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

[Chomper Higgot]

41 minutes ago, transam said:

In your case the word gullible comes to mind....????

That’s odd given I wasn’t taken in by evadgib’s mysterious soothsaying. 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Presumably that would be in a family setting. So, do you think of the United Nations as one big family?

Are the United Nations all 16 year old's with a medical ploblem.....Oh, forget the medical ploblem bit regarding the UN.........????

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Greta "Corky" Thunberg: Child. Not a scientist. Repeats propaganda that she has been fed. 24/7 fawning media coverage.

 

Dr Judith Curry: Adult. Climatologist. Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology 2002-2013. Member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. Has published over 140 scientific papers and books on climate. Believes the climate scare is overblown. Zero media coverage.

 

That's the demented world we live in, where feelings are preferred to facts, even in important matters.

What Greta Thunberg says aligns with what the vast majority of climatologists contend.

Judith Curry not so much.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Greta "Corky" Thunberg: Child. Not a scientist. Repeats propaganda that she has been fed. 24/7 fawning media coverage.

 

Dr Judith Curry: Adult. Climatologist. Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology 2002-2013. Member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. Has published over 140 scientific papers and books on climate. Believes the climate scare is overblown. Zero media coverage.

 

That's the demented world we live in, where feelings are preferred to facts, even in important matters.

Dr Judith Curry, is no longer the Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and no longer publishes in peer reviews journals.

 

Your assertions of ‘Propaganda’ are baseless.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

What Greta Thunberg says aligns with what the vast majority of climatologists contend.

Judith Curry not so much.

Nonsense. Corky's apocalyptic, tearful, and uninformed ranting is way outside what climatologists would sign up to.

 

Judith Curry is a very well-respected climatologist with 30 years of research behind her.

 

If you choose to believe Corky over Curry, that says more about you than about their respective fitness to speak on climate.

 

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, transam said:

Are the United Nations all 16 year old's with a medical ploblem.....Oh, forget the medical ploblem bit regarding the UN.........????

So, people with medical problems shouldn't be addressing the UN?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Nonsense. Corky's apocalyptic, tearful, and uninformed ranting is way outside what climatologists would sign up to.

 

Judith Curry is a very well-respected climatologist with 30 years of research behind her.

 

If you choose to believe Corky over Curry, that says more about you than about their respective fitness to speak on climate.

 

Really? Have you looked at the IPCC report on the probable different fates awaiting the climate and humanity if global warming exceeds 1.5 degrees celsius vs 2 degrees celsius vs. even higher? Given your assertions here, I'd guess not.

And the esteemed Dr. Curry has decided to no longer publish in peer-reviewed journals. So much easier not to be subject to fact checking.

[Chomper Higgot]

39 minutes ago, faraday said:

She's not come up with any solutions, just got angry & blamed 'grown ups'.

 

 

She’s addressing her concerns to the people running nations and in charge of the budgets of nations.

 

But you want the child to provide the answers.

 

 

[bristolboy]

43 minutes ago, faraday said:

She's not come up with any solutions, just got angry & blamed 'grown ups'.

 

 

The IPCC 1.5 degree centigrade report offers solutions.

[transam]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So, people with medical problems shouldn't be addressing the UN?

You read the wrong meaning......I was referring to those who sat at the UN....But carry on.....????

[JamesBlond]

10 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Great! So as soon as the people flying around on privates, riding on megayachts and in limousines cut back, let me know. Maybe then I'll see what I can do.

 

Hey, where are these entire ecosystems collapsing anyway? I call BS on that.

You couldn't be bothered to look it up?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-bird-population-countryside-reduced-pesticides-france-wildlife-cnrs-a8267246.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47698294

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wildflower-meadows-farms-agriculture-flowers-environment-brexit-butterflies-bees-defra-a8433541.html

If you're not a naturalist you won't see it. In fact, if you're not a naturalist, you are part of the problem.

The rich are not the problem because there's relatively few of them. The problem is the masses who are addicted to 'more' and don't give a stuff about the consequences.

The debauch is over. Everyone has to wind it down.

[Orton Rd]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

 For people who have nothing concrete to offer, it's a common ploy to resort to predicting the future. That's the great thing about the future. You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it.

In the 70's the doom merchants were predicting a new ice age with millions dying of starvation by the turn of the century. Man made global warming hysteria is nor based on real scientific data any more the Jehovah's witnesses preaching the end of the world is.

[RickBradford]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really? Have you looked at the IPCC report on the probable different fates awaiting the climate and humanity if global warming exceeds 1.5 degrees celsius vs 2 degrees celsius vs. even higher? Given your assertions here, I'd guess not.

And the esteemed Dr. Curry has decided to no longer publish in peer-reviewed journals. So much easier not to be subject to fact checking.

It's far too nice a day to go running down all your red herrings, so let me just say it again.

