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

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

" 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

Define "many" in percentage terms. And how many times "many" are the scientists who disagree? Following your kind of usage, I would say "alot".

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Because fossil fuel was useful, that it's somehow owed allegiance?

Fossil fuel wasn't "useful", it was crucial in lifting billions of people out of poverty in a remarkably short time. In the longer term, it has doubled life expectancy worldwide, giving people an extra 40 years to live. Only those who truly hate humanity would oppose that.

 

So we owe fossil fuels, if not allegiance, considerable gratitude for what they has achieved and some humility before making such shallow and silly statements as "How dare you?"

 

But, as we all know, humility and gratitude are qualities utterly absent from the Green/Left mindset.

[RideJocky]

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.

Keep making stuff up...

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Fossil fuel wasn't "useful", it was crucial in lifting billions of people out of poverty in a remarkably short time. In the longer term, it has doubled life expectancy worldwide, giving people an extra 40 years to live. Only those who truly hate humanity would oppose that.

 

So we owe fossil fuels, if not allegiance, considerable gratitude for what they has achieved and some humility before making such shallow and silly statements as "How dare you?"

 

But, as we all know, humility and gratitude are qualities utterly absent from the Green/Left mindset.

However questionable your assertions may be, (and thanks for the lack of  supporting links to your ever dubious sources) Thunberg is looking to the future.  

And "we owe fossil fuels, if not allegiance, considerable gratitude" because if we don't we hurt those various minerals' feelings? Very very lame.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RideJocky said:

 

Keep making stuff up...

 

No, making stuff up is what you do. I provide facts and links to back them up. Like the one above which clearly you missed. Here it is again:

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

 

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Fossil fuel wasn't "useful", it was crucial in lifting billions of people out of poverty in a remarkably short time. In the longer term, it has doubled life expectancy worldwide, giving people an extra 40 years to live. Only those who truly hate humanity would oppose that.

 

So we owe fossil fuels, if not allegiance, considerable gratitude for what they has achieved and some humility before making such shallow and silly statements as "How dare you?"

 

But, as we all know, humility and gratitude are qualities utterly absent from the Green/Left mindset.

What makes your comments especially funny is that you repeatedly criticize climate activists on the grounds of emotionalism. And here you are getting sentimental about fossil fuels. It is to laugh.

[RideJocky]

No, making stuff up is what you do. I provide facts and links to back them up. Like the one above which clearly you missed. Here it is again:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/arctic-sea-ice-loss-isnt-to-blame-for-your-cold-winters/
 

Right

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What makes your comments especially funny is that you repeatedly criticize climate activists on the grounds of emotionalism. And here you are getting sentimental about fossil fuels. It is to laugh.

Trying to ridicule other posters doesn't do you any favours either.

[brokenbone]

36 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

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/

history indicates population thrives during warmer periods,

and succumb or migrate during colder times,

i bet they got paid well by ipcc to say the opposite tho, or who knows,

ipcc arent above editing scientists statement into the opposite,

was the publicized version by ipcc ?

[bristolboy]

Just now, brokenbone said:

history indicates population thrives during warmer periods,

and succumb or migrate during colder times,

i bet they got paid well to say the opposite tho

Which populations? How much warmer?

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Which populations? How much warmer?

if you look at migration from scandinavia & scotland to USA during the cold period when crops was just not enough,

or the bronze age, or the movement during the fall of rome.

throughout history people flee the cold when crops go down.

significant enough temperature change that crops fail

[bristolboy]

Just now, brokenbone said:

if you look at migration from scandinavia & scotland to USA during the cold period when crops was just not enough,

or the bronze age, or the movement during the fall of rome.

throughout history people flee the cold when crops go down.

significant enough temperature change that crops fail

And if all or most of the world's population lived that far north you would be making a good point. But that's not the case, is it? Most economists agree that global warming will be economically good for far northern countries. Not so great for the rest of the inhabited world, though.

[JamesBlond]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Fossil fuel wasn't "useful", it was crucial in lifting billions of people out of poverty in a remarkably short time. In the longer term, it has doubled life expectancy worldwide, giving people an extra 40 years to live. Only those who truly hate humanity would oppose that.

Or those who quite reasonably think that there is more to life on earth than homo sapiens. There's the rest of nature, and it needs defending. Nor do I argue against fossil fuels per se - I mainly condemn the insane rate at which humans have pushed everything, which is basically as if there is no tomorrow.

 

This is a basic piece of wisdom I offer to the world (I may not have much longer to live, so I hope the message is heard): do not take anything faster than its harmful effects can be dealt with.

 

[Airbagwill]

basically we would need 1.7 Earths to make our consumption sustainable. Oil is fuelling this.

We have two choices, readdress our lifestyle and consumption patterns or have them forced upon us by Mother Nature.

 

Expats will often feel the pressure first. For instance rising sea levels in BKK will put pressure on land etc and foreigners will be under pressure to go home.

flights home will become exorbitantly expensive.

International exchange rates will become highly volatile rendering pensions worthless.

Rapid forced eductions in consumption will destroy economies and bring hot social unrest.

People will fight over natural resources, primarily land and water.

Crops will fail, droughts will become more common and extreme weather willl destroy food consumption.

people will try to migrate to regions that look like they have more chance of producing food.

They will be no love for expats within this....it'll be "go home and keep yourr hands off our resources".

 

 

[Airbagwill]

12 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?

