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

[evadgib]

8 hours ago, pegman said:

True, American  corporate media treat the sheep like mushrooms feeding them ____ ______. Noam in the world treasure no doubt. Greta is about to speak in the heart of TarSands country in the State of Alberta.

 

 

Curiously she was nowhere near as keen to respond to legitimate questions asked by local media as to who is picking up the tab for her and her entourage for this elaborate grandstanding tour.

HowDareYou.ca

Edited October 19, 2019 by evadgib

[Chomper Higgot]

35 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Well you were explaining why she is special. Her words are actually quite mainstream. Which is why they resonate with you. Puppet love.

Bless

[DrTuner]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

From there I can see the real climate crisis is the gradual reduction of CO2 over time.

We almost croaked a while back: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/life-on-earth-was-nearly-doomed-by-too-little-co2/

 

When burning fossils we're effectively reverting back into the historical levels. About 1500-2000 should be optimal, we're adding 10 a year or so? at least 1000 to add, that'll be 100 years of we be burning until it's nice and lush. I reckon we can't dig 'em out though, will run out of stuff to burn.

[rabas]

9 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

From there I can see the real climate crisis is the gradual reduction of CO2 over time. Human industry has accidentally buffered a serious ecological crisis.

But of course the wisdom of today is CO2 is evil and children are the wisest of all.

 

Yes!  and not so accidental. Picture evolving humanoids periodically forced to migrate, learning technology to stay alive, hunt, keep warm, and the invention of fire and fuel. Man's intelligence increases and voila, more CO₂ and the ice age retreats. 

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by rabas

[pegman]

44 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

So as I thought she does not know what she is talking about and is just a puppet being told what to say. Not worthy of any following.

97% of  actively publishing climate scientists agree that there is man made climate change but fools on here know better. Can't trust those smart educated types I guess. 

 

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

[transam]

3 minutes ago, pegman said:

97% of  actively publishing climate scientists agree that there is man made climate change but fools on here know better. Can't trust those smart educated types I guess. 

 

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

And you actually think the worlds governments need to be told by a kid....????

 

The worlds governments knew sod all about what humans were doing to the planet until a kid told them...????......Gawd.....

[DrTuner]

12 minutes ago, rabas said:

Picture evolving humanoids periodically forced to migrate, learning technology to stay alive, hunt, keep warm, and the invention of fire and fuel. Man's intelligence increases and voila, more CO₂ and the ice age retreats. 

As much as I'd like to credit the ending of the ice age to cavemen getting clever and firing up the barbie more often, I think that time it wasn't man made.

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

And you actually think the worlds governments need to be told by a kid....????

 

The worlds governments knew sod all about what humans were doing to the planet until a kid told them...????......Gawd.....

It's the continuing attraction of "the Emperor's New Clothes" story - all the adults were too venal to acknowledge what was going on. Same, same

[rabas]

14 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

As much as I'd like to credit the ending of the ice age to cavemen getting clever and firing up the barbie more often, I think that time it wasn't man made.

Those evolutionary steps led to today's wide use of energy.

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, rabas said:

Good news, I found my spoon.

 

5 MILLION YEARS OF WORSENING GLACIATIONS!  We are doomed without more CO₂.

 

<Sediment records showing the fluctuating sequences of glacials and interglacials during the last several million years.>

 

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

 

 

That was then, this is now.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-all-the-ice-in-the-arctic-be-gone/

 

It seems to have evaded you that the argument put forward and supported by the scientific consensus is anthropomorphic climate change has occurred and is occurring since the start of the modern human era.

 

What happened 5 million or within the 41K year, or 100K year cycles was certainly not influenced by human activity.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

Those evolutionary steps led to today's wide use of energy.

At last something we agree on.

[Chomper Higgot]

54 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

yes, have a wild guess what " Worsening periodic freeze ups "

might refer to ?

surely it cant be the reoccurring ice ages

can it ? and if it is, its due to the orbit around the sun somehow directly

influence co2 levels due to some

kind of attraction to co2,

...and then temperature follows co2,

or issit the other way around ?

blasphemy i say

Even more unattributed ripped content.

