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

[faraday]

^^^

 

"Wind up street lights".  Brilliant!

[samran]

10 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I would use another word for “old”...

Combined with Fred down the pub views on all things, who needs experts? These guys have it covered. 

[Forethat]

You know the idea that Professors who oppose climate alarmism are generally uneducated, stupid or paid off by the oil industry...

 

I give you Roger Hallam:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0007p33/hardtalk-roger-hallam-cofounder-extinction-rebellion

 

Love when he says that six billion people will die as a direct result of of climate change this century and that only one billion will survive. And when he's challenged he tells the reporter that he's not 'emotionally connected' and that he doesn't understand anything .... ???? 

 

Pretty much sums up this whole debate.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Forethat said:

You know the idea that Professors who oppose climate alarmism are generally uneducated, stupid or paid off by the oil industry...

 

I give you Roger Hallam:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0007p33/hardtalk-roger-hallam-cofounder-extinction-rebellion

 

Love when he says that six billion people will die as a direct result of of climate change this century and that only one billion will survive. And when he's challenged he tells the reporter that he's not 'emotionally connected' and that he doesn't understand anything .... ???? 

 

Pretty much sums up this whole debate.

Well if you wish to believe Roger Hallam represents the whole debate.

 

Otherwise it doesn’t.

[Jack100]

I think I used to be young once .... but I dont really remember !

[WeekendRaider]

Greta is a media darling.  like Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio etc.... she tackles a very serious problem by acknowledging it but then focusing on it in a way that is acceptable for broadcast.  she expresses her feelings.  she makes accusations.  she asks for things to be done.  and on the first real baby step we must take, or every other economic sector as well as most people will balk at any significant cost or sacrifices.... she makes opposing aviation and tourism sound like it's only a fashion or political issue... along the same lines as calling it "air travel shaming". what you will not hear from her are specific action items that would work to scale or in time.

 

Greta enables media organizations to say "see, we covered the Climate Change issue".... but she is doing the same thing Al Gore did when he gave us the.... still used today by the media.... "(it's only about some) ice melting in 2100".  but in fact it's about heat stroke in grid failures, food and social chaos.  

 

Extinction Rebellion is also avoiding specific solutions.... by cleverly calling for "citizen assemblies" to later on come up with those action items.  but they are media darlings only to The Guardian and a few others.

 

yet.... if Greta.... or XR (the UK Extinction Rebellion) were to call for real action items, Greta would be yanked from any more coverage and XR would immediately lose most of it's ranks.

 

because action to scale or in time is almost as unthinkable as is our extinction.  and if you really push this..... that there are 7,800 million of us looms over almost it all.

 

so, for the USA, a better border wall along Mexico, and a US Space Force make a lot of sense..... to stop folks too similar to us or our neighbors that none of us would have the heart to stop... yet would also not be able to climb any ladders or crawl thru any tunnels, esp, en masse.  and the other project for solar radiation management, as the aerosol effect looms large no matter what we do or don't ever do.... any reduction in aerosols for any reason.... and requires special aircraft and 'one agent' (the USA military).

 

it's really only now a chance for some solace.  to do anything to scale or in time.  I am ready for that, and would support it as much as I can but making it less difficult for our own lives is really all there is to do.  XR is not getting anywhere nearly the level of support it has to have as well as what we should expect it to have achieved in 2019... the year of Rosenfeld et. al. in Science, Freund et. al in Nat Geoscience, Xu et. al. on the Chao Phraya river basin and...... July 2019, the hottest month ever yet not an El Nino at all hardly and the Arctic being much more rapidly lost than we thought before.

[Scott]

A baiting post has been reported and removed.

 

[Forethat]

On 10/11/2019 at 5:24 PM, samran said:

There is plenty of concensus produced by respect scientists and acknowledged by government, industry and the public at large.

 

There is a small fringe of people - like many like on that list - who have their own self interested agenda and go about promoting ‘whataboutisms’.

 

They are the equivalent of anti vaxxers and those very mislead people or those who subscribe to the theory that an alkaline diet will cure cancer rather than a proper course of chemo. They too claim that the science isn’t settled. 

I think you're wrong. I'd say there's a 50/50 split. And keep in mind that the only thing they agree on is that there's NO consensus on how much (if any) the GMT increases by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But then again, if one continues to believe that only those who share your view are the respected ones and that everybody else are either stupid or has been paid off by the oil industry - the whole debate is unnecessary.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, WeekendRaider said:

what you will not hear from her are specific action items that would work to scale or in time.

Indeed. Much talk and zero practical, affordable, acceptable solutions proposed.

C'mon Greta, tell us how to solve the problem.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Forethat said:

I think you're wrong. I'd say there's a 50/50 split. And keep in mind that the only thing they agree on is that there's NO consensus on how much (if any) the GMT increases by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But then again, if one continues to believe that only those who share your view are the respected ones and that everybody else are either stupid or has been paid off by the oil industry - the whole debate is unnecessary.

