Greta Thunberg detained at German coal protest

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If I post the sentence where she says it, it would be against forum rules fair use policy and it would get deleted 

Its against forum rules to make claims without links. One linked sentence is well within the rules.

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The rules allows for 3 sentences to be quoted.

Edit: also the headline of the article.

The first three sentences can be quoted ,  you cannot pick three sentences out of an article and post those , it must be the first three sentences 

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its against forum rules to make claims without links. One linked sentence is well within the rules.

OK, I'll give  it a go 

 

 "People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction"

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You are listening to Greta , she isn't a scientist 

So you think you have to tell me who I'm listening to.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, I'll give  it a go 

 

 "People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction"

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

 

This is the definition of mass extinction: 

An extinction event (also known as a mass extinction or biotic crisis) is a widespread and rapid decrease in the biodiversity on Earth. Such an event is identified by a sharp change in the diversity and abundance of multicellular organisms. It occurs when the rate of extinction increases with respect to the background extinction rate^[1] and the rate of speciation. 

 

She does not claim that humans are going extinct.

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, I'll give  it a go 

 

 "People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction"

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

 

Here we go yet again. What is there that makes you think there is one rule for you only? There is nothing in that link that substantiates your claim which was:

 

 

World News

Interesting, thought provoking and topical news stories from around the world. Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

 

She does not claim that humans are going extinct.

Who does she mean by "we" ?

If she wasn't referring to humans , she would have said "they" as in animals .

  "We" = Humans 

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Who does she mean by "we" ?

If she wasn't referring to humans , she would have said "they" as in animals .

  "We" = Humans 

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction doesn't mean we will soon be extinct. 

You seem to have issues with basic English comprehension.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Who does she mean by "we" ?

If she wasn't referring to humans , she would have said "they" as in animals .

  "We" = Humans 

Give it up. Humans live on planet earth. We are in the middle of a mass extinction.  "Mass extinction" has a specific scientific meaning which I've already cited. 

.

Are We in the Middle of a Sixth Mass Extinction?

https://www.science.org/content/article/are-we-middle-sixth-mass-extinction

 

"The planet has experienced five previous mass extinction events, the last one occurring 65.5 million years ago which wiped out the dinosaurs from existence. Experts now believe we're in the midst of a sixth mass extinction."

https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-is-the-sixth-mass-extinction-and-what-can-we-do-about-it#:~:text=The planet has experienced five,of a sixth mass extinction.

 

Is Humanity Doomed? Science Says We Are In Middle Of A 'Mass Extinction Event'

https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/science-and-future/humans-middle-of-mass-extinction-event-550114.html

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction doesn't mean we will soon be extinct. 

You seem to have issues with basic English comprehension.

When does Greta say the extinction will be complete ?

Now is the beginning, when will the end be ?

[save the frogs]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

When does Greta say the extinction will be complete ?

Now is the beginning, when will the end be ?

MIT predicts by 2100

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

When does Greta say the extinction will be complete ?

Now is the beginning, when will the end be ?

Do you understand that you are arguing against your claim that Greta said it will be soon?

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Yes, I have screenshot to back up there is a question and not what you are saying.

Not digging, it is you who is falsely accusing me.

Also here, It is you that refuse to realize you are wrong. You want to get on topic, then stop the false accusations. Otherwise, I will continue to reply to your false accusations.

More deflections and off topic trolling.
 

You just can’t defend your claim that someone should be locked up and have the key thrown away for exercising their democratic right to peaceful protest.

 

You ramble away because of this and make false accusations which when asked to back up fail to do so.

 

Instead you deflect away again. 

[Bkk Brian]

24 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

When does Greta say the extinction will be complete ?

Now is the beginning, when will the end be ?

Did you miss a previous reply he made to you?

 

 

Did you miss the numerous times that Greta said listen to the scientists? 

 

 

[proton]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, I'll give  it a go 

 

 "People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction"

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

 

Sums up her hysterical lying, yet people still support this nonsense.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, proton said:

Sums up her hysterical lying, yet people still support this nonsense.

What do you base your opinions on?

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, I'll give  it a go 

 

 "People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction"

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

 

In English, the last sentence refers to the previous sentence. It is a fact that people are dying from climate change. It is a fact that ecosystems are collapsing. Humans are generally not regarded as being part of an ecosystem as we have learned to live above them. (think air conditioning and farming)  The last sentence refers to creatures and plants within ecosystems. You are being specious.

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, proton said:

Sums up her hysterical lying, yet people still support this nonsense.

Among the people supporting this "nonsense" is most of the scientific community.

[metisdead]

A post with a trolling YouTube video has been removed.

[ozimoron]

Nobody should mistake The Hill for a liberal mouthpiece. When conservative sites like this are posting articles like this it's time to stop the climate denial nonsense.

 

It’s time for a climate moonshot in America

 

With support from groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the fossil fuel industry is gearing up once again to shape laws, run influence campaigns, and coerce the public behind the idea of maintaining the energy status quo.

 

As a result, the public consciousness is clearly shifting, with 72 percent percent of Americans understanding that climate change is a serious challenge and supporting bold policy action.

 

While the public is moving, the politicians are not, having proven too cowed by industry lobbyists. 

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3823374-its-time-for-a-climate-moonshot-in-america/

[Hummin]

57 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In English, the last sentence refers to the previous sentence. It is a fact that people are dying from climate change. It is a fact that ecosystems are collapsing. Humans are generally not regarded as being part of an ecosystem as we have learned to live above them. (think air conditioning and farming)  The last sentence refers to creatures and plants within ecosystems. You are being specious.

