3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Since you know nothing about my views on climate science, it is baseless to suggest that I understand less about it than Greta Thunberg, or that I disagree with the consensus position.

 

The idea that Thunberg understands the science is easily disproved. Earlier this year, she said to the UK Parliament: "Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

This is utter nonsense, not backed up by any scientific analyses. Certainly, the IPCC does not talk in those terms.

 

The NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel summed it up well: "Climate change isn't a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down".

 

Given that Greta demonstrates that she knows nothing about the science, and talks in apocalyptic terms which are often used by radical activists, I think it makes a lot of sense to assume that she is being told what to say.

 

 

 

Greta doesn’t have to understand all the science.

 

She has captured public attention and his using her voice to call for action on a whole range of climate and environmental issues.

 

What ever your views on climate science are, not many people are listening.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Greta doesn’t have to understand all the science.

 

You should put that on a sign at your next rally.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well, the climate activists are doing an awful lot of air miles to contribute vast amounts of CO2 to the upper atmosphere, and apparently not a lot else.

Meanwhile millions of fossil fuelled cars are being bought and put on the roads, China builds more coal powered power stations, and cargo ship are burning fossil fuel bringing all those plastic goods to the consumers in the west- you know, plastic, it's made from oil.

Not a lot going on to prevent destruction of old growth forests in Sth America, Africa and Indonesia, which must be releasing millions of tonnes of carbon.

So you have been paying attention.

 

Now who has the power to fix these things, Climate Activists or Governments?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Greta doesn’t have to understand all the science.

 

She has captured public attention and his using her voice to call for action on a whole range of climate and environmental issues.

 

I agree entirely.

 

She is being used as a human shield for activist agendas which are far more extreme than current climate science would support. 

 

As to who is listening to Greta, or not, we'll just have to wait and see what governmental action results from this media blitz.

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.  Link

 

Here are their main points

• There is no climate emergency
• Climate science should be less political
• Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
• Warming is far slower than predicted
• Climate policy relies on inadequate models
• CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
• Global warming has not increased natural disasters
• Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.  Link

 

Here are their main points

• There is no climate emergency
• Climate science should be less political
• Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
• Warming is far slower than predicted
• Climate policy relies on inadequate models
• CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
• Global warming has not increased natural disasters
• Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

Link to where you got this?

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Link to where you got this?

A clue is the word link in blue

Doom mongering seems as cyclical as the weather, only 40 years ago we were being warned about a new ice age, all the science 'proved it'

 

 

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

In even broader terms, the world has plenty of difficult problems that need addressing, yet everything stops while world "leaders" hang on every word from Greta Thunberg, who knows nothing about the climate, or economics, beyond that which she has been taught to repeat.

 

It's a sign of the idiotic times we live in that real problems such as malaria, TB, malnutrition, atmospheric pollution and so on, risk becoming sidelined, purely on the whim of an ignoramus.

I, cynic that I am, am looking to see what is going on elsewhere while the media are distracted.

3 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Numerous posters here have no trouble disagreeing with the massive scientific concensus plus the daily proofs of the climate emergency,

Daily proofs of a climate emergency?

I keep looking but I see no proofs. The sea isn't rising, it's very cold, and the days pass without any "out of the normal" weather happening.

I can only surmise that "climate change" is restricted to a different part of the planet from where I am.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you have been paying attention.

 

Now who has the power to fix these things, Climate Activists or Governments?

I'm not asking them to fix anything, but if they are going to complain, it behoves them to have some solutions that are affordable, acceptable and doable. Anyone can go around shouting but shouting isn't solving the problem they claim to be shouting about.

If they don't have any solutions, perhaps they don't actually know what the problem is, but are just getting off on being part of the "movement". That's what children do, they get into one craze after another. I'm not too old to remember that from my childhood.

 

Actually I'm still waiting for any affordable, acceptable and doable solutions from the grown ups on this forum, but nada, so far.

I've also been asking for quite a while as to what the climate change crisis believers are doing as their part of combatting the end of all of us. Things like not flying domestic, not using the car, not using fossil fuelled electricity, not having more children, but answers, I have had none.

If I was cynical, I might think that it was all "do as I say", and not "follow my example".

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

A clue is the word link in blue

 

 

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Doom mongering seems as cyclical as the weather, only 40 years ago we were being warned about a new ice age, all the science 'proved it'

 

 

A Century ago 'the great and the good' of the day (inc Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and HG Wells) were equally taken in by young girls...

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've also been asking for quite a while as to what the climate change crisis believers are doing as their part of combatting the end of all of us. Things like not flying domestic, not using the car, not using fossil fuelled electricity, not having more children, but answers, I have had none.

 

I think enough solutions have been proffered.

First, change the mindset of populations of developed nations towards promoting sustainable policies. This is what is currently happening with the Greta furore.

Once enough of 'the people' are behind it, the politicians must deliver those sustainable policies in their own countries, and force developing nations into line by economic measures. New forms of accounting are currently being developed.

Once the momentum - the political will - is in place, the ultimate solution is to cap energy production to keep a lid on growth, install sensible measures to manage demographics, and establish legal rights to exist for Nature (to be policed by an international body).

 

The key principles are avoiding excess and maintaining balance. It's entirely rational and prudent. The only struggle is against people who aren't.

4 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

I think enough solutions have been proffered.

First, change the mindset of populations of developed nations towards promoting sustainable policies. This is what is currently happening with the Greta furore.

Once enough of 'the people' are behind it, the politicians must deliver those sustainable policies in their own countries, and force developing nations into line by economic measures. New forms of accounting are currently being developed.

Once the momentum - the political will - is in place, the ultimate solution is to cap energy production to keep a lid on growth, install sensible measures to manage demographics, and establish legal rights to exist for Nature (to be policed by an international body).