 

That you, and others, prefer the spoon-fed "science" of a 16-year-old know-nothing schoolgirl to the lifetime's work of a respected climatologist simply shows how deranged the "progressive" SJW mindset has become, and why it is pointless to listen to its repetitive puppet-babble.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

You couldn't be bothered to look it up?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-bird-population-countryside-reduced-pesticides-france-wildlife-cnrs-a8267246.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47698294

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wildflower-meadows-farms-agriculture-flowers-environment-brexit-butterflies-bees-defra-a8433541.html

If you're not a naturalist you won't see it. In fact, if you're not a naturalist, you are part of the problem.

The rich are not the problem because there's relatively few of them. The problem is the masses who are addicted to 'more' and don't give a stuff about the consequences.

The debauch is over. Everyone has to wind it down.

That is a load of nonsense..."The rich, very few of them".....How old are you...?

 

We are all "rich" now, loads of cars, hols, heating, cooling, you name it....A bit different back when I was a kid...

[rabas]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And the esteemed Dr. Curry has decided to no longer publish in peer-reviewed journals. So much easier not to be subject to fact checking.

 

Your comment clearly lacks any understanding of the scientific process. Your coveted peer reviewed journals are the basic ground level workshop of research and discovery. As careers advance many bright scientists and leaders move on to bigger roles where their views and contributions are shared with a broader audience. Dr. Curry has a most distinguished career. Certainly well above most grunt level climatologists fresh out of college trying to meet their publication quota.

[bristolboy]

29 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It's far too nice a day to go running down all your red herrings, so let me just say it again.

 

That you, and others, prefer the spoon-fed "science" of a 16-year-old know-nothing schoolgirl to the lifetime's work of a respected climatologist simply shows how deranged the "progressive" SJW mindset has become, and why it is pointless to listen to its repetitive puppet-babble.

 

What does it matter if Thunberg's science was "spoon-fed"  or not since it's the climatological scientific community doing the feeding?

And as we saw from her testimony to Congress, Thunberg is far from being a "no-nothing." 

If Judith Curry's viewpoints represented anything close to the consensus of the climatological community you might have a point. So instead you try to make it about personalities rather than the issues.

But since the facts are against you, you resort to personal abuse.

 

[bristolboy]

29 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Your comment clearly lacks any understanding of the scientific process. Your coveted peer reviewed journals are the basic ground level workshop of research and discovery. As careers advance many bright scientists and leaders move on to bigger roles where their views and contributions are shared with a broader audience. Dr. Curry has a most distinguished career. Certainly well above most grunt level climatologists fresh out of college trying to meet their publication quota.

Except she claims she is still going to publish her papers but no longer subject them to peer review. 

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

You couldn't be bothered to look it up?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-bird-population-countryside-reduced-pesticides-france-wildlife-cnrs-a8267246.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47698294

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wildflower-meadows-farms-agriculture-flowers-environment-brexit-butterflies-bees-defra-a8433541.html

If you're not a naturalist you won't see it. In fact, if you're not a naturalist, you are part of the problem.

The rich are not the problem because there's relatively few of them. The problem is the masses who are addicted to 'more' and don't give a stuff about the consequences.

The debauch is over. Everyone has to wind it down.

Perfect example of finger pointing, ‘not me - them’!

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

34 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Your comment clearly lacks any understanding of the scientific process. Your coveted peer reviewed journals are the basic ground level workshop of research and discovery. As careers advance many bright scientists and leaders move on to bigger roles where their views and contributions are shared with a broader audience. Dr. Curry has a most distinguished career. Certainly well above most grunt level climatologists fresh out of college trying to meet their publication quota.

Which doesn’t explain Away the scientific consensus and leaves a big question as to why Dr Curry is no longer publishing in peer reviewed papers.

 

Perhaps she sees more dollars in courting controversy while never putting her views to peer review.

[Chomper Higgot]

42 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It's far too nice a day to go running down all your red herrings, so let me just say it again.

 

That you, and others, prefer the spoon-fed "science" of a 16-year-old know-nothing schoolgirl to the lifetime's work of a respected climatologist simply shows how deranged the "progressive" SJW mindset has become, and why it is pointless to listen to its repetitive puppet-babble.

“ Spoon Fed Science” 

 

Because of course we should each of us do our own science starting from first principles.

 

Away with this nonsense.

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

 For people who have nothing concrete to offer, it's a common ploy to resort to predicting the future. That's the great thing about the future. You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it.

Predicting the future, you say...? Doomsday prophecies? Cataclysmic events? Mass extinction? End of civilisation? The Ware-rabbit? Revelation 8:10?

 

The concept isn't exactly new. Scare the cr*p out of people by claiming something horrible what will happen in the future unless they repent, typically by making someone a favour. Or even more common; by paying money.

 

The problem for those predicting the future is that the future eventually becomes present time. The most common solution to this small predicament is to simply ignore previous predictions and hope that when the future eventually DOES arrive, people have all forgotten about the whole thing. Ultimately, the future becomes the past. 

 

Oh yes, the future, this remote time where polar ice caps melt and tropical atolls are wiped out due to rising sea levels. Or wait, that's in the past, it was predicted they'd be gone by now. It's true, Al Gore had lots of fancy diagram from scientists. 

 

And you're saying that those who doubt the prophecies are the ones predicting the future?

"You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it."

