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

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Our lot are well on the way to forcing everyone to give up petrol powered cars. I'll accept that when kids are banned from using mobile phones and recreational air travel is banned.

Personally i am all for accepting the law, if it is for the common good, but obviously i cannot speak for others.

Every single ban you mention is likely to cause billions to be unhappy.

[VocalNeal]

Quote

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

About 40 seconds before she screamed you don't understand me and rushed upstairs and slammed her bedroom door?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Personally i am all for accepting the law, if it is for the common good, but obviously i cannot speak for others.

Every single ban you mention is likely to cause billions to be unhappy.

If the climate alarmists are correct, either we make real sacrifices or billions will die. I just want the pain to be shared equally. Why should I give up my petrol powered car if kids can still use polluting to make mobile phones and people can fly somewhere to get a suntan?

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

so am i doomed to be confined to my condo indefinitely

because someone think i shouldnt have a scooter ?

If the climate warriors have their way we are all going to be stuck.

Anyway, you could get an electrically powered scooter.

[Bluespunk]

14 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

regarding support from 97% TM,

its not a matter of opinion,

two of them are on record saying ipcc lie through their teeth

when claiming they got backed by them,

its a matter of fact denial

You choose to believe their claims.

You also chose to say patrick moore co-founded Greenpeace.

 

I believe the IPCC's scientifically supported reporting.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the climate alarmists are correct, either we make real sacrifices or billions will die. I just want the pain to be shared equally. Why should I give up my petrol powered car if kids can still use polluting to make mobile phones and people can fly somewhere to get a suntan?

I agree in theory on the principle of equality, and i have very little trust in the alarmists of climate change.

Implementing big changes like the ones you mention sounds not practical at the moment.

Right now there is a terrible drought in Australia, i don't see how banning telephones or cars would solve the problem.

[brokenbone]

9 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

You choose to believe their claims.

You also chose to say patrick moore co-founded Greenpeace.

 

I believe the IPCC's scientifically supported reporting.

if you heard the scientists testimony that i provided links for,

and still claim ipcc published their report as was,

then you chose to deny fact.

its all there, its recorded testimonies,

the very scientists that ipcc claim

to base their report on,

and claim to be part of the '97% approve TM"

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I agree in theory on the principle of equality, and i have very little trust in the alarmists of climate change.

Implementing big changes like the ones you mention sounds not practical at the moment.

Right now there is a terrible drought in Australia, i don't see how banning telephones or cars would solve the problem.

Given I don't believe that anything humans do is going to make any difference anyway ( our contribution to climate CO2 is very small compared to natural sources ) IMO nothing is going to change the drought situation in Australia.

It's being used as an excuse by governments to impose draconian societal changes that would never succeed normally.

All I'm saying is that if they want to ban my petrol powered car they should have to give up stuff too.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

if you heard the scientists testimony that i provided links for,

and still claim ipcc published their report as was,

then you chose to deny fact.

its all there, its recorded testimonies,

the very scientists that ipcc claim

to base their report on,

and claim to be part of the '97% approve TM"

I support fully the IPCC position on man made climate change.

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I support fully the IPCC position on man made climate change.

including the lie that the scientists support the position ?

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

including the lie that the scientists support the position ?

That ranks with your claim about patrick moore

[brokenbone]

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That ranks with your claim about patrick moore

i provided records of two of them stating

ipcc position is the exact opposite of what they reported to ipcc,

then to top it off ipcc claim they did support the position, in a 2nd hoax, the 97% approve hoax

[WeekendRaider]

at one time it seemed as if Man was a dog's, and most mutt's, best friend.  Man could cook food, hence bigger brains for both species.  but Man started to cook not just food and using a lot of stuff that Mother Nature took 10's of millions of years to "make".... he, and she, "cooked" in about 200 years.  including especially when "flying" thru the sky that God [which animals cannot see] made for the fowl, not Man or dogs and mutts,  to fly in.  duh.  

hence the story of dogs, and mutts.... and Men.... may have not only began because of Co2 [which animals cannot see], and which also accounts for all of his food including the new "meatless meat" stuff that doesn't grow in your backyard [wink! wink!] but also accounts [maybe] for how their little story together ends as well!  hey!  pretty far out, man?

don't buy the tree thing?  Oliver Morton on about 287 or so of the paperback version of Eating The Sun.  it makes sense to me.  I buy it.  