There's no doubt that this is just the sort of thing you'd say. There's also no doubt you have 0 evidence to support your contention.

[samran]

15 hours ago, Forethat said:

I think you're wrong. I'd say there's a 50/50 split. And keep in mind that the only thing they agree on is that there's NO consensus on how much (if any) the GMT increases by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But then again, if one continues to believe that only those who share your view are the respected ones and that everybody else are either stupid or has been paid off by the oil industry - the whole debate is unnecessary.

On this thread all I’ve seen is unrestrained vitriol directed towards a 16 year old girl, references to discredited tabloid TV documentaries, and speculative whataboutisms like your 50/50 comment. 

 

At every stage in history you have your self interested parties, your luddites, your self interested luddites. 

 

Add to this to the flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and those culture warriors who for them this issue is simply another front line in the war against those pinko facist communist lesbian socialists who have simply made it all up.

 

At any point in history where momentous change was on society, women’s rights, civil rights in the US, anti-segregation, slavery - you name it, anything that threatened the world view of the status quo you’d have the same types out and ranting against it. 

 

If this was a debate 100 years ago about introducing steam trains you blokes would be out on force penning letters to the editor talking up the horse and buggy industry and bemoaning this new fangled work of the devil. 

 

This debate is no different as we can see on this thread and this picture basically sums it up.

 

 

[sukhumvitneon]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Indeed. Much talk and zero practical, affordable, acceptable solutions proposed.

C'mon Greta, tell us how to solve the problem.

They want you to eat bugs and live in the pod when more nuclear reactors would probably suffice

[bristolboy]

43 minutes ago, sukhumvitneon said:

They want you to eat bugs and live in the pod when more nuclear reactors would probably suffice

Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.

In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms, and grew generating capacity faster than any other power type, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

[bendejo]

Amazing the fear this one 16 year old girl has put into so many men.  She must be doing something right.

 

 

[Forethat]

5 hours ago, samran said:

On this thread all I’ve seen is unrestrained vitriol directed towards a 16 year old girl, references to discredited tabloid TV documentaries, and speculative whataboutisms like your 50/50 comment. 

 

At every stage in history you have your self interested parties, your luddites, your self interested luddites. 

 

Add to this to the flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and those culture warriors who for them this issue is simply another front line in the war against those pinko facist communist lesbian socialists who have simply made it all up.

 

At any point in history where momentous change was on society, women’s rights, civil rights in the US, anti-segregation, slavery - you name it, anything that threatened the world view of the status quo you’d have the same types out and ranting against it. 

 

If this was a debate 100 years ago about introducing steam trains you blokes would be out on force penning letters to the editor talking up the horse and buggy industry and bemoaning this new fangled work of the devil. 

 

This debate is no different as we can see on this thread and this picture basically sums it up.

 

You forgot to mention those who base their entire argument on a mathematical model and refuse to admit that the earth's climate has changed erratically during its entire life due to a myriad of factors that no one fully understands?

 

One thing I've noticed is that the average climate alarmist tend to believe that some debaters - the ones they refer to as "climate deniers" - deny that the climate is changing. I don't think they deny that at all. Personally, I think they make a rather good argument when they point out that CO2 levels have been as high as 4,000ppm (compared to the 400ppm we're heading towards) and that big forests once grew on the continent of Antarctica. Which for the context of this debate is quite interesting given the number of cars and factories at the time in question. But I guess that's just a conspiracy theory.  

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

You forgot to mention those who base their entire argument on a mathematical model and refuse to admit that the earth's climate has changed erratically during its entire life due to a myriad of factors that no one fully understands?

 

One thing I've noticed is that the average climate alarmist tend to believe that some debaters - the ones they refer to as "climate deniers" - deny that the climate is changing. I don't think they deny that at all. Personally, I think they make a rather good argument when they point out that CO2 levels have been as high as 4,000ppm (compared to the 400ppm we're heading towards) and that big forests once grew on the continent of Antarctica. Which for the context of this debate is quite interesting given the number of cars and factories at the time in question. But I guess that's just a conspiracy theory.  

Clearly you have absolutely no acquaintance at all with what climate scientists claim. First of all, they don't base their entire argument on mathematical models. Those models are constantly tested against reality. Huge amounts of data have been collected and ever huger amounts are being collected.

Who are these people who say that denialists don't say climate is changing. I guess you could find a few. But what climatologists do say is that without taking anthropogenic factors into account, the current rate of warming is scientifically inexplicable. As for the argument that CO levels have been higher in the past, climatologist don't deny it or discount it. In fact huge extinctions occurred during the Permian period. The rise in CO level seems to have been due to a 700000 year period of intense volcanic activity. Not coincidentally temperatures were much much warmer then.  

