Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, they are. But that's more to do with addressing things on a personal level. Behind most (if not all) of these products there's also industry, commerce and people making a living. Banning the product, and even finding an acceptable replacement doesn't address what happens to these when the product becomes redundant. Or, taken on a larger scale, how such changes effect national (and global economy), societies and international relations.

 

It's an "inconvenience" to the more privileged, maybe a tad different for the less fortunate.

There have to be changes made and there are consequences that will need to be addressed. However we cannot carry on the way we are. The damage our behaviour is inflicting upon our eco systems cannot continue. 

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

There have to be changes made and there are consequences that will need to be addressed. However we cannot carry on the way we are. The damage our behaviour is inflicting upon our eco systems cannot continue. 

The "consequences" that will need to be addressed, which you talk about so lightly, could mean livelihoods of billions of humans like you being destroyed, resulting in escalations of wars and crimes.

How would you address that ? Or should it be accepted as a "collateral damage" ?

Be careful of what you wish.

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

The "consequences" that will need to be addressed, which you talk about so lightly, could mean livelihoods of billions of humans like you being destroyed, resulting in escalations of wars and crimes.

How would you address that ? Or should it be accepted as a "collateral damage" ?

Be careful of what you wish.

How do you decide I am talking about them lightly? Explain please. 
 

Which bit of “there are consequences which will need to be addressed” is a challenge to comprehension?

 

Explain how changes will lead to escalation of wars, precisely please. 

Where have I said collateral damage is an acceptable consequence or is the whole “will need to be addressed” troubling you again?

[Odysseus123]

Well.. the discussions that we are having certainly have the benficial side effects of raising the consciousness amongst all concerned.And change does come tho' usually in an incremental way...the environments of Western manufacturing cities of a hundred years ago as versus today are clear indicators of that.

 

Asia is still in love with it's initial "robber baron"
 phase of capitalism as was Great Britain and the US in the past-and the communist countries after world war 2.

 

The greatest challenge will be Africa because it is still stuck in a proto-capitalist mode with poor and corrupt gov'ts,minimal social security,no justice, and chronic exploitation-such a scenario virtually guarantees a rampant population explosion.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

How do you decide I am talking about them lightly? Explain please. 
 

Which bit of “there are consequences which will need to be addressed” is a challenge to comprehension?

 

Explain how changes will lead to escalation of wars, precisely please. 

Where have I said collateral damage is an acceptable consequence or is the whole “will need to be addressed” troubling you again?

Don't need to get upset, you seem to be an intelligent person, so you can figure out by yourself how the changes will affect livelihoods, and what are the effects of mass unemployment.

I am not troubled at all, except for the fact that i'm tired to hear the mantra "things must change" without any clue about feasible solutions.

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Don't need to get upset, you seem to be an intelligent person, so you can figure out by yourself how the changes will affect livelihoods, and what are the effects of mass unemployment.

I am not troubled at all, except for the fact that i'm tired to hear the mantra "things must change" without any clue about feasible solutions.

I’m getting a little tired of your scatter gun blast accusations, so either point out where I made a statement accepting collateral damage, as you put it, or where I did not acknowledge that there are consequences that will need to be addressed. 
 

If you can’t then don’t accuse me of such things. I let the dig at “intellectual honesty” pass but continued accusations are becoming tedious. 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I’m getting a little tired of your scatter gun blast accusations, so either point out where I made a statement accepting collateral damage, as you put it, or where I did not acknowledge that there are consequences that will need to be addressed. 
 

If you can’t then don’t accuse me of such things. I let the dig at “intellectual honesty” pass but continued accusations are becoming tedious. 

If you're trying to make it personal, it just means that you don't have arguments. Bye

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

It’s not me who made it personal.
Your inaccurate misleading comments don’t on what I said did that.

Ok, no probs. Peace.

[Airbagwill]

For those who think the Roman vinyards in UK have anything to do with global warming.

