'Worse than Voldemort': Global students' strike targets climate change

[VocalNeal]

7 hours ago, Tug said:

You go kids!!!the renewal energy is out there without harming the environment I foresee 2 major problems before renewalbles are viable we need better batteries to store the energy and #2 you have to overcome the oil and gas industry a lot of money changing hands and keep in mind a lot of people employed as well good luck I’m hoping you succeed!!

Big energy is still struggling with how to monetize wind and sunlight. Once that is sorted renewable will be magic.

[TGIR]

The founder of the Weather Channel,  a scientist named John Coleman has said (among others) climate change is a hoax.   I prefer to believe him rather than listen to all the "news" channels spout ignorant "facts", show us videos of bad weather and generally terrorize the public viewership.

 

If there really is "climate change", few people or media outlets seem to realize there have already been several global climate changes in the recorded history of the planet.  Does anyone think the glaciers at the north pole are going to be there forever?  Entire continents are changing their positions on the globe constantly......don't you think that might change the environment?  Do you think that is man-made?

 

I'm all for changing from fossil fuel to more appropriate sources, but let's try to be realistic.  First, no technology exists today that is all encompassing.  Secondly, a very stable and non-threatening nuclear alternative is available today but governments and industry won't use it.......because they can't weaponize it!

 

If it were up to me I would want to know why absolutely no-one in the "climate change industry" has said anything about this being available, cheaper, and far less dangerous than our current very dangerous nuclear reactors.  If we really want to change our resource gobbling energy activities lets start with clean nuclear energy because in order to stop using fossil fuels there has to be a reasonable alternative.  Cold fusion is just such an alternative.

 

Marching with signs and posters telling us what we already know is fruitless........let's have the protesters start marching for a proven technology instead.  Give the government something specific to work on or they'll piss around forever and absolutely nothing will get done.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The cost is unacceptable. 

 

Tell me, how much do you think finding and moving in mass to another life sustaining planet is?

 

Its not propaganda, it’s fact and we need to change how we treat our only planetary option, whatever the cost. 

I agree. Humans need to stop polluting the planet and clean it up, stop destroying the oceans, stop cutting down forests to plant palm oil trees, ban all domestic air travel and international air travel for recreation purposes, ban private cars in cities, build affordable, efficient public transport, build lots of nuclear power plants to reduce pollution, limit population to replacement levels and hopefully to reduce to about 3 billion.

Do all that and perhaps mankind has a chance.

 

I fervently hope that man does not manage to travel to another planet as he'll just stuff that one up too. 

 

[RickBradford]

40 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Tell me, how much do you think finding and moving on mass to another life sustaining planet will be?

No serious scientist or economist thinks that climate change is an existential threat, no matter what you or those renowned climate experts Bob Geldof and Prince Charles believe.

 

It may turn out to be a problem in several decades' time, and one that costs large amounts of money to mitigate.

 

But suggesting that humanity will have to shift to another planet is so absurd that not even these kids out climate protesting for the day could be induced to believe that one.

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No serious scientist or economist thinks that climate change is an existential threat, no matter what you or those renowned climate experts Bob Geldof and Prince Charles believe.

 

It may turn out to be a problem in several decades' time, and one that costs large amounts of money to mitigate.

 

But suggesting that humanity will have to shift to another planet is so absurd that not even these kids out climate protesting for the day could be induced to believe that one.

You may want to reread my post, I wasn’t postulating we move planets. I was pointing out we only have one planet to live on. 

 

Though quoting my full post would have made that clearer...

 

Unless humanity makes drastic changes to it’s behaviour, climate change will result in changes that are catastrophic for humanity. 

[RickBradford]

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Unless humanity makes drastic changes to it’s behaviour, climate change will result in changes that are catastrophic for humanity. 

And to repeat .. no serious scientist or economist believes that. Damaging, yes; catastrophic, no.

[Bluespunk]

18 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

And to repeat .. no serious scientist or economist believes that. Damaging, yes; catastrophic, no.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

 

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

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/consequences_en

 

Clearly we have a very different interpretation of the word “damaging”

 

Plenty more articles out there. 