 

 

so you think this is the scenario?

[Airbagwill]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Most economists agree that global warming will be economically good for far northern countries.

No they don't as it doesn't follow a simple warming plan. The problems arise with the rising of sea levels and the changing of ocean currents......countries like UK for instance are "warmed" by the Gulf Stream - the end of that would plunge the country into a prolonged winter. (London is on the same latitude as Edmonton in Canada.)

Countries crops will have to fail before alternatives - if any can be found.

Reduction of ice in the artic will ring about cold currents coming down to Sandinavia and may result in land erosion from the now unprotected coastlines.

flows of water will bring flooding and land/soil erosion.

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

so you think this is the scenario?

errr, the scientists said there was no indication

that CO2 causes climate change,

but ipcc censored them and claim they did

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

No they don't as it doesn't follow a simple warming plan. The problems arise with the rising of sea levels and the changing of ocean currents......countries like UK for instance are "warmed" by the Gulf Stream - the end of that would plunge the country into a prolonged winter. (London is on the same latitude as Edmonton in Canada.)

Countries crops will have to fail before alternatives - if any can be found.

Reduction of ice in the artic will ring about cold currents coming down to Sandinavia and may result in land erosion from the now unprotected coastlines.

flows of water will bring flooding and land/soil erosion.

 

[righand3256]

 Much better [emoji23]

 

 

 

[WeekendRaider]

that was done way back in the 1960's, only known in 2015 or 2019 hindsight, when we chose to ignore this.  to pretend that there is not a 15 to 20 year latency between emissions to "teleconnections" or that Rosenfeld et. al. in January 2019 meant "overestimated" instead of what they actually published after peer reviews.... is as silly as ignoring that the first baby step is an immediate moratorium on all private and commercial air travel, except in very unusual medical emergencies, or, as we have done since Carter rescued New York City..... ahem.... every other sector, not just "shipping" will continue to balk at any added costs. let alone will any individual except the most lazy and unread arrogant little fools... take things like Extinction Rebellion at all seriously.  they all only ever talk in generalities. unlike what I just posted.

[Airbagwill]

4 hours ago, brokenbone said:

errr, the scientists said there was no indication

that CO2 causes climate change,

but ipcc censored them and claim they did

Oh dear how sad....even now people try to cherry pick and misquote. .but why?

 

Basically it is because they have replaced critical thinking with pseudo science and mumbo jumbo.

There us NO rational argument against man made climate change.

 

[pkspeaker]

6 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

No they don't as it doesn't follow a simple warming plan. The problems arise with the rising of sea levels and the changing of ocean currents......countries like UK for instance are "warmed" by the Gulf Stream - the end of that would plunge the country into a prolonged winter. (London is on the same latitude as Edmonton in Canada.)

Countries crops will have to fail before alternatives - if any can be found.

Reduction of ice in the artic will ring about cold currents coming down to Sandinavia and may result in land erosion from the now unprotected coastlines.

flows of water will bring flooding and land/soil erosion.

..and that would be the 2-3mm/year of sea level rise that hasn't dramatically changed since they started this racket 30 years ago.

[BritManToo]

6 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

No they don't as it doesn't follow a simple warming plan. The problems arise with the rising of sea levels and the changing of ocean currents......

What sea level rises?

Brighton Pier 1900 & 2019

Liberty Island 1898 & 2016

[RideJocky]

so you think this is the scenario?

First, you are lying, I never said any such thing.

Second, the thing about 97% of “scientists” agreeing is a lie as well, although I would not blame you for that as it’s someone else’s lie, you are just regurgitating it.

[brokenbone]

58 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Oh dear how sad....even now people try to cherry pick and misquote. .but why?

 

Basically it is because they have replaced critical thinking with pseudo science and mumbo jumbo.

There us NO rational argument against man made climate change.

 

ipcc has an agenda, so they misquote scientists to fit the agenda, and then list those scientists as if they were supporting the agenda.

hear the scientists them self

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

 

[Airbagwill]

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

ipcc has an agenda, so they misquote scientists to fit the agenda, and then list those scientists as if they were supporting the agenda.

hear the scientists them self

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

 

QED - Anyone who swallows that, is incapable of critical thinking.

It is very disturbing how many people these days just don't know how to think and analyse - this makes them easy prey for demagogues, con-men, and just about every crank and snake oil salesman who can operate a computer.....

 

just look at the language - "ipcc has an agenda," - "hear the scientists them self" - the grammar alone should be enough.

 

the show you cite is a result of a banal effort to be "unbiased" - the truth is if someone says its raining and someone says it isn't, the duty of the media is not to give them both a TV show but to look outside and see if it is raining or not.

 

 

[Airbagwill]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

What sea level rises?

Brighton Pier 1900 & 2019

Liberty Island 1898 & 2016

while you're at it check out BKK.

[Sujo]

Some angry old men here just because a teenage girl told world leaders to do their job.

[Airbagwill]

When you're dead, you don't know you're dead, the pain is felt by others. Same when you're stupid.

[Airbagwill]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

What sea level rises?

Brighton Pier 1900 & 2019

Liberty Island 1898 & 2016

I don't think you understand what a rise in sea levels means... there's no evidence you even understand tides.....

 

Rising sea levels are caused by a combination of melting ice caps and warming ocean temperatures – water volume expands when it's warmed. As sea levels rise, water pushes farther inland, especially during storm surges, high tides and flooding events