1 it shows you dont understand the science

2 The bottom line is that the English wine industry is currently thriving and has a geographical extent and quality levels that are unprecedented in recorded history

[RickBradford]

23 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Asia is still in love with it's initial "robber baron" phase of capitalism

Lucky old Asia.Better the robber barons than the "omnipotent moral busybodies" of whom Greta Thunberg is the latest candidate.

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

"The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - CS Lewis

[Odysseus123]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Lucky old Asia.Better the robber barons than the "omnipotent moral busybodies" of whom Greta Thunberg is the latest candidate.

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

"The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - CS Lewis

Yes-I am aware of CS Lewis' quote-it get's plastered on the internet with great regularity by the Alt-Right in the rather quaint belief that it is in accord with their own libertarian fantasies.Thomas Jefferson will be wheeled out next.

 

No-Asia's environment is/has suffered extensively due to the activities of the robber barons-as had Great Britain's and the industrialised parts of the USA in the past.Exploitation without responsibility is not sustainable.

 

Even Teddy Roosevelt realized that when he launched his great visionary campaign to establish the great National Parks of the US-against bitter and virulent opposition.

 

One does not have to be an  "omnipotent moral busybody" to have an interest in one's environment and to seek to protect or enhance it.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Lucky old Asia.Better the robber barons than the "omnipotent moral busybodies" of whom Greta Thunberg is the latest candidate.

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

"The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - CS Lewis

Yes-I am aware of CS Lewis' quote-it get's plastered on the internet with great regularity by the Alt-Right in the rather quaint belief that it is in accord with their own libertarian fantasies.Thomas Jefferson will be wheeled out next.

 

No-Asia's environment is/has suffered extensively due to the activities of the robber barons-as had Great Britain's and the industrialised parts of the USA in the past.Exploitation without responsibility is not sustainable.

 

Even Teddy Roosevelt realized that.

 

One does not have to be an  "omnipotent moral busybody" to have an interest in one's environment and to seek to protect or enhance it.

Appreciate both points of view, one may conclude that nobody has a clue on how to solve climate-pollution issues, yet humankind is more divided than ever.

Happy days ahead.

[Rimmer]

Troll meme post removed, this is a discussion forum it is not Facebook, Twitter or SMS

[Odysseus123]

23 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Appreciate both points of view, one may conclude that nobody has a clue on how to solve climate-pollution issues, yet humankind is more divided than ever.

Happy days ahead.

I don't think that humankind is more divided than ever-rather the reverse in fact.

I have very little interest in overblown internet memes that proclaim that it is so.

 

I am very sure that many people have a "clue" how to address or "solve" the many complex challenges that face us humans-and the planet that we are custodians of.

 

 

 

 

 

[nkg]

23 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Yes-I am aware of CS Lewis' quote-it get's plastered on the internet with great regularity by the Alt-Right in the rather quaint belief that it is in accord with their own libertarian fantasies.Thomas Jefferson will be wheeled out next.

 

 

It is a powerful quote with a powerful message. People who "believe they are trying to do good" can be amongst the most dangerous in society, because they never question their own motives. The tyranny of the sanctimonious, if you will.

 

I personally haven't seen it "plastered on the internet", but perhaps we visit different websites. Regardless, you can't dismiss a great quote because of the person who is quoting it. We shouldn't dismiss the message because we don't like the messenger.

 

To make myself clear, I am broadly in agreement with Thunberg, and believe that we should be doing far, far more to protect the environment. I just happen to like that CS Lewis quote.

[JamesBlond]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

The "consequences" that will need to be addressed, which you talk about so lightly, could mean livelihoods of billions of humans like you being destroyed, resulting in escalations of wars and crimes.

How would you address that ? Or should it be accepted as a "collateral damage" ?

Be careful of what you wish.

That's perfectly true, of course, but nor is it acceptable to be locked into self-destruction.