 

Please provide a link to where you got these images.

[rabas]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That was then, this is now.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-all-the-ice-in-the-arctic-be-gone/

 

It seems to have evaded you that the argument put forward and supported by the scientific consensus is anthropomorphic climate change has occurred and is occurring since the start of the modern human era.

 

What happened 5 million or within the 41K year, or 100K year cycles was certainly not influenced by human activity.

What you say I evaded was precisely my point.

 

Which was, man's use of fossil fuels increasing CO₂ may end or at least moderate current ice age glaciations.(freeze ups)

 

Your proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period

Work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[8] The amount of heat trapping (greenhouse) gases being emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere may delay the next glacial period by an additional 50,000 years.

 

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, pegman said:

97% of  actively publishing climate scientists agree that there is man made climate change but fools on here know better. Can't trust those smart educated types I guess. 

 

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

no, NASA is parroting an imbecile called john cook,

its amazing NASA is so sloppy as to just referring

to this ozzie on a topic that touches science,

cause cook has no clue at all how to make

a meaningful statistic, or are just trolling.

 

 

here is john discussing with fellow enthusiasts

on their blog when they came up with the theory of 97% approve TM

[[John Cook] When I read an abstract like this:

Spatial And Temporal Projected Distribution Of Four Crop Plants In Egypt

... It is projected that there will be increased air temperature throughout all four seasons in the coming 100 years, from the southern towards the northern parts of Egypt...

We can be confident that this statement is based on the fact of AGW. So is it not appropriate to rate it as 'implicit endorsement'? Not all 'predictions of future warming' tip over the line into endorsement but the stronger the prediction, the more the likelihood of implicit endorsement, methinks.]

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

 

and here is the abstract, that, do note, does not mention

co2 or man as cause of the expected temperature increase

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00205.x

its kindergarten drivel behind the 97% consensus,

in the abstracts they 'investigated' was among other

entirely irrelevant stuff like 'white males',

im embarrassed to be rated the same specie as these

imbeciles, and how NASA can refer to this 'statistic' is unbelievable.

 

here is some evaluation of john cooks drivel

that the rumor of 97% scientists approve TM comes from

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/a-psychologists-scathing-review-of-john-cooks-97-consensus-nonsensus-paper/

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

someone that bothered to actually go through the abstracts concluded

less then 1% actually wrote co2

or otherwise man made was behind earth warming and rising sea levels

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by brokenbone

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Even more unattributed ripped content.

 

Please provide a link to where you got these images.

you could always google milankovitch cycles,

temperature through history

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

What you say I evaded was precisely my point.

 

Which was, man's use of fossil fuels increasing CO₂ may end or at least moderate current ice age glaciations.(freeze ups)

 

Your proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period

Work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[8] The amount of heat trapping (greenhouse) gases being emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere may delay the next glacial period by an additional 50,000 years.

 

but if you look at the trend of the milankovitch cycles,

it sure looks like we are now at the peak of warmth,

and it will plummet in a few thousands of years

[RideJocky]

...academic researcher...

‘nuff said...

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

you could always google milankovitch cycles,

temperature through history

You could always provide a link to the source of images you post.

 

Why don’t you do that?!

[brokenbone]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You could always provide a link to the source of images you post.

 

Why don’t you do that?!

god only know how many pages on this topic i have plowed through, it would be as much of a workload for me as for you to google it all over again

[RickBradford]

7 hours ago, Sujo said:

You guys still going on about this.

 

The UN gathered the best climate scientists in the world. They investigated all the evidence and made their decision. 

 

The science is settled and no amount of posturing from pundits on here will change that.

And the science that the UN scientists decided on, bears almost no relation to the apocalyptic nonsense that Greta Thunberg has been spouting all around the globe.

 

As an informed supporter of UN science, can you link to the bit where the UN scientists state - or endorse the idea - that "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."?

 

That was one of the most prominent statements in Greta's address to the UK parliament, and I would appreciate your help in finding out where UN scientists said that, or anything like it.