 

[RickBradford]

 

14 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Clearly we have a very different interpretation of the word “damaging”

Maybe, but we certainly have a different interpretation of the word "catastrophe".

 

None of the credible sources you cite suggest that climate change will be "catastrophic for humanity." Potentially damaging, yes.

 

 

[RickBradford]

In timely fashion, Richard Tol has a new video out showing the latest estimates of the economic impacts of climate change.

 

It's a 45-minute presentation. The short takeaway for rational people is that the downside of climate change is a few percent of GDP to kick in during the second half of this century. The short takeaway for activists is that Richard Tol must be an evil far-right climate denier.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

 

Maybe, but we certainly have a different interpretation of the word "catastrophe".

 

None of the credible sources you cite suggest that climate change will be "catastrophic for humanity." Potentially damaging, yes.

 

 

Increased drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, more frequent wild fire disasters, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, more frequent flooding, famine, polluted oceans and fresh water sources, all equate catastrophe for me. 

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Increased drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, more frequent wild fire disasters, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, more frequent flooding all equate catastrophe for me. 

Well, perhaps you are still afraid of worms and colored balloons, as well.

 

These are damaging effects, for sure, which will potentially occur from time to time in specific locations if the temperature continues to rise.

 

But the humans who are powerful enough to affect the world's climate are certainly powerful enough to protect themselves against the worst effects of climate change.

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Well, perhaps you are still afraid of worms and colored balloons, as well.

 

These are damaging effects, for sure, which will potentially occur from time to time in specific locations if the temperature continues to rise.

 

But the humans who are powerful enough to affect the world's climate are certainly powerful enough to protect themselves against the worst effects of climate change.

They are catastrophic.

 

We shouldn't be looking to protect ourselves from climate change, but rather reverse the damage we have done. 

 

I don’t doubt our ability as a species to do this, just the will. 

 

Hence my support for the students protesting, they give me hope. 

[ivor bigun]

I wonder how many of these kids would turn up if it was not schooltime but at the weekend?

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[RickBradford]

27 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Hence my support for the students protesting, they give me hope.

If these schoolchildren had the slightest idea what they were protesting about, your "hope" might be more grounded in reality.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

If these schoolchildren had the slightest idea what they were protesting about, your "hope" might be more grounded in reality.

I work with children and they are fully aware of the dangers that come with human caused climate change. 

[Nyezhov]

25 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I work with children and they are fully aware of the dangers that come with human caused climate change. 

Pump their little heads full and they will beleive anything...Santa Claus, Slender Man.......

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Pump their little heads full and they will beleive anything...Santa Claus, Slender Man.......

The corollary of that argument is your own head has been pumped full.

 

The evidence is it has.

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Pump their little heads full and they will beleive anything...Santa Claus, Slender Man.......

Nope. 

 

Very opposite in fact. 

 

Teach children how to learn and decide on what is true. 

 

The future needs those who can think for themselves. 

 

[Nyezhov]

21 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The future needs those who can think for themselves. 

well we agree there. Safe rooms, trophies for everybody, and gender reveals help in that way do they? Groupthink. And Western educators laugh at Asian rote learning and conformity, how ironic.

 

Then they get to college. Yikes.

 

Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed. Joey the Man of Steel.
 

[Sir Dude]

All sounds positive of the kiddies and I'll be heartened by their sacrifice when they all start cutting back on their own carbon footprint and rejection from their lives of all these polluting modern appliances/conveniences/lifestyle packaging on-the-fly products so you can live your life "on-the-move" all the time. Don't even mention walking places plus ditching power hungry phones, computers, cars or other electrical input devices to them as they'll instigate a search for a "safe area" (probably to call the police and report your fascism) because they have been "triggered" by your callous and vicious nastiness. I remember when we had to use our imagination to enjoy ourselves with many things. 

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

I work with children and they are fully aware of the dangers that come with human caused climate change. 

They shouldn't be.

 

They should be aware of the dangers that might come from climate change, and also aware of the dangers that might come from over-reacting to the threat of climate change, providing a cure that is worse than the disease.

 

"Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open mind," wrote Malcolm Forbes, a statement that is akin to heresy these days.

 

Much better, it appears, to instruct the youth of today what to think, then parade them on the street with banners and slogans, and pretend they are making some kind of meaningful protest.