First we need the accept the need to have less. This is gradually happening - doing without plastics, avoiding unnecessary air travel, for example - but that is pussy stuff. The real deceleration must take place by putting a cap on energy production and by interest rate manipulation. This is the easy way.

Of course that won't happen without a new revolutionary kind of politics that deemphasises growth. As I am not likely to be invited to set that up for the world any time soon, and as ecological morality will never mean anything to the third world, what will realistically happen is this: humans will push their advantage too far (as usual) and when competition by a growing population for finite resources hots up, there will be war. The war to come will be as destructive as the need to reset the system, in other words, catastrophic and global. Everyone will be forced to take sides for survival, primarily along religious and racial lines. You have no idea how ugly this will get.

Take your pick.

[RideJocky]

Personally, I wouldn’t trade with anyone I felt was desecrating the environment.

Nor would I trade with anyone I thought was inappropriately exploiting their employees.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[zydeco]

30 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

That's perfectly true, of course, but nor is it acceptable to be locked into self-destruction.

First we need the accept the need to have less. This is gradually happening - doing without plastics, avoiding unnecessary air travel, for example - but that is pussy stuff. The real deceleration must take place by putting a cap on energy production and by interest rate manipulation. This is the easy way.

Of course that won't happen without a new revolutionary kind of politics that deemphasises growth. As I am not likely to be invited to set that up for the world any time soon, and as ecological morality will never mean anything to the third world, what will realistically happen is this: humans will push their advantage too far (as usual) and when competition by a growing population for finite resources hots up, there will be war. The war to come will be as destructive as the need to reset the system, in other words, catastrophic and global. Everyone will be forced to take sides for survival, primarily along religious and racial lines. You have no idea how ugly this will get.

Take your pick.

So the "conscience of nature" is now a Doomsday Prepper???

[JamesBlond]

4 minutes ago, zydeco said:

So the "conscience of nature" is now a Doomsday Prepper???

Doomsday has already come for many species, and as humans are bound to nature in ways that humans barely realise, extrapolating from one to another is only logical.

[mauGR1]

49 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

I am very sure that many people have a "clue" how to address or "solve" the many complex challenges that face us humans-and the planet that we are custodians of.

 

 

I hope you are right

[RideJocky]

So where are all the examples of big problems governments have saved us from so far?

Poverty?
Homelessness?
Human rights?
Cancer?
Drug addition?
Human trafficking?

Yes, just throw money and watch the hogs all line up for it and get even fatter.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[brokenbone]

1 minute ago, RideJocky said:

So where are all the examples of big problems governments have saved us from so far?

Poverty?
Homelessness?
Human rights?
Cancer?
Drug addition?
Human trafficking?

Yes, just throw money and watch the hogs all line up for it and get even fatter.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

US government gave us nuclear power and internet,

specially electric i simply dont want to be without

[kingdong]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Lucky old Asia.Better the robber barons than the "omnipotent moral busybodies" of whom Greta Thunberg is the latest candidate.

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

"The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - CS Lewis

For evil to triumph and the four horsemen of the apocalypse to ride in the 3.30 at aydock park it only requires greta thunberg  to do sweet fa----king dong.

[RideJocky]

US government gave us nuclear power and internet,
specially electric i simply dont want to be without

Well most of the the same people that want to criminalize the use of fossil fuels want to shut down everyone’s nuclear programs as well. It’s all about wind, solar, geothermal and tides. Once they figure out that harboring the wind and tide interferes with the migratory pattens of few birds and fish, that will be out, and after the first big geothermal or solar accident those will be out as well.

I thought Al Gore invented the internet, no?

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

If the IPCC were disbanded, there would be no need for the members.

Ergo, the members have a vested interest. Whether that interest does or does not influence them is beside the point.

Again, you go making things up. I never said their (the 97% era) results were do to the their interest, only that the interest exists.

I assume that at least most of the 97% believe in what what they are doing, and the fact that the industry they work in only exits because of the reports they generate has little to do with that belief.

