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

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I thought 97% was the percentage of your naysaying and negative posts in this thread.

Instead of trolling, what do you think about the post i quoted ?

[mauGR1]

23 minutes ago, dabhand said:

Couple of interesting articles that may or may not have been mentioned  previously. 

 

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/09/24/no-climate-emergency-mit-climate-expert-500-prominent-global-experts-write-in-letter-to-un/

https://electroverse.net/acclaimed-israeli-astrophysicist-suggests-that-the-sun-drives-earths-climate-not-co2/

 

What is rather alarming is the indication of a high degree of censorship against those who don't conform to what is rapidly becoming a cult. David Bellamy comes to mind and him becoming an 'unperson'. 

Sorry if i quote just a part of the 2nd article which seems quite interesting :

 

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said. “It has repercussions for society. It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person. Who wants to be a sinner?”

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban fossil fuels “comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make,” Shaviv added. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating.  The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.  

 

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry if i quote just a part of the 2nd article which seems quite interesting :

 

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said. “It has repercussions for society. It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person. Who wants to be a sinner?”

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban fossil fuels “comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make,” Shaviv added. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating.  The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

i thought the last part was in a sense the most interesting and disturbing part

 

Nir Shaviv’s alternative viewpoints were originally posted in a Forbes article on Aug 9th entitled “Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That Is Not Easy To Reject” written by Doron Levin (linked here) — that was, until the publication censored the article just a few hours after going live“for failing to meet our editorial standards” — 1984 is upon us — the truth shouldn’t be this hard to spread.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin/2019/08/09/global-warming-an-israeli-astrophysicist-provides-alternative-view-that-is-not-easy-to-reject/#121d00b66945

[mauGR1]

6 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i thought the last part was in a sense the most interesting and disturbing part

 

Nir Shaviv’s alternative viewpoints were originally posted in a Forbes article on Aug 9th entitled “Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That Is Not Easy To Reject” written by Doron Levin (linked here) — that was, until the publication censored the article just a few hours after going live“for failing to meet our editorial standards” — 1984 is upon us — the truth shouldn’t be this hard to spread.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin/2019/08/09/global-warming-an-israeli-astrophysicist-provides-alternative-view-that-is-not-easy-to-reject/#121d00b66945

Yep, and even here on TVF you get attacked by the climate zealots just for doubting their "holy truth".

 

[TopDeadSenter]

9 hours ago, RideJocky said:

The 97% comes from the percentage of climate change papers published that agree, not the number of climate scientists that agree.

That it is constantly regurgitated as fact is hilarious.

 What happens when “facts” agreed on by these 97% are proven fallacious? Are they still counted as being facts even after the claims being retracted? I am thinking of studies such as this one which proved the seas are warming due to climate change that later the authors admitted were a load of tripe.

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-nature-retracts-ocean-warming.html

 

[mauGR1]

46 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 What happens when “facts” agreed on by these 97% are proven fallacious? Are they still counted as being facts even after the claims being retracted? I am thinking of studies such as this one which proved the seas are warming due to climate change that later the authors admitted were a load of tripe.

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-nature-retracts-ocean-warming.html

 

Well, i'd never expect liars to feel ashamed, they are shameless.

They'll wait until the dust is settled (people have short memories) and then they'll come out in force with another lie.

Rinse and repeat.

[RideJocky]

 What happens when “facts” agreed on by these 97% are proven fallacious? Are they still counted as being facts even after the claims being retracted? I am thinking of studies such as this one which proved the seas are warming due to climate change that later the authors admitted were a load of tripe.

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-nature-retracts-ocean-warming.html

 

 

They’ll just move to a new hysteria.

 

Remember when the hysteria was paper bags deforesting the Earth? Their solution was plastic bags.

 

Now the hysteria is how plastic bags are poisoning the Earth, and their solution is paper bags.

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

45 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

They’ll just move to a new hysteria.

 

Remember when the hysteria was paper bags deforesting the Earth? Their solution was plastic bags.