 

hey man! pass me another toke!

[Nigel Garvie]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i provided records of two of them stating

ipcc position is the exact opposite of what they reported to ipcc,

then to top it off ipcc claim they did support the position, in a 2nd hoax, the 97% approve hoax

2 people is not a statistic, it could just be a simple error. We are talking about 10s of 1000s of Scientists here. The no ACC conspiracy theory ranks alongside the flat earth, the Evolution is just a theory (God put the dinosaur bones there to test us etc), and the faked moon landing one. Can we discuss reality again please.

[Nigel Garvie]

7 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Happy to give my suggestions,

Ban all recreational travel using motor vehicles and private ownership of motor vehicles for a start.

You want to take a trip, bicycle and sailing/rowing boats. You want to drive to work or shopping, take the bus.

Foreign holidays, all stopped.

Restrict use of electricity in homes, 5 units per adult per day.

Restrict property ownership to 1 bedroom per adult, or remove the right of single adults to own property.

Stop all use of mobile phones, or restrict ownership to one purchase every ten years.

 

That's just a start

Every now and then I find that I broadly agree with you, I don't expect it to become a habit!

I do in this case (on principle anyway).

 

The Queen is going to have a problem with the property one though.

Flying to Thailand and India is impossible for me to forego. I suppose I could argue that there is a business angle. Sailing would be pleasant but take too long.

 

As I checked for my mobile phone before I went out the other night, I wondered how I had managed before I had one, and remembered that it was wonderful. You actually talked to people "In the flesh" without interruptions. 

[DrTuner]

I think I figured out what Greta's stolen dream is. She want to ice skate on river Thames in mid June. Unless we manage to heat our ball up, she might still get it.

[DrTuner]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm usually on your side, but given that humans apparently contribute only about 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere, what we burn or don't is irrelevant. Personally, I'd like electric cars in cities, though they are completely useless at the moment for large goods transportation and long distance driving.

Hydrogen is the real answer, and there is some hope for that, though the battery powered car lobby is winning at the moment with their hugely polluting to make and dispose of batteries.

If we burn wood, the carbon cycle is further distrupted though, even if it is a very small contribution. I just figured out how Finland could go carbon neutral like they claim to be doing in nearby future. If you go there you'll notice it's mostly forests, trees that have captured carbon from CO2 as they grew. Finns don't burn them as they are more valuable as products such as paper, which they then export and there's the trick: the captured carbon will be turned back to CO2 outside Finland's borders. Does sod all for the global CO2 balance of course but looks good in the press releases.

 

Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen are components of life, building blocks for organic things like humans. If one is too scared of CO2, here's a quick trick to lower the levels: stop breathing. Your body gets energy from oxidizing, creating CO2 which you then breathe out. Of course you'll croak doing that, remember since being eco conscious don't opt for cremation, as burning your corpse is again oxidizing to CO2. You should be buried deep underground to be a real eco hero and store that carbon you captured growing up until it turns to fossil fuel and some evil corporation sucks you back out as oil and burns you, creating CO2. Good try, anyway.

 

I for one would like to grow ganja in Utsjoki. Bring 'em temps up I say, it's good for biodiversity and food supply.

[samran]

46 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

2 people is not a statistic, it could just be a simple error. We are talking about 10s of 1000s of Scientists here. The no ACC conspiracy theory ranks alongside the flat earth, the Evolution is just a theory (God put the dinosaur bones there to test us etc), and the faked moon landing one. Can we discuss reality again please.

Or anti-vaxxers who don’t believe the science either...

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

2 people is not a statistic, it could just be a simple error. We are talking about 10s of 1000s of Scientists here. The no ACC conspiracy theory ranks alongside the flat earth, the Evolution is just a theory (God put the dinosaur bones there to test us etc), and the faked moon landing one. Can we discuss reality again please.

no, its not an error einstein,

its testimonies to ipcc lies.