Edited October 19, 2019 by RickBradford
Spelling

[findlay13]

[Crazy Alex]

7 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Yes!  and not so accidental. Picture evolving humanoids periodically forced to migrate, learning technology to stay alive, hunt, keep warm, and the invention of fire and fuel. Man's intelligence increases and voila, more CO₂ and the ice age retreats. 

 

BINGO! Since the dawn of man, men have adapted to their circumstances. The more technology advances, the more humans can adapt. We are now more able to adapt to the ever-changing climate than any time in history. Yet liberals are more hysterical about the ever-changing climate, even when just a easy look at temperature trends over time indicates what we already know: the only constant with climate is that it's always changing.

[Crazy Alex]

Frankly, I am fascinated by how so many people believe the hysteria about climate change despite so many times the same climate change cult's predictions haven't come true. They're 0 for 41.

 

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

And we're supposed to keep believing the same people who have been caught manipulating data again and again after being caught in so many other lies?

 

And the people who doubt the rantings and dire warnings of the constant liars are the "deniers"????

 

Wow.

[chokrai]

 

[Crazy Alex]

8 hours ago, pegman said:

97% of  actively publishing climate scientists agree that there is man made climate change but fools on here know better. Can't trust those smart educated types I guess. 

 

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

No, that's not what it says at that link. It states (emphasis added):

 

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

 

Your statement is false. Facts matter. And it appears "fools on here" certainly know better about what was stated. Maybe we're not the fools you accuse us of being after all, sir?

Edited October 19, 2019 by Crazy Alex
deleted unnecessary content.

[brokenbone]

31 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Frankly, I am fascinated by how so many people believe the hysteria about climate change despite so many times the same climate change cult's predictions haven't come true. They're 0 for 41.

 

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

And we're supposed to keep believing the same people who have been caught manipulating data again and again after being caught in so many other lies?

 

And the people who doubt the rantings and dire warnings of the constant liars are the "deniers"????

 

Wow.

its sad that NASA of all people jumped on this bandwagon,

it used to be a respected entity.

i predict '97% scientists approve' will become a verb

in the future, and this junk science is casting a dark shadow on science and scientists, and our entire generation

as imbecilic, they are ridiculing science for the sake of

getting more funding, there is zero dignity and ethics in it

 

edit: here, take a look at cook and

the half a dozen enthusiasts

chatting on how to create this consensus

project

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

Edited October 19, 2019 by brokenbone

[RideJocky]

No, that's not what it says at that link. It states (emphasis added):
 
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
 
Your statement is false. Facts matter. And it appears "fools on here" certainly know better about what was stated. Maybe we're not the fools you accuse us of being after all, sir?

Yeah, they love regurgitating the 97% lie.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Even worse, proposing things like moving people to higher ground, retrofitting building and eliminating aviation are flat out INSANE.

Have to disagree on the aviation. The current policy of increasing air travel over and above the levels of the 90s is what is INSANE.

Mass cheap air travel is destroying Thailand beaches, and destroyed Boracay beach in the Phillipines and no doubt thousands of other once beautiful places around the planet.

It's not even as if it's for a good cause. Mass tourism doesn't care about the environment- it's all about staying in a big beauty destroying concrete box and getting a sun tan, with a lot of drinking and displays of local dancing tarted up for the tourists.

Local transport should be by hi speed rail, and mass international air transport for recreation needs to be scaled back severely. It's destroying too many places to be continued, without even considering air pollution.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Sujo said:

The science is settled and no amount of posturing from pundits on here will change that.

I very much doubt any serious scientist would ever say that the science is settled.

Science is always evolving, as new information comes to light.

 

That statement goes in the same category as saying 97% of scientists agree ( on anything ).

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

BINGO! Since the dawn of man, men have adapted to their circumstances. The more technology advances, the more humans can adapt. We are now more able to adapt to the ever-changing climate than any time in history. Yet liberals are more hysterical about the ever-changing climate, even when just a easy look at temperature trends over time indicates what we already know: the only constant with climate is that it's always changing.

To know why the hysteria is happening, we have to know who is behind the movement. 

I think we need to find out who benefits from the chaos.

Follow the money!