 

Its upside, of course, is that it is exactly the kind of infantile virtue signalling that guarantees headlines in the legacy media.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

They shouldn't be.

 

They should be aware of the dangers that might come from climate change, and also aware of the dangers that might come from over-reacting to the threat of climate change, providing a cure that is worse than the disease.

 

"Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open mind," wrote Malcolm Forbes, a statement that is akin to heresy these days.

 

Much better, it appears, to instruct the youth of today what to think, then parade them on the street with banners and slogans, and pretend they are making some kind of meaningful protest.

 

Its upside, of course, is that it is exactly the kind of infantile virtue signalling that guarantees headlines in the legacy media.

I teach children how to think. 

 

I would never teach them what to think. 

 

They know the threat from human made climate change is real, because they can think. 

 

As can those students currently protesting on govt failure to curb and take measures to reverse climate change. 

 

They have my respect. 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Increased drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, more frequent wild fire disasters, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, more frequent flooding, famine, polluted oceans and fresh water sources, all equate catastrophe for me. 

There's no doubt that pollution of the atmosphere, oceans, and the general environment, is a major problem that should be addressed. However, reducing CO2 emissions in the hope that that will stop the climate changing, will not have any effect on plastic bags in the oceans, and little effect on the unhealthy smog that residents of Thailand experience for several months each year in cities such Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Mae Hong Son, and many other areas, due to burn-off. However, these problems can be fixed by other methods, if there's a will.

 

The claim that increased droughts, floods and hurricanes will result from the current, slight degree of warming, is often repeated in the media, and has probably influenced these kids who are protesting. However, the so-called great authority on Climate Change, the IPCC, in their Summary of the Physical Sciences (Working Group 1), has expressed uncertainty that any increase in these extreme weather events has occurred, as at 2013.

 

What is also interesting is that they express 'high confidence' that droughts during the past thousand years have been of greater magnitude and longer duration than any droughts observed during the 20th century, and that larger floods have occurred during the previous 500 years than any recorded in the 20th century in specific regions such as northern and central Europe, the western Mediterranean and eastern Asia.

 

Below are the quotes from page 50 of the summary.

 

"There is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall), owing to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. However, this masks important regional changes and, for example, the frequency and intensity of drought have likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and northwest Australia since 1950. {2.6.2;"

 

"There is high confidence for droughts during the last millennium of greater magnitude and longer duration than those observed since the beginning of the 20th century in many regions. There is medium confidence that more megadroughts occurred in monsoon Asia and wetter conditions prevailed in arid Central Asia and the South American monsoon region during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850) compared to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950–1250)." 

 

"Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. However, for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated." 

 

"There is low confidence of large-scale trends in storminess over the last century and there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether robust trends exist in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms."

 

"With high confidence, floods larger than recorded since the 20th century occurred during the past five centuries in northern and central Europe, the western Mediterranean region and eastern Asia. There is medium confidence that in the Near East, India and central North America, modern large floods are comparable or surpass historical floods in magnitude and/or frequency. "

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

There's no doubt that pollution of the atmosphere, oceans, and the general environment, is a major problem that should be addressed. However, reducing CO2 emissions in the hope that that will stop the climate changing, will not have any effect on plastic bags in the oceans, and little effect on the unhealthy smog that residents of Thailand experience for several months each year in cities such Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Mae Hong Son, and many other areas, due to burn-off. However, these problems can be fixed by other methods, if there's a will.

 

The claim that increased droughts, floods and hurricanes will result from the current, slight degree of warming, is often repeated in the media, and has probably influenced these kids who are protesting. However, the so-called great authority on Climate Change, the IPCC, in their Summary of the Physical Sciences (Working Group 1), has expressed uncertainty that any increase in these extreme weather events has occurred, as at 2013.

 

What is also interesting is that they express 'high confidence' that droughts during the past thousand years have been of greater magnitude and longer duration than any droughts observed during the 20th century, and that larger floods have occurred during the previous 500 years than any recorded in the 20th century in specific regions such as northern and central Europe, the western Mediterranean and eastern Asia.

 

Below are the quotes from page 50 of the summary.