 

Now the hysteria is how plastic bags are poisoning the Earth, and their solution is paper bags.

 

 

 

 

No, I don't remember "when the hysteria was paper bags deforesting the earth". And you don't either unless your memory is severely defective. Paper bags were replaced by plastic bags because plastic bags are cheaper.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No, I don't remember "when the hysteria was paper bags deforesting the earth". And you don't either unless your memory is severely defective. Paper bags were replaced by plastic bags because plastic bags are cheaper.

I am sure that about 97% of the scientists agree with you

I think you missed the irony in RideJocky's post.

[AussieBob18]

On 10/1/2019 at 3:46 PM, samran said:

Read your own article. The technology is largely experimental and uncosted, oh and still produces plutonium. 

 

So, deep ‘safe’ storage in both of your backyards then? Being the leading proponents of it and all...

Fearmongers are starting to fail.  Reality is biting and the truth will out.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx

 

Pay me heaps and no problem storing it deep under my place.  I have no irrational fears - about nuclear anyway.

[GalaxyMan]

9 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Fearmongers are starting to fail.  Reality is biting and the truth will out.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx

 

Pay me heaps and no problem storing it deep under my place.  I have no irrational fears - about nuclear anyway.

I decided to read your article linked above. What really struck me is that nowhere does it mention that the half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25,000 years. All of these on-planet 'storage' ideas are a joke, only designed to pass the problem on to some -- hopefully -- future generation to deal with. On-planet waste-producing energy production is idiocy. We can already do better, it's only political and economic issues stopping us from moving forward. It's a small rock. We need to learn how to stay alive on it until we can figure out how to get off of it so that the idiots who will prevail ultimately kill everything on it.

[AussieBob18]

On 10/1/2019 at 5:32 PM, DrTuner said:

Melinda & Bill Gates foundation tried to get their traveling wave test reactor built in US. No go, caught in red tape, so they went with the devil instead and got a deal with China. Trump (correctly) cut it before they could steal all the tech. So right now it's not going anywhere because the greens blocked it. There's your "activists" in action. The only actual action they do is block progress.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower

Yep - excellent point - and that is where so many advancements are getting stuck now - irrational fears are blocking progress.

 

Let me remind/teach everyone that in the 13th Century the Islamic countries were at the peak of world knowledge and advancements.  Nearly all modern advancements that were taken forward by European countries came from the Islamic countries.  What happenned??  Islam was taken over by irrational fundamentalists who saw all progress as evil and they slowly took over and banned it all - even music.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

 

The point is that if irrational fundamentalists are allowed to control a society it will decay and fall apart.  The fear of nuclear energy is both irrational and destructive - it is the solution to so many problems.  How would you react if it was revealed that behind the scenes the oil industry (and it is huge) was fuelling not only our cars and industry, but was also feeding the fears about nuclear energy.  It is clear and obvious - but hopefully soon it will become mainstream knowledge.  http://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear   Insider tip: I once worked  for a very large oil and mining company. Their biggest long term fear was not environmentalists - it was nuclear energy - the world needs power and they knew the only real sustainable alternative to the oil industry was nuclear.

 

 

 

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

No, I don't remember "when the hysteria was paper bags deforesting the earth". And you don't either unless your memory is severely defective. Paper bags were replaced by plastic bags because plastic bags are cheaper.

I clearly remember when we switched to plastic bags because of deforestation. Late 80's I believe. I remember when you could choose paper or plastic and people would say something like, I'll take plastic, let's save a tree. The concept was that paper was better, but you would take the plastic for the good of the environment.

[AussieBob18]

1 minute ago, GalaxyMan said:

I decided to read your article linked above. What really struck me is that nowhere does it mention that the half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25,000 years. All of these on-planet 'storage' ideas are a joke, only designed to pass the problem on to some -- hopefully -- future generation to deal with. On-planet waste-producing energy production is idiocy. We can already do better, it's only political and economic issues stopping us from moving forward. It's a small rock. We need to learn how to stay alive on it until we can figure out how to get off of it so that the idiots who will prevail ultimately kill everything on it.