That said, they are generally not working to determine if it is true, but rather that it is true.

Historically, people came out with theories and then set about to disprove them. I don’t think we are seeing much of that in the climate change industry.

If I’m an umpire, if I bet on a game I’m calling, does it influence my calls?

 

 

And vaccination research can't be trusted because the people doing the research have a vested interest in vaccination. And so on and so forth.

 And in fact there is actual proof that what you are saying is just foolishness. As you may know the jet stream has been wobbling a lot lately bringing arctic temperatures much further south than in the past. A popular hypothesis was the decline of arctic ice was responsible for this. That narrative fit perfectly with the current concern about the steep decline of ice in the Arctic. So naturally, no climatologists challenged that contention and were content to let that fiction thrive. Just one problem: a very impressive research paper recently came out definitively debunking that notion.

Tested: Idea that sea ice steadies jet stream, blocking cold winters

Analysis shows why correlation is not causation, in this case.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/arctic-sea-ice-loss-isnt-to-blame-for-your-cold-winters/

 

What is wrong with those climatologists? Don't they realize that they have just dispensed with a huge scary threat that could have been a big big earner for them?

 

I guess for some people speculation is a satisfactory substitute for facts. In fact better, since their prejudices never get challenged. Maybe you should try to engage with reality.

[brokenbone]

48 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Tested: Idea that sea ice steadies jet stream, blocking cold winters

Analysis shows why correlation is not causation, in this case.

 

not just that case, but CO2 levels too,

has a correlation but is not the cause of warmer temperature. ice samles show that as temperature rises or fall, CO2 follow suit 800 years later,

when the deep ocean also warms/cools

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

not just that case, but CO2 levels too,

has a correlation but is not the cause of warmer temperature. ice samles show that as temperature rises or fall, CO2 follow suit 800 years later,

when the deep ocean also warms/cools

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.
This proves that rising CO₂ was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO₂ heats the planet.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

[RickBradford]

One of Greta's most publicized lines is "How dare you?", meaning how dare greedy fossil fuel companies "steal her dreams".

 

Greta is too young and callow to be called a fool, but her handlers and scriptwriters are abundantly foolish to ignore a fact lived by much of the world's population; that fossil fuels have been the platform which has lifted over a billion people out of poverty in the last 25 years.

 

Yeah, Greta, how dare we make the miserable lives of billions of Third World people better and give them some hope.

[brokenbone]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.
This proves that rising CO₂ was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO₂ heats the planet.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

" Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO₂ levels but CO₂ levels do not affect temperature. "

 

this is not true, there are many scientists

that claim its a one way street,

CO2 is merely an effect of climate change

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

One of Greta's most publicized lines is "How dare you?", meaning how dare greedy fossil fuel companies "steal her dreams".

 

Greta is too young and callow to be called a fool, but her handlers and scriptwriters are abundantly foolish to ignore a fact lived by much of the world's population; that fossil fuels have been the platform which has lifted over a billion people out of poverty in the last 25 years.

 

Yeah, Greta, how dare we make the miserable lives of billions of Third World people better and give them some hope.

Nice try. It's a little late to be playing that game now that fossil fuels are being beaten on cost by renewables. Or do ya think that nostalgia is a useful way to look forward? Because fossil fuel was useful, that it's somehow owed allegiance?

 

.Climate change has worsened global economic inequality, Stanford study shows

A new Stanford University study shows global warming has increased economic inequality since the 1960s. Temperature changes caused by growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere have enriched cool countries like Norway and Sweden, while dragging down economic growth in warm countries such as India and Nigeria.

An analysis by Noah Diffenbaugh and Marshall Burke shows that warming that has already happened – 1 degree Celsius or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit globally above the pre-Industrial average – has increased economic inequality around the world. 

 

“Our results show that most of the poorest countries on Earth are considerably poorer than they would have been without global warming,” said climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, lead author of the study published April 22 in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/04/22/climate-change-worsened-global-economic-inequality/