Activist Thunberg denounces "creative PR" in climate fight

[brokenbone]

53 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The current ransom demand is $300 billion per year, but the demand is not coming directly from the countries themselves.

 

The demand is coming from a gaggle of 150 environmental NGOs who have taken it upon themselves to speak for the non-Western rest of the world.

Guess who'll be advising how that money is spent .....

 

https://climatechangedispatch.com/un-rich-nations-climate-reparations/

tbh i think I am most qualified to distribute

the cash among the islanders, so,

transfer the $300 billion into my bank account and ill see to it

that the islanders gets their fair share after i deducted mine

[xylophone]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have no reason to doubt that what you say is true, but IF there really is a climate crisis, and I do disagree that there is, humans will have killed themselves off by not doing anything much at all.

The best thing is having less children to grow up and want stuff, but fat chance of that happening.

Yes that's quite likely, and I recall having conversations with two psychologists in my not too distant past, in my role as a chief manager in a large organisation, and whilst attempting to initiate change, and although they didn't know one another, they both came up with the same thought process that humans have with regards to action and inaction on any particular subject.

 

Basically, if there is something which is "immediate and certain" then we as humans will take action, HOWEVER, if this particular something is not "immediate and certain" then action will not be taken, and it won't have any degree of urgency, nor will it likely be addressed in the near future............and I see that as happening with global warming/climate change, and the longer that seeds of doubt are sown with regards to this (and also considering my last post with regards to lobbyists and interests of the big companies) then the longer it will take to do something about it.

 

There have been examples of this throughout history, and even now there are some comparisons which I could draw, although not strictly in the same vein.........in some of the Pacific islands a measles epidemic has killed over 60 people, mostly children, and this because of religious beliefs, and the fact that measles had not been recently present in those countries and therefore was not seen as "immediate and certain" i.e. no need to get vaccinated because there is no immediate danger and very little chance of contracting measles.

 

However now, because the effects are seen first hand (immediate and certain) vaccinations are being delivered throughout the whole population, even to those who had some religious push-back against it.

 

In my opinion, a lot more could be done and should be done, but all the time other interests are at play, and the human nature aspect, as I pointed out above, is also in play, then as you quite rightly point out humans could well have killed themselves off by their own inaction.
 

[brokenbone]

3 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Yes that's quite likely, and I recall having conversations with two psychologists in my not too distant past, in my role as a chief manager in a large organisation, and whilst attempting to initiate change, and although they didn't know one another, they both came up with the same thought process that humans have with regards to action and inaction on any particular subject.

 

Basically, if there is something which is "immediate and certain" then we as humans will take action, HOWEVER, if this particular something is not "immediate and certain" then action will not be taken, and it won't have any degree of urgency, nor will it likely be addressed in the near future............and I see that as happening with global warming/climate change, and the longer that seeds of doubt are sown with regards to this (and also considering my last post with regards to lobbyists and interests of the big companies) then the longer it will take to do something about it.

 

There have been examples of this throughout history, and even now there are some comparisons which I could draw, although not strictly in the same vein.........in some of the Pacific islands a measles epidemic has killed over 60 people, mostly children, and this because of religious beliefs, and the fact that measles had not been recently present in those countries and therefore was not seen as "immediate and certain" i.e. no need to get vaccinated because there is no immediate danger and very little chance of contracting measles.

 

However now, because the effects are seen first hand (immediate and certain) vaccinations are being delivered throughout the whole population, even to those who had some religious push-back against it.

 

In my opinion, a lot more could be done and should be done, but all the time other interests are at play, and the human nature aspect, as I pointed out above, is also in play, then as you quite rightly point out humans could well have killed themselves off by their own inaction.
 

there was a time when life was in the direction of extinguish itself on earth, until a fungi by chance

and right on time evolved to break down lignin,

and the issue has popped up once again,

this time only man can preempt extinction

that is destined to occur 2-3 million years from now

without direct intervention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c

 

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Notice how small Pacific nations blame the "West" for the illusory sea level rise, but think that some cash will alleviate the situation. I say illusory as there has been no significant or apparent sea level rise in NZ over the past 55 years, while they claim the sea is actually higher in their part of the Pacific than it is on the shores of NZ. Perhaps they should borrow some of the boats the Thais used to solve the floods in Bkk a few years ago.