And climatologists absolutely acknowledge the CO2 isn't the only reason that the earth warms and cools. It's the rate of current change that's at issue.

The theory often aired by denialists of solar activity being responsible for the warming is obviously false. Since that theory postulates the during times of low solar activity, as has been the case for the past several solar cycles, the earth should be getting cooler. So if that theory is true, it makes an even stronger case for CO2 being responsible for global warming. Because the atmosphere and oceans are warming despite the cooling influence of low solar activity.

[canuckamuck]

Just a note to all the posters who are claiming their amazement at how angry we are at Greta, or how she got to us. This is not the case at all, If anything I feel bad for her and she really does symbolize to me what this end of the world nonsense has done to our kids,

What we are upset about is not the girl, but the tactic. It is so obvious that it is just manipulation, using an emotional appeal from a small girl who comes with the label autistic to grant her a little more inter-sectional credentials. She is an off limits human shield for an empty and illogical message. 

Of course she is needed because this issue is emotional rather than logical. It is about instilling fear. Scare the children they don't know any better. Let them rise up and bring us global socialism. 

 

[Rimmer]

A profane troll post has been removed

[DrTuner]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.

In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms, and grew generating capacity faster than any other power type, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

If the greens hadn't blocked the research, Melissa & Bill would be building traveling wave reactors in a few years. They want the bug breakfasts. The worst evironmental catatrophe are the "environmental" parties.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

You forgot to mention those who base their entire argument on a mathematical model and refuse to admit that the earth's climate has changed erratically during its entire life due to a myriad of factors that no one fully understands?

 

One thing I've noticed is that the average climate alarmist tend to believe that some debaters - the ones they refer to as "climate deniers" - deny that the climate is changing. I don't think they deny that at all. Personally, I think they make a rather good argument when they point out that CO2 levels have been as high as 4,000ppm (compared to the 400ppm we're heading towards) and that big forests once grew on the continent of Antarctica. Which for the context of this debate is quite interesting given the number of cars and factories at the time in question. But I guess that's just a conspiracy theory.  

Text book strawman arguments.

[chokrai]

3 hours ago, bendejo said:

Amazing the fear this one 16 year old girl has put into so many men.  She must be doing something right.

 

 

Yes just amazing. 

[GalaxyMan]

3 minutes ago, chokrai said:

Yes just amazing. 

Her message is a threat to so many different vested interests.

[rabas]

34 minutes ago, GalaxyMan said:

Her message is a threat to so many different vested interests.

... and is supported by so many vested interests.  

 

Don't tell me only one side wants trillions.

[transam]

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

... and is supported by so many vested interests.  

 

Don't tell me only one side wants trillions.

All sides want central heating/air con, drive the car they want, fly off somewhere for a few days, do exactly what they are used too....But both sides won't give that up....

This kid hasn't started her adult life yet.....She should come back in 10/20 years to see what she is doing with her life and learned what she is doing that would be against what she is preaching now..

I will take my hat off if she is living in a tent warming her hands on a camp fire....

[GalaxyMan]

14 minutes ago, rabas said:

... and is supported by so many vested interests.  

 

Don't tell me only one side wants trillions.

One side wants the human species to survive, the other side wants as many immediate profits as it can get and to helll with the future. Those are the only sides that I see.

[sunnyboy2018]

If the angry alarmist Thunberg were an adolescent boy he would be dismissed for his anger, aggression and hostility. But she gets away with it because shes a girl.

[DrTuner]

14 minutes ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

If the angry alarmist Thunberg were an adolescent boy he would be dismissed for his anger, aggression and hostility. But she gets away with it because shes a girl.

That's modern equality for you.

[Crazy Alex]

This is such a sad (yet funny) story. Poor Greta has clearly been systematically tortured, propagandized and coerced for years by her actor parents. They are the people who have stolen her childhood, nobody else.

 

She is filled with hate and rage. It's reprehensible that society would celebrate such an abused little girl who throws such temper tantrums instead of having her parents arrested for child abuse.

 

But alas, this is how the totalitarian left works. They use little children to try to convince people to make emotional decisions- decisions which are usually bad ones.

 

If only liberals had shame.

[bristolboy]

23 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

This is such a sad (yet funny) story. Poor Greta has clearly been systematically tortured, propagandized and coerced for years by her actor parents. They are the people who have stolen her childhood, nobody else.

 

She is filled with hate and rage. It's reprehensible that society would celebrate such an abused little girl who throws such temper tantrums instead of having her parents arrested for child abuse.

 

But alas, this is how the totalitarian left works. They use little children to try to convince people to make emotional decisions- decisions which are usually bad ones.

 

If only liberals had shame.

If only you had evidence.

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

If only you had evidence.

Wow, what a devastating rebuttal. I'm taken aback. No, really. ????