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

 

 

Oh yes, the future, this remote time where polar ice caps melt and tropical atolls are wiped out due to rising sea levels. Or wait, that's in the past, it was predicted they'd be gone by now. It's true, Al Gore had lots of fancy diagram from scientists. 

 

And you're saying that those who doubt the prophecies are the ones predicting the future?

"You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it."

 

Stop lying. That has never been the consensus of the climatological scientific community. Not even close. 

 

And the future that was once predicted is already here. As predicted, it's getting warmer at an increasingly rapid rate. If the climate proceeds at its current pace, 2019 could beat 2016 as the warmest year on record. And unlike 2016, that's without the benefit of an el nino. 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, Forethat said:

tPredicting the future, you say...? Doomsday prophecies? Cataclysmic events? Mass extinction? End of civilisation? The Ware-rabbit? Revelation 8:10?

 

The concept isn't exactly new. Scare the cr*p out of people by claiming something horrible what will happen in the future unless they repent, typically by making someone a favour. Or even more common; by paying money.

 

The problem for those predicting the future is that the future eventually becomes present time. The most common solution to this small predicament is to simply ignore previous predictions and hope that when the future eventually DOES arrive, people have all forgotten about the whole thing. Ultimately, the future becomes the past. 

 

Oh yes, the future, this remote time where polar ice caps melt and tropical atolls are wiped out due to rising sea levels. Or wait, that's in the past, it was predicted they'd be gone by now. It's true, Al Gore had lots of fancy diagram from scientists. 

 

And you're saying that those who doubt the prophecies are the ones predicting the future?

"You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it."

 

Were not the streets of Manhatten supposed to be under sea water by now, and what about the Pacific islands actually growing in size instead of vanishing?

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Stop lying. That has never been the consensus of the climatological scientific community. Not even close. 

 

And the future that was once predicted is already here. As predicted, it's getting warmer at an increasingly rapid rate. If the climate proceeds at its current pace, 2019 could beat 2016 as the warmest year on record. And unlike 2016, that's without the benefit of an el nino. 

Really cold where I am. I'd welcome a bit of warming. Unfortunately the climate isn't doing what it's been supposed to and getting hotter here.

[rabas]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which doesn’t explain Away the scientific consensus and leaves a big question as to why Dr Curry is no longer publishing in peer reviewed papers.

 

Perhaps she sees more dollars in courting controversy while never putting her views to peer review.

Maybe, the anit-Gore?

 

While you are here. Define what you mean by the term "scientific consensus", a consensus of what specific parts of climate/Earth science. I ask from the POV that Earth's environment and it's study is the singularly most complex there ever was or ever will be.       

 

[RickBradford]

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What does it matter if Thunberg's science was "spoon-fed"  or not since it's the climatological scientific community doing the feeding?

Except that it isn't.

 

Her principal handlers are committed Green activists, with no more background in climate science than Thunberg herself.

 

There is Lisa-Marie Neubauer, a prominent activist in her own right, and a member of the very wealthy One Foundation. She is also a member of Alliance 90/The Greens and the Green Youth. A textbook activist, in fact.

 

And there is Jennifer Morgan, who has worked for Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G), the US Climate Action Network, the European Business Council for Sustainable Energy....

 

It's Green activists all the way down.

[JamesBlond]

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

In the 70's the doom merchants were predicting a new ice age with millions dying of starvation by the turn of the century. Man made global warming hysteria is nor based on real scientific data any more the Jehovah's witnesses preaching the end of the world is.

Forget about climate change if it's too subtle for you. Concentrate on the attrition of the natural environment - habitat loss, species loss - and throw in quality of life loss, because nature is the touchstone of all meaning.

The on-going catastrophe of that is self-evident, and it's man-made.

Is that not enough for you to justify more prudent and less self-indulgent political/economic policies, which is all that is being asked?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Except that it isn't.

 

Her principal handlers are committed Green activists, with no more background in climate science than Thunberg herself.

 

There is Lisa-Marie Neubauer, a prominent activist in her own right, and a member of the very wealthy One Foundation. She is also a member of Alliance 90/The Greens and the Green Youth. A textbook activist, in fact.

 

And there is Jennifer Morgan, who has worked for Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G), the US Climate Action Network, the European Business Council for Sustainable Energy....

 

It's Green activists all the way down.

As I've pointed out her version tallies with that of the IPCC report. Who cares where her information allegedly comes from?

[Forethat]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Were not the streets of Manhatten supposed to be under sea water by now, and what about the Pacific islands actually growing in size instead of vanishing?

I guess so. I thought the threats of the were-rabbit were substantially more real, to be fair.

[RickBradford]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As I've pointed out her version tallies with that of the IPCC report. Who cares where her information allegedly comes from?

Except that it doesn't.

 

The IPCC has never said that "our house is on fire".

 

The IPCC has never said that " we probably don’t even have a future any more".

 

The IPCC has never said that in 2030 there will be an "irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

It's just "progressive" activism at its lowest. Most "progressive" adults are brain-dead already, so they have to dig up a schoolgirl to act as their intellectual leader.