Solve the floods they did not, especially with boats.

[Lacessit]

On 12/21/2019 at 5:09 PM, toast1 said:

Oh dear, those 'Shrill denialists'.

 

Traitors, apostates, doubters!

 

Off to the re-education camp with them.

 

The last sentence contains a sweeping assumption.

[Lacessit]

14 hours ago, brokenbone said:

tbh i think I am most qualified to distribute

the cash among the islanders, so,

transfer the $300 billion into my bank account and ill see to it

that the islanders gets their fair share after i deducted mine

It is heartwarming to see the occasional altruistic TV poster.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

Solve the floods they did not, especially with boats.

I was being sarcastic.

[rabas]

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

On 12/21/2019 at 5:09 PM, toast1 said:

Oh dear, those 'Shrill denialists'.

 

Traitors, apostates, doubters!

 

Off to the re-education camp with them.

The last sentence contains a sweeping assumption.

That forcing people to learn thermodynamics helps understand the many complex unknowns about future climate change?

 

[Lacessit]

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I see no reason to doubt your conviction, BUT. IMO if and that's a big IF it's true, then the opportunity to do something about it ended about 4 billion people ago. Fast coming up on 8 billion and accelerating.

I'm happy that I never had kids to suffer, but I think IF it's true, then it's all over for humanity.

In real terms, nothing is being done that could possibly change the situation.

Ask yourself why, if it's real, and governments believe in it,  they haven't put every country in the world on a war footing to force people to change to "save humanity"? Ask why air travel is being encouraged to INCREASE flights? Ask why petrol cars are not being banned in cities? Ask why more public transport is not being introduced?

Till the climate people use teleconferencing instead of flying to exotic holiday locations I don't believe it's true at all. Just another scam, IMO.

If governments actually believed in a climate emergency, wouldn't they be doing more about it?

To a certain extent, I agree with you. Too many people.

The really wealthy have the resources to ward off the worst effects of climate change, so it's not a problem to them.

IMO most governments do believe a climate emergency is here. However, it's like trying to turn around an ocean liner - vested fossil fuel interests and the mantra of economic growth have the rudder stuck at full ahead. Some arms of government, such as local shires and the military, have contingency plans.

AFAIK there is no contingency plan for the projection the flows from the Tibetan glaciers to major river systems such as the Mekong and Ganges will be halved by 2050.

True, it is only a model, and could be wrong plus or minus 50%. However, if remotely accurate, it will affect a couple of billion people and the current economic refugeeism will look like a tea party. Fortunately, I won't be around to see it. Our children will.

[Lacessit]

11 minutes ago, rabas said:

That forcing people to learn thermodynamics helps understand the many complex unknowns about future climate change?

 

Climate change is not future. It's here. Check out recent events in Australia.

What's your best guess at the percentage of the world's population that understand thermodynamics? Mine is 1%, and that is probably optimistic. Some engineering faculties have actually dropped it from the syllabus as being too hard.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

To a certain extent, I agree with you. Too many people.

The really wealthy have the resources to ward off the worst effects of climate change, so it's not a problem to them.

IMO most governments do believe a climate emergency is here. However, it's like trying to turn around an ocean liner - vested fossil fuel interests and the mantra of economic growth have the rudder stuck at full ahead. Some arms of government, such as local shires and the military, have contingency plans.

AFAIK there is no contingency plan for the projection the flows from the Tibetan glaciers to major river systems such as the Mekong and Ganges will be halved by 2050.

True, it is only a model, and could be wrong plus or minus 50%. However, if remotely accurate, it will affect a couple of billion people and the current economic refugeeism will look like a tea party. Fortunately, I won't be around to see it. Our children will.

If 2 billion people come a knockin' on the west's door, one doesn't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind will blow.

 

Not my children. I chose not to have any. Seems it was a good choice to make.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Climate change is not future. It's here. Check out recent events in Australia.

What's your best guess at the percentage of the world's population that understand thermodynamics? Mine is 1%, and that is probably optimistic. Some engineering faculties have actually dropped it from the syllabus as being too hard.

The debate has never, IMO, been whether climate is changing. It's always been about whether or not humans changed it, and what can be done about it.

IMO, only a little if at all, and nothing.

[brokenbone]

54 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

To a certain extent, I agree with you. Too many people.