Humans is a plague that do not die a natural death when the ecosystem around us dies. We have managed to multiply under conditions and environments we should not be able to live under, and we also survive illness and viruses we should have died off. 

 

About Year 1800  we passed the magical number of one billion for the first time? 1923 we where 2 billions, and Now 8 billion 100 years later which requires about 1,8 earth of where to be sustainable and live from what earth produces in bio masses. And still we have people who blindly follow the opposite side and think their children and grand children will thank them for the great job they did to make the future brighter and better for them. 

 

Everybody knows our time on this planet is short, and future is not clear, so why not waste it when we can? Party on as long it lasts, and let others clear the mess later when we have the technology to do it. That must be the reason of their mentality!?

 

At least they trust the scientists to solve that later, maybe

 

I'm just asking, because I leave no one behind to worry about! So why should I care? Really, I can drink Champagne to I die on first class with no regrets 

[Saanim]

34 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Among the people supporting this "nonsense" is most of the scientific community.

In fact, the opposite is true. However, the scientists do not have the same tools of media as the politicians have.

 

Although there is a certain contribution of humans to the climate change, the climate have been changing anyway, the human contribution is negligible.

Much more damage is being caused by the forced "green dealing", killing the industry, harming the population wellbeing.

 

I remember when 20 years ago when starting with this discussion, the GW Bush administration downplayed that for their part, arguing with their scientific study. Later it was discovered that the study was paid by the govt.

 

Then, the politics have changed later dramatically. Don't we have other dictates enough? 

 

Much more worrying is the situation with marine life damaging. 

 

  

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, Saanim said:

In fact, the opposite is true. However, the scientists do not have the same tools of media as the politicians have.

 

Although there is a certain contribution of humans to the climate change, the climate have been changing anyway, the human contribution is negligible.

Much more damage is being caused by the forced "green dealing", killing the industry, harming the population wellbeing.

 

I remember when 20 years ago when starting with this discussion, the GW Bush administration downplayed that for their part, arguing with their scientific study. Later it was discovered that the study was paid by the govt.

 

Then, the politics have changed later dramatically. Don't we have other dictates enough? 

 

Much more worrying is the situation with marine life damaging. 

 

  

It is an evil loop!

 

Politicians is in pocket of the industry, or also coming from the poluting industry like Bush, Cheney etc, and scientists is in the pockets of the governments, but later especially the tobacco industry started to pay off the scientists as well oil companies. So who is in the pockets of who, and who serving the natures best? 

 

I have to admit I'm not especially impressed by the solutions served, that obviously is on the industry side and not the nature unfortunately. 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Saanim said:

In fact, the opposite is true. However, the scientists do not have the same tools of media as the politicians have.  

Thank you for offering absolutely no facts to back up your contention. You might want to acquaint yourself with this rule from the World News Forum landing page:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

 

In the meantime, contemplate this:

 

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

 

 

[josephbloggs]

15 hours ago, transam said:

Did you expect her to say otherwise..............

That's all you've got? She has answered this question many times in an open an honest way. And your best response is that? Not a single hint of evidence that she doesn't write them herself?

It's really quite childish to be honest.

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Saanim said:

In fact, the opposite is true. However, the scientists do not have the same tools of media as the politicians have.

 

Although there is a certain contribution of humans to the climate change, the climate have been changing anyway, the human contribution is negligible.

Much more damage is being caused by the forced "green dealing", killing the industry, harming the population wellbeing.

 

I remember when 20 years ago when starting with this discussion, the GW Bush administration downplayed that for their part, arguing with their scientific study. Later it was discovered that the study was paid by the govt.

 

Then, the politics have changed later dramatically. Don't we have other dictates enough? 

 

Much more worrying is the situation with marine life damaging. 

 

  

You have any reliable links supporting your statement most of the scientific community claims manmade climate change is not true?

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C the vast majority of,global warming and climate change.

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, Saanim said:

Much more worrying is the situation with marine life damaging.   

Ya think this night have something to do with that?

 

2021 ocean temperatures were warmest on record

Ocean temperatures have been rising steadily over time, with 2021 recording the highest ocean temperature on record.

Scientists say that ocean temperature is a better way to measure global warming, as natural weather cycles don't impact the ocean in the same way as the air.

Action needs to be taken now; the consistent increase in heat will cause more extreme weather events such as storms, tornados and tidal flooding.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/2021-ocean-temperatures-were-warmest-on-record-climate-change/

 

 

Loss of marine biodiversity
Rising temperatures increase the risk of irreversible loss of marine and coastal ecosystems. Today, widespread changes have been observed, including damage to coral reefs and mangroves that support ocean life, and migration of species to higher latitudes and altitudes where the water could be cooler. 

Latest estimates from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization warn that more than half of the world’s marine species may stand on the brink of extinction by 2100. 

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/ocean-impacts

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

That's all you've got? She has answered this question many times in an open an honest way. And your best response is that? Not a single hint of evidence that she doesn't write them herself?

It's really quite childish to be honest.

Unfortunately that's his way of thinking.

[Hummin]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thank you for offering absolutely no facts to back up your contention. You might want to acquaint yourself with this rule from the World News Forum landing page:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

 

In the meantime, contemplate this:

 

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

 

 

What to do when so many do not trust the science or those backing the science? Because that is the real problem, and people like Greta becomes the scape goat!

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

What to do when so many do not trust the science or those backing the science? Because that is the real problem, and people like Greta becomes the scape goat!

They don't trust it because they don't like it. Then a few nutters on social media write some nonsense supporting their pov, and there we are, in their opinion they have been proven right.