 

also read the text on the image you uploaded and contemplate the irony

of fear-mongering lunacy, if you can,

who knows, maybe a tinfoil hat can protect you from co2 ?

[DrTuner]

7 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Happy to give my suggestions,

Ban all recreational travel using motor vehicles and private ownership of motor vehicles for a start.

You want to take a trip, bicycle and sailing/rowing boats. You want to drive to work or shopping, take the bus.

Foreign holidays, all stopped.

Restrict use of electricity in homes, 5 units per adult per day.

Restrict property ownership to 1 bedroom per adult, or remove the right of single adults to own property.

Stop all use of mobile phones, or restrict ownership to one purchase every ten years.

 

That's just a start

People yap about equality, but let's say we were to distibute resources equally (which is pretty much impossible because energy is produced locally and can't be transported over long distance easily, but anyway), we'd be living in bamboo huts Isaan style, on our way to living out in the rough as population grows. Some like it, I don't. 

 

Instead of trying to decrease the quality of living, decrease the amount of people.

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i provided records of two of them stating

ipcc position is the exact opposite of what they reported to ipcc,

then to top it off ipcc claim they did support the position, in a 2nd hoax, the 97% approve hoax

I know what you did, now and before.

 

I still support the IPCC conclusions based on the overwhelming scientific studies used to reach it.

[brokenbone]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

I know what you did, now and before.

 

I still support the IPCC conclusions based on the overwhelming scientific studies used to reach it.

except ipcc inverted the value of the scientists,

as the testimonies by the scientists show

[Bluespunk]

25 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

except ipcc inverted the value of the scientists,

as the testimonies by the scientists show

The vast majority, 97%, support their conclusions.

 

As do I.

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The vast majority, 97%, support their conclusions.

 

As do I.

98.5% of top scientists agree tinfoil hats

protects against radiation of CO2,

try one of those

[Nigel Garvie]

30 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

except ipcc inverted the value of the scientists,

as the testimonies by the scientists show

"Inverted the value of the scientists" is not a coherent statement, though it does earn you the tin foil hat award! Desperate stuff.

 

I'm beginning to think you are just trolling. I've no desire to be rude, but I find it hard to imagine that anyone could believe the conspiracy theory garbage you have posted. 

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

98.5% of top scientists agree tinfoil hats

protects against radiation of CO2,

try one of those

If I feel the need to do so, I’ll borrow yours. 

[brokenbone]

10 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

"Inverted the value of the scientists" is not a coherent statement, though it does earn you the tin foil hat award! Desperate stuff.

 

I'm beginning to think you are just trolling. I've no desire to be rude, but I find it hard to imagine that anyone could believe the conspiracy theory garbage you have posted. 

its all there in the testimonies by the scientists.

keep the tinfoil hat on at all times,

you just cant trust those radiating CO2 molecules.

on the bright side you learned a new word today, maybe someday you will learn the meaning of it, but i wouldnt hold my breath, heard holding breath builds up co2 in the lungs, and even the tinfoil hat cant protect you from those radiating suckers

[RideJocky]

The vast majority, 97%, support their conclusions.
 
As do I.

I would not argue the accuracy of the report one way or the other, but claiming 97% support the conclusions is at best unsubstantiated and more likely an out and out fabrication.

I won’t call you a liar because I assume you are just regurgitating someone else’s lie.

If you don’t have anything that supports that claim you should take it back.

Thanks

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

 

I would not argue the accuracy of the report one way or the other, but claiming 97% support the conclusions is at best unsubstantiated and more likely an out and out fabrication.

I won’t call you a liar because I assume you are just regurgitating someone else’s lie.

If you don’t have anything that supports that claim you should take it back.

Thanks

 

A: you have called me a liar. Not appreciated. 
 

B. I won’t. 
 

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

 

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

[RideJocky]

A: you have called me a liar. Not appreciated. 
 
B. I won’t. 
 
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp
 
https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/
 
https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

I did not call you a liar, and I don’t appreciate you claiming I did.

Linking to articles regurgitating the same 97% statistic you regurgitated doe not really substantiate it.

In any event, the articles implied a 97% agreement on the climate changing, but said nothing of the report you claim enjoys 97% agreement rate.

Do you even know where the 97% comes from?