 

"There is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall), owing to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. However, this masks important regional changes and, for example, the frequency and intensity of drought have likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and northwest Australia since 1950. {2.6.2;"

 

"There is high confidence for droughts during the last millennium of greater magnitude and longer duration than those observed since the beginning of the 20th century in many regions. There is medium confidence that more megadroughts occurred in monsoon Asia and wetter conditions prevailed in arid Central Asia and the South American monsoon region during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850) compared to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950–1250)." 

 

"Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. However, for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated." 

 

"There is low confidence of large-scale trends in storminess over the last century and there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether robust trends exist in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms."

 

"With high confidence, floods larger than recorded since the 20th century occurred during the past five centuries in northern and central Europe, the western Mediterranean region and eastern Asia. There is medium confidence that in the Near East, India and central North America, modern large floods are comparable or surpass historical floods in magnitude and/or frequency. "

One of my earlier posts has links that give very different views on the weather related outcomes of climate change. 

 

The views come from credible sources based upon credible studies. 

[DogNo1]

Well, overpopulation is certainly a problem.  Warnings of worldwide famine were issued by The Council of Rome in the 50's but the green revolution obviate that problem for a while.  Now the danger caused by overpopulation is to the climate.  Why is that not being discussed?

Perhaps there will be a natural correction with huge die-offs.  When there is a much smaller population, the climate will (possibly) recover.

[Tug]

It’s all in the storage of the renewalble energy imagine an electric car with a 1000 mile range imagine your home powered by renewable energy all night for free it’s all in the storage of the energy that’s the key we need to crack get going kids invent that super battery and be mindful of the people employed by the energy sector get with it!!!   I have faith in you!!!

[Cryingdick]

I wonder if these kids who say we are ruining their future realize the world would be better if they were never born? I am not ruining their future people who are having kids especially more than one are a big portion of the blame for the problem. 30 years ago I was that kid who's future was being ruined by uncontrolled population growth. If you have kids today believing that climate change is a catastrophe a decade away you are by your own reasoning being completely stupid. 

 

It's time for these kids to have a little chat with Diane Feinstein. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, RickBradford said:

But the humans who are powerful enough to affect the world's climate are certainly powerful enough to protect themselves against the worst effects of climate change.

Agree 100%.

The significant thing to my mind is that if the politicians actually believed in man made climate change being a threat to humanity they'd have put a major operation into place to do something about it. Given that their only real action seems to be about removing plastic bags from supermarkets and trying to make people buy electric cars ( but doing nothing to build the infrastructure to support an all electric car culture ) leads me to believe that they don't really believe it's a serious problem.

As an example of what they would be doing if they did believe in it, the action of countries in WW2 to mobilise the entire population and production facilities to combat the enemy. Building windmills and having conferences/ school kids marches is not doing anything at all in the bigger picture.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

I wonder if these kids who say we are ruining their future realize the world would be better if they were never born? I am not ruining their future people who are having kids especially more than one are a big portion of the blame for the problem. 30 years ago I was that kid who's future was being ruined by uncontrolled population growth. If you have kids today believing that climate change is a catastrophe a decade away you are by your own reasoning being completely stupid. 

 

It's time for these kids to have a little chat with Diane Feinstein. 

 

 

If human caused climate change is real, how come none of the green warriors realise that it's caused by having too many people on the planet?

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

One of my earlier posts has links that give very different views on the weather related outcomes of climate change. 

 

The views come from credible sources based upon credible studies. 

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is funded by various governments, and is the main authority on climate change effects. They collect and analyze all peer reviewed reports, but have often been criticized for their bias towards the harmful effects of CO2 and for making dire predictions in their earlier reports that later proved to be wrong.

 

As a consequence of general criticism from many reputable scientists, the IPCC changed their use of the word 'prediction' to 'projection' (based on computer models),  and in the AR5 report which came out in 2013, conceded that the evidence that extreme weather events have been increasing during the past century is not certain.

 

The issue of the causes and effects of climate change and the precise contribution that each of the many factors have, is too complex and chaotic for any certainty. Scientific certainty expressed on such issues tend to be political fabrications, and not rigorous science. The school kids should be taught this.