The really wealthy have the resources to ward off the worst effects of climate change, so it's not a problem to them.

IMO most governments do believe a climate emergency is here. However, it's like trying to turn around an ocean liner - vested fossil fuel interests and the mantra of economic growth have the rudder stuck at full ahead. Some arms of government, such as local shires and the military, have contingency plans.

AFAIK there is no contingency plan for the projection the flows from the Tibetan glaciers to major river systems such as the Mekong and Ganges will be halved by 2050.

True, it is only a model, and could be wrong plus or minus 50%. However, if remotely accurate, it will affect a couple of billion people and the current economic refugeeism will look like a tea party. Fortunately, I won't be around to see it. Our children will.

fret not, you and the rest of the alarmists are delusional

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336685904_The_Gulf_Stream_Beat

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334099256_Facts_and_fiction_about_sea_level_change

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/IJG_2019073015200972.pdf

[rabas]

25 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Climate change is not future. It's here. Check out recent events in Australia.

What's your best guess at the percentage of the world's population that understand thermodynamics? Mine is 1%, and that is probably optimistic. Some engineering faculties have actually dropped it from the syllabus as being too hard.

My comment was that thermodynamics is not essential to understand Earth's climate history or the many unknowns in predicting the future. Though it is a wonderful accounting system for energy. I doubt it's being dropped because it's too hard, rather modern day engineers with vast computational tools at their disposal rarely need the details.

 

As for Australia, although my heart bleeds for them, I would like to see prove that the current heatwave and fires are due to climate change. Someone else (brokenbone?) posted an excellent video in another thread that showed SE Australia has had worse heatwaves and fires in the past, but they are conveniently ignored.  I will look for the video.

 

[brokenbone]

15 minutes ago, rabas said:

My comment was that thermodynamics is not essential to understand Earth's climate history or the many unknowns in predicting the future. Though it is a wonderful accounting system for energy. I doubt it's being dropped because it's too hard, rather modern day engineers with vast computational tools at their disposal rarely need the details.

 

As for Australia, although my heart bleeds for them, I would like to see prove that the current heatwave and fires are due to climate change. Someone else (brokenbone?) posted an excellent video in another thread that showed SE Australia has had worse heatwaves and fires in the past, but they are conveniently ignored.  I will look for the video.

 

i made a post on the 1880-1906 period in australia,

the hottest in recorded history

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1138234-activist-thunberg-denounces-creative-pr-in-climate-fight/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-14851959

 

the video someone uploaded concern the 1939 spike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxJTZvRl13Q

[Lacessit]

45 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

fret not, you and the rest of the alarmists are delusional

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336685904_The_Gulf_Stream_Beat

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334099256_Facts_and_fiction_about_sea_level_change

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/IJG_2019073015200972.pdf

Rest assured I do not fret about your postings. That would be a waste of time.

[Lacessit]

13 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i made a post on the 1880-1906 period in australia,

the hottest in recorded history

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1138234-activist-thunberg-denounces-creative-pr-in-climate-fight/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-14851959

 

the video someone uploaded concern the 1939 spike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxJTZvRl13Q

Temperature recordings in those times had major problems with data. Apparatus which is designed to record shade temperatures accurately did not exist, hence readings were inflated.

https://www.weather.gov/rah/edu2

[brokenbone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsf9JVHmISY

BOM is making 'the present seem warmer' by 'cooling the past'

the usual modus operandi, the filth wouldnt have it any other way

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Climate change is not future. It's here. Check out recent events in Australia.

It is also future with all of its alleged dire consequences.

 

Here is an example of the unknown future. These are predictions of precipitation changes by 2100 assuming worst case temperature predictions come true. Note the difference in two models shown in the 2nd and 3rd frame. The first frame is an average of 39 models currently used to predict future precipitation. Do you believe future temperature predictions for 2100 are a lot better? They show similar problems.

 

 

The only thing really known is that increased average temperature will bring increased precipitation. But where? Alarmists will only tell you where they think it will decrease.  Hope Australia gets some.

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The debate has never, IMO, been whether climate is changing. It's always been about whether or not humans changed it, and what can be done about it.

IMO, only a little if at all, and nothing.

That is where our opinions differ. My opinion is based on the fact we have nearly 8 billion people on the planet, all producing heat, from a peasant burning cow dung to cook their food, to a billionaire setting their airconditioning to 18 degrees while they have a log fire for visual effect.

