearing sea in the Arctic is having devastating effects on large marine sea-going mammals like walrus and polar bears-

I think you are the one who needs to do a bit of research. It has been shown that polar bears are actually thriving (there is research to this effect) and there is no documented evidence whatsoever of walruses (other than the very stupid movie about a walrus plunging to his death which turns out was faked).
Crockford, S.J. 2017, Alaska polar bear subpopulations. pg. 12-23 in Arctic Alaska caribou herds and polar bear subpopulations (with M.A. Cronin). Report of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska. Or
Crockford, S.J. 2017. Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change. Amazon CreateSpace

None of the changes caused by climate change are subject to human control. For instance, consider the fact that as the planet warms glaciers are going to melt and sea level is going to rise. That is a chain reaction that is not subject to human control, right? As the planet warms the atmosphere can hold more water. Again...not subject to human control, right? etc. etc. So Greta is 100% right in her statement

What???? Where in your ridiculous explanation does it describe why 1.5 degrees of warming will result in irreversible chain reactions? It doesn’t. You have just tried to change the subject as you usually do when you can’t answer the question. Classic red herring. Her statement is not backed up by any credible research anywhere.

I don't know how you could've missed the huge numbers of scientific papers and news articles about the huge numbers of extinctions going on right now

This is a stupid statement. Back it up with references that haven’t been refuted. Back it up with percentages. The fact is that throughout the entire history of the planet species have disappeared and new ones have appeared.

Here...let me help you. Check out this report from the UN:

Classic. You don’t even understand what it is you are reading (assuming you actually read the report which I doubt) which seems to par for the course with you. The UN report looked at species abundance and biodiversity. Numerous reporters (like the one you point to) falsely interpreted the study as if it were inferring X% of species had gone extinct. It wasn’t. What it was saying is that of all the species they looked at there were X% less in numbers (not extinct species) and they do not point to climate change as a culprit. Given the growth in human population and habitation, it is not surprising that most species would see a large drop in their numbers. Where cities and farmland now exist was once forests and plains full of various animal species.

But as usual you avoided the main question. You stated that

Greta has received several significant awards for accurately presenting the science of climate change

. I’ve shown several of her statements that are basically farcical with regards to the research. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time fawning over a 16-year-old with questionable science background so it should be easy for you to point out exactly what science of climate change she has accurately presented. I’m sure you have memorized all of her speeches and likely repeat them to yourself at night so this should be easy.

Simply give us a quote from one of her speeches and then substantiate that claim from the actual research (i.e. cite the reference in support). Your an expert apparently so this should be easy.

[Plantagenet]

Nature is pandering to cultural Trotskyism with its identity politics.

NATURE is concerned about Climate Change, and the science of Climate change has absolutely nothing to do with "identity politics" or with "cultural Trotskyism," whatever that is. NATURE named Greta one of the top 10 in science for 2019 because she has galvanized a worldwide youth movement asking that government bodies pay attention to the climate scientists and their concerns about global warming.

It seems that G. Thunberg is being converted into some sort of climate authority. This is patent nonsense. At most she is a tool to hijack the voice of actual climate scientists. ...Any public decision process that is founded on hysteria is a disaster in progress. And don't forget that throughout history the "good" has always been a fig leaf motive for anything and everything including the Inquisition and the gulags.

Greta is always very clear that she isn't a climate scientist or the climate authority---her whole message is that government officials should listen to the community of climate scientists because they are the authority on climate.

And it seems almost hysterical to suggest that Greta asking the UN and other government officials to pay more attention to the work of climate scientists has anything at all in common with the gulags or the inquisition.



Cheers!

[EnergyUnlimited]

NATURE is concerned about Climate Change, and the science of Climate change has absolutely nothing to do with "identity politics" or with "cultural Trotskyism," whatever that is. NATURE named Greta one of the top 10 in science for 2019 because she has galvanized a worldwide youth movement asking that government bodies pay attention to the climate scientists and their concerns about global warming.

There is a contest between Nature and Nature.
Nature is calling for recognition of Greta and Nature is calling for an increase of entropy, the faster the better...

PS. Greta's far left background made a climate change debate even more politicized than it already was.
But in general I do not believe that much will come out of these debates.
Without Chinese, Indians and Americans on board entire undertaking is meaningless.
Even if one day all Swedes have committed suicide to save the Earth, there won't be even a meaningful dent in global GHG emissions.
All what we need to change our habits is financial and preferably economic, monetary and societal collapse.
Without that BAU is the only way.

[Plantagenet]

... in general I do not believe that much will come out of these debates.
Without Chinese, Indians and Americans on board entire undertaking is meaningless.
Even if one day all Swedes have committed suicide to save the Earth, there won't be even a meaningful dent in global GHG emissions.
All what we need to change our habits is financial and preferably economic, monetary and societal collapse.
Without that BAU is the only way.

I agree with you completely, except that I would add just about every country in the world to your list of who is "not on board", as there are only a handful of countries in the world who are lowering their CO2 emissions. In fact, one of the few countries that actually is lowering their CO2 emissions is the US, in spite of Trump's blather. And Greta is part of a lawsuit at the UN against countries like France and Norway that say good things but in reality are increasing their emissions. Greta is calling them out for their failure to live up to their pledges, and basically all have fallen short of doing enough.

Personally, I think Obama derailed the UN climate treaty process when he blew up the 2009 treaty signing in Copenhagen, and the "voluntary" Paris Accords signed in 2015 are an utter failure. Now there is very little chance of the world devolving from fossil fuels until there is some massive climate catastrophe that can't be ignored. And then it will be far far too late.

CHEERS!

[dissident]

NATURE is concerned about Climate Change, and the science of Climate change has absolutely nothing to do with "identity politics" or with "cultural Trotskyism," whatever that is. NATURE named Greta one of the top 10 in science for 2019 because she has galvanized a worldwide youth movement asking that government bodies pay attention to the climate scientists and their concerns about global warming.

There is a contest between Nature and Nature.
Nature is calling for recognition of Greta and Nature is calling for an increase of entropy, the faster the better...

PS. Greta's far left background made a climate change debate even more politicized than it already was.
But in general I do not believe that much will come out of these debates.
Without Chinese, Indians and Americans on board entire undertaking is meaningless.
Even if one day all Swedes have committed suicide to save the Earth, there won't be even a meaningful dent in global GHG emissions.
All what we need to change our habits is financial and preferably economic, monetary and societal collapse.
Without that BAU is the only way.

You are describing the Jevons paradox. Partial action is diffused by non-conformity of substantial sectors of the population. The only way to achieve the stated goal is for global collective action. This amounts to a phase transition. If things are left to individual choice you just get noise. Here is where G. Thunberg and her handlers are trying to insert their agenda. The problem with collective action is who are the deciders that steer it. Soros and the elites he represents want to be in the driver's seat. I do not trust these maggots at all. They are the ones that let the current disaster to ripen. Now all of the sudden they have started to move their asses. Should have done that when a transition would have been much easier.

[onlooker]

Haha, letting the Corporate elite spearhead the campaign to save planet Earth and ourselves. The same who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. What a joke