Thanks for reading - the path to the truth is knowledge.  True what you say about waste and the need to store it safely - but that does not mean that it will one day destroy the planet in some cataclismic event -  that is an irrational fear.  If only 200 years ago I said that man will fly from one side of the world to the other and will walk on the moon - well you know the rest.  Reality is that today's ignorance and fears should not stop the progress of tomorrow. Who knows if in 200 years they will need that 'waste' to run spaceships at lightspeed  or how about they put it in a rocket and send it into the Sun - or a million other things.  Put aside all the irrational doomsayers fears and take a calm and rational look at things and you will see the obvious solution to pumping oil industry waste into the planet's air is nuclear. 

 

Let me put it in an irrational manner.  Either the planet is going to be 'destroyed' in less than 50-100 years and we are all going to die because of the oil industry waste.  Or the planet is going to be destroyed in less than 4.5 billion, 700 million, 25,000 years because of all the waste that is not a problem nopw but one day will be.  I take the solution that fixes it now and that has not destroyed the planet in tha last 50 years - unlike the oil industry waste.  Granted it is not a perfect solution (nuclear fusion) but lets work hard on fixing the long term storage of nuclear waste - including using alternative technologies that dont make so much toxic waste - and lets work on getting fusion working. 

 

 

[samran]

59 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Fearmongers are starting to fail.  Reality is biting and the truth will out.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx

 

Pay me heaps and no problem storing it deep under my place.  I have no irrational fears - about nuclear anyway.

Wow, well done. You managed to work out google and bring up the world nuclear associations website.

 

what is your next trick? The tobacco growers association telling us smoking is safe? 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, GalaxyMan said:

I decided to read your article linked above. What really struck me is that nowhere does it mention that the half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25,000 years. All of these on-planet 'storage' ideas are a joke, only designed to pass the problem on to some -- hopefully -- future generation to deal with. On-planet waste-producing energy production is idiocy. We can already do better, it's only political and economic issues stopping us from moving forward. It's a small rock. We need to learn how to stay alive on it until we can figure out how to get off of it so that the idiots who will prevail ultimately kill everything on it.

If there is a God, surely he/she/it would prevent humans from escaping to another planet, given how we've managed to destroy this one in a couple hundred years.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 minutes ago, samran said:

Wow, well done. You managed to work out google and bring up the world nuclear associations website.

 

what is your next trick? The tobacco growers association telling us smoking is safe? 

The people that told us smoking was safe were scientists- you know, people like the ones telling us the climate changing is our fault.

[GalaxyMan]

24 minutes ago, samran said:

Wow, well done. You managed to work out google and bring up the world nuclear associations website.

 

what is your next trick? The tobacco growers association telling us smoking is safe? 

I thought that that was rather amusing, too.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The people that told us smoking was safe were scientists- you know, people like the ones telling us the climate changing is our fault.

Yep, apparently also scientists take orders from their employers, what a surprise

[DrTuner]

17 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry if i quote just a part of the 2nd article which seems quite interesting :

 

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said. “It has repercussions for society. It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person. Who wants to be a sinner?”

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban fossil fuels “comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make,” Shaviv added. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating.  The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

He must've read my comments here ???? Seems like a legit one, finally the sound of reason is pushing through in the midst of the climate crusades.

[DrTuner]

4 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

I decided to read your article linked above. What really struck me is that nowhere does it mention that the half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25,000 years. All of these on-planet 'storage' ideas are a joke, only designed to pass the problem on to some -- hopefully -- future generation to deal with. On-planet waste-producing energy production is idiocy. We can already do better, it's only political and economic issues stopping us from moving forward. It's a small rock. We need to learn how to stay alive on it until we can figure out how to get off of it so that the idiots who will prevail ultimately kill everything on it.