It is one of the great ironies of energy policy in Australia ( what energy policy, one may well ask ) that Australia is best situated to benefit from producing zero-heat renewable energy, while doing less than most other countries to further that outcome through government support.

 

[brokenbone]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

That is where our opinions differ. My opinion is based on the fact we have nearly 8 billion people on the planet, all producing heat, from a peasant burning cow dung to cook their food, to a billionaire setting their airconditioning to 18 degrees while they have a log fire for visual effect.

It is one of the great ironies of energy policy in Australia ( what energy policy, one may well ask ) that Australia is best situated to benefit from producing zero-heat renewable energy, while doing less than most other countries to further that outcome through government support.

 

im all for reducing imports of fossil fuels if possible,

but australia got coal in spades,

its the cheapest way for them to generate electricity

[rabas]

24 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

That is where our opinions differ. My opinion is based on the fact we have nearly 8 billion people on the planet, all producing heat, from a peasant burning cow dung to cook their food, to a billionaire setting their airconditioning to 18 degrees while they have a log fire for visual effect.

It is one of the great ironies of energy policy in Australia ( what energy policy, one may well ask ) that Australia is best situated to benefit from producing zero-heat renewable energy, while doing less than most other countries to further that outcome through government support.

The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology suggests you should not worry by anthropological waste heat because it is near infinitesimal.

 

Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?

 

No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 342 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2).

 

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate-faq/is-waste-heat-produced-by-human-activities-important-for-the-climate/

 

OTH, I agree about Australia. When they invest spray on solar to electric foam to coat the outback Australia will be king.

 

[brokenbone]

59 minutes ago, rabas said:

The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology suggests you should not worry by anthropological waste heat because it is near infinitesimal.

 

Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?

 

No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 342 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2).

 

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate-faq/is-waste-heat-produced-by-human-activities-important-for-the-climate/

 

OTH, I agree about Australia. When they invest spray on solar to electric foam to coat the outback Australia will be king.

 

10.000:1 ratio, its important to highlight perspective

so the debate doesnt plummet into an intellectual glacial age

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was being sarcastic.

Of course.

[Chazar]

On 12/17/2019 at 7:17 AM, JonnyF said:

Indeed. If her team really wants to make people use green modes of transport you'd think they'd try to promote it and make it look as convenient as possible. Not encourage her to leave her first class seat to make herself look as uncomfortable as possible for a quick Twitter pic. 

 

Makes you wonder about the motivation behind this. Are they really encouraging people to use green modes of transport or simply trying to make Greta look as vulnerable/benevolent as possible? An amusing comeback from the rail company though...

 

And poor Greta, on the floor for 30 seconds before heading back into 1st class.

 

Travelling  light I see

[Chazar]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology suggests you should not worry by anthropological waste heat because it is near infinitesimal.

 

Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?

 

No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 342 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2).

 

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate-faq/is-waste-heat-produced-by-human-activities-important-for-the-climate/

 

OTH, I agree about Australia. When they invest spray on solar to electric foam to coat the outback Australia will be king.

 

I  wonder what Feynman would  have had to say about global warming, shame he's  not  here

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, Chazar said:

I  wonder what Feynman would  have had to say about global warming, shame he's  not  here

 

This one is probably the most apropriate to topic:

 

See that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man.

[brokenbone]

sea level rise, facts and fiction

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ36ded2Wc0

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

That is where our opinions differ. My opinion is based on the fact we have nearly 8 billion people on the planet, all producing heat, from a peasant burning cow dung to cook their food, to a billionaire setting their airconditioning to 18 degrees while they have a log fire for visual effect.

It is one of the great ironies of energy policy in Australia ( what energy policy, one may well ask ) that Australia is best situated to benefit from producing zero-heat renewable energy, while doing less than most other countries to further that outcome through government support.

 

Isn't human contributed CO2 under 5% of atmospheric CO2? Good luck changing anything by building bird killing windmills and electric cars.

[xylophone]

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Isn't human contributed CO2 under 5% of atmospheric CO2? Good luck changing anything by building bird killing windmills and electric cars.

This is interesting........https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm 

 

And I am no fan of electric cars btw.........but we have to be smarter in what and how we are burning fuels.