 

The key principles are avoiding excess and maintaining balance. It's entirely rational and prudent. The only struggle is against people who aren't.

So mind control and then state controls on production.

I have seen this before somewhere. ????

 

5 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

I think enough solutions have been proffered.

First, change the mindset of populations of developed nations towards promoting sustainable policies. This is what is currently happening with the Greta furore.

Once enough of 'the people' are behind it, the politicians must deliver those sustainable policies in their own countries, and force developing nations into line by economic measures. New forms of accounting are currently being developed.

Once the momentum - the political will - is in place, the ultimate solution is to cap energy production to keep a lid on growth, install sensible measures to manage demographics, and establish legal rights to exist for Nature (to be policed by an international body).

 

The key principles are avoiding excess and maintaining balance. It's entirely rational and prudent. The only struggle is against people who aren't.

Most people are not going to give up perfectly good fossil fuelled cars to pay through the nose for battery powered cars that need new batteries every 8 years or so, they are not going to stop eating meat, they are not going to stop flying on holidays etc etc etc.

If governments force them to give up the good life, expect different governments at the next election.

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

So mind control and then state controls on production.

I have seen this before somewhere. ????

 

Yes, it's called civilisation. Rational control is what civilisation is. What gave you the idea that life should be a free-for-all for every person on earth?

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

So mind control and then state controls on production.

I have seen this before somewhere. ????

 

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin.

 

And we've seen young schoolgirls being used as propaganda pawns by some very unsavory people in the 20th century.

9 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

The only struggle is against people who aren't.

Out of the current 7 billion people on the planet, that would be most that aren't. 

Most people on earth want to live the life that affluent people in western countries live. They want a flash car, international holidays, a big house with a tv in every room, and lots and lots of meat.

6 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Yes, it's called civilisation. Rational control is what civilisation is. What gave you the idea that life should be a free-for-all for every person on earth?

First you have to get rid of democracy. No government will survive the next election if they actually do the things they want to do, like massive tax increases.

I don't know anyone that thinks a democratic government should have the control you are talking about.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most people are not going to give up perfectly good fossil fuelled cars to pay through the nose for battery powered cars that need new batteries every 8 years or so, they are not going to stop eating meat, they are not going to stop flying on holidays etc etc etc.

If governments force them to give up the good life, expect different governments at the next election.

I know, not enough people are rational and prudent. As I said, that's the struggle. That's not an argument against the principle.

 

Whenever I visit a friend's house in the UK, I'm appalled at the level of mindless consumption going on, down to all the stuff in their double-door fridges. They guzzle a liter of chocolate milk instead of having a drink of water. Most of what they take for granted they could do without. A guilt tax on rampant consumption would be a start.

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

A guilt tax on rampant consumption would be a start.

I take it that is humour.

Our way of life depends entirely on rampant consumption. If we stop consuming, millions will become unemployed. Will they sit quietly at home watching day time tv till they die?

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Out of the current 7 billion people on the planet, that would be most that aren't. 

Most people on earth want to live the life that affluent people in western countries live. They want a flash car, international holidays, a big house with a tv in every room, and lots and lots of meat.

Are you deliberately not listening? The point is the change the mindset. There is plenty of evidence that it is beginning to have an effect, though it will take years, obviously. What they really need to do is instil the subliminal message into all the TV soaps - that'll change attitudes. Yes, brainwashing - to counter the existing brainwashing in all the relentless advertising that 'more is good'.

 

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Doom mongering seems as cyclical as the weather, only 40 years ago we were being warned about a new ice age, all the science 'proved it'

 

 

Thanks for that CLASSIC clip. 

It sounds just like the doom merchants of today except substitute heat for cold.

Live long and prosper.

3 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Are you deliberately not listening? The point is the change the mindset. There is plenty of evidence that it is beginning to have an effect, though it will take years, obviously. What they really need to do is instil the subliminal message into all the TV soaps - that'll change attitudes. Yes, brainwashing - to counter the existing brainwashing in all the relentless advertising that 'more is good'.

 

You do realise that most of the people on the planet are not living in western democracies, don't you?

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I take it that is humour.

I doubt it.

 

Many prominent Left-wing activists, such as Naomi Oreskes, have said exactly the same thing.

 

In their fantasy world, the self-appointed elites shall tell the proletariat what they can consume, how much they can consume, what it must be made of, and how they must dispose of it.

 

Beatings will continue until morale improves.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I take it that is humour.

Our way of life depends entirely on rampant consumption. If we stop consuming, millions will become unemployed. Will they sit quietly at home watching day time tv till they die?

Why not, because that's what most people do anyway.

Not suggesting everything stops - only that growth slows down and then is maintained at a sustainable level.

 

I think I've comprehensively won this argument because the comments I'm hearing are now just along the lines of "we are going to carry on regardless to defend our precious lifestyle". March on, ye lemmings.

24 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Yes, it's called civilisation. Rational control is what civilisation is. What gave you the idea that life should be a free-for-all for every person on earth?

 Civilization is what ends when you bring your type of solution. Russia used your solution, so did China, Cuba, Venezuela and many others. They all had different bogeymen to fight, but used the same solutions.

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

I think I've comprehensively won this argument because the comments I'm hearing are now just along the lines of "we are going to carry on regardless to defend our precious lifestyle". March on, ye lemmings.

Won the argument on TVF? Perhaps, perhaps not, but what about the rest of the 7 billion of us out there?

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You do realise that most of the people on the planet are not living in western democracies, don't you?

I made a post just above in which I explained everything.

Getting developing nations into line will is phase 2. I think we all agree they need to be kept under reasonable control. You agree on that, right? Right?

Fail to answer, lose the argument.