One man's trash .. what is today called waste will be fuel for the Gen IV reactors. I hope to see microreactors at each village or even at your frontyard, the size of a football, creating energy for decades on one charge. We aren't that far from it, but tne environmental lobby is armed to teeth so their cash cow doesn't get eaten by superior tech. Same with the fossil fuel lobbies.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, DrTuner said:

He must've read my comments here ???? Seems like a legit one, finally the sound of reason is pushing through in the midst of the climate crusades.

Lol, i was thinking the same !

Surely he's not the only credible scientist to speak against the climate alarmism, it's the mainstream media and their selective articles, that worries me a bit.

[DrTuner]

4 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

Let me remind/teach everyone that in the 13th Century the Islamic countries were at the peak of world knowledge and advancements.  Nearly all modern advancements that were taken forward by European countries came from the Islamic countries.  What happenned??  Islam was taken over by irrational fundamentalists who saw all progress as evil and they slowly took over and banned it all - even music.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Interesting. How was the CO2 back then? I doubt Persia and Levant was the sandy wasteland it is today. Such advancements need a steady food supply, more than likely that evil. evil gas had turned the plants to growth mode and the temps happened to be regulated by the sun to optimize the growth. Since then. allah-made climate change?

 

Ok that was interesting...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL065397

 

Quote

4.5.2 Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly
The J‐3 portion of our composite record, which spans an interval between ~1580 and 1100 A.D., is characterized by relatively light δ18O and δ13C values (Figure 2). This interval corresponds with a large portion of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) and the early Little Ice Age (LIA).

 

Seems it got colder. While brits were shivering in the cold, those in the today's arab countries were having a blast. I'd like to say tought titties but the climate hasn't warmed enough yet for me to be happy with the temps in the arctic where I'm from, still far too cold.

[AussieBob18]

52 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Interesting. How was the CO2 back then? I doubt Persia and Levant was the sandy wasteland it is today. Such advancements need a steady food supply, more than likely that evil. evil gas had turned the plants to growth mode and the temps happened to be regulated by the sun to optimize the growth. Since then. allah-made climate change?

Ok that was interesting...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL065397

Seems it got colder. While brits were shivering in the cold, those in the today's arab countries were having a blast. I'd like to say tought titties but the climate hasn't warmed enough yet for me to be happy with the temps in the arctic where I'm from, still far too cold.

You need to study more history and less climate. 

 

 

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

You need to study more history and less climate. 

Can't do science on empty stomach, so they are related.

[RideJocky]

I clearly remember when we switched to plastic bags because of deforestation. Late 80's I believe. I remember when you could choose paper or plastic and people would say something like, I'll take plastic, let's save a tree. The concept was that paper was better, but you would take the plastic for the good of the environment.

Big sh*t-storm with the newspapers at the same time. They had to go to all recycled paper whatnot.

Yeah, they were going to save the world alright.

[Bluespunk]

Reasons to recycle paper

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-benefits-of-paper-recycling-1204139

[DrTuner]

18 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Reasons to recycle paper

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-benefits-of-paper-recycling-1204139

Better to go paperless. Thai offices could do their part here. However.. I'm not sure which uses more CO2, saplings or large, mature trees. You might want to cut the trees anyway and manufacture something that will not be burned. In Finland where forestry is a well developed industry, they have schedules for harvesting and replanting. Should be standard practice everywhere. Especially the replanting.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

 

This of course makes sense, it's simply beefing up one section of the carbon cycle that enables life on this planet. More CO2 would make the trees grow even faster, but you can only release more by burning fossils and there's the real problem: pollution. CO2 can be sucked back into plants through photosynthesis, which we humans need because it releases the O2 that we breathe. It's all a nice, clever cycle.

 

Looking at the long term history, it's easy enough to see when life on the planet started to thrive (CO2 fell dramatically as it was captured by the new plants). If we want to, we can do that, but I'd much rather have 1000-1200ppm in the air just to be sure we don't hit the 150ppm in the coming ice age and become extinct because all the plants died.

[HLover]

Thunberg stole my time and hope for the future.