Jump to content

Inspired by Swedish teen, worldwide protest demands climate action


rooster59

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

And what's your point? That until drones and rockets are permanently grounded there can be no progress made in slowing and ultimately halting climate change? 

More that that ! As i made it clear on my first post on this topic, a one world government and a transition from capitalism to socialism would be necessary as well.

I know it may sound nonsensical to you, i can live with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply
28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The venom a young girl and young people trigger in the usual suspects here on n TVF is quite depressing.

 

 

The feeble mindedness of adults in the millions to provide slack jawed obedience to the rantings of a teenager parroting talking points is depressing to me. Never has the brainwashing performed as well as this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

That's a run of the mill hit piece which addresses none of the science. Just a lot of text trying to fit in words like Trump and Climate denier bla bla. The scientists have put their stuff up for peer review. They seem quite confident.

They put their stuff up for peer review, did they? Here is what they did in Ronan Connolly's own words. It is to laugh:

'In 2009, we began systematically investigating the challenging subject of climate change in detail. After five years of this research, we realised that we had gained a lot of important insights which would be of interest to the scientific community. We set up a website, OpenPeerReviewJournal.com, where we published all our results and findings as a series of eight scientific papers.'

https://ronanconnollyscience.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The feeble mindedness of adults in the millions to provide slack jawed obedience to the rantings of a teenager parroting talking points is depressing to me. Never has the brainwashing performed as well as this.

 

Reluctantly, i have to agree in principle, we need solutions, not media rantings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

No defeatism from me, sorry, i am ready to give up a pollutant life-style, but i think we should not be oblivious to reality.

I live a very low pollution lifestyle, except for things beyond my control- like driving a car ( very low milage, 5000 km in 12 months ) as there is no way I could afford an electric one, and there is no public transport where I live. I also produce too much plastic waste because the supermarket wraps so much up in it.

The electricity I use is generated by hydro, so no bad there.

I also recycle a lot of other people's rubbish, which isn't rubbish at all, but people throw so much good stuff out in a disposable society.

However, the BIGGEST contribution I made to solving the planet's problems is NOT having children. I decided long ago there were too many people in the world and that was 3 billion ago. Seems few other people agree with me, as we see from the population increasing rapidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

That's a run of the mill hit piece which addresses none of the science. Just a lot of text trying to fit in words like Trump and Climate denier bla bla. The scientists have put their stuff up for peer review. They seem quite confident.

The section specifically about the Connollys is quite telling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yep, i'm having these debates since i was a teen, not losing hope, just looking at reality as it is.

 

The reality is certainly different than how you perceive it,I think.

 

No-one perceives "reality as it really is" because we will all have different viewpoints.

 

The reality is that the world has grown more peaceable,more secure,more pluralistic and can at least discuss and address the current problems.

 

I do not how it will all go-but at least we (and our offspring) are debating. the issue.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

More that that ! As i made it clear on my first post on this topic, a one world government and a transition from capitalism to socialism would be necessary as well.

I know it may sound nonsensical to you, i can live with that.

More than that, we need a one world government that will sterilise every person that has produced ONE child. All the windmills that could ever be made will not be able to keep up with the reproductive rate of the world's people.

Seems strange to me that a self evident truth ( too many people causes too much pollution and uses too much natural resources ) is not even being discussed by the climate change warriors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The feeble mindedness of adults in the millions to provide slack jawed obedience to the rantings of a teenager parroting talking points is depressing to me. Never has the brainwashing performed as well as this.

 

That poor child is being ruthlessly exploited but there's a neucleas that will have none of it and will not tolerate any other view.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I live a very low pollution lifestyle, except for things beyond my control- like driving a car ( very low milage, 5000 km in 12 months ) as there is no way I could afford an electric one, and there is no public transport where I live. I also produce too much plastic waste because the supermarket wraps so much up in it.

The electricity I use is generated by hydro, so no bad there.

I also recycle a lot of other people's rubbish, which isn't rubbish at all, but people throw so much good stuff out in a disposable society.

However, the BIGGEST contribution I made to solving the planet's problems is NOT having children. I decided long ago there were too many people in the world and that was 3 billion ago. Seems few other people agree with me, as we see from the population increasing rapidly.

Yet we hear sermons from people from countries who pollute a  lot, guess we should all go back growing beans, while they travel the world and speak from  their air-con offices.

On the other issue, well, tbh, if only half the population stopped having children, who would go to work ? Who would pay your pension ? It's not as easy as that, and again, i don't see easy solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

The reality is certainly different than how you perceive it,I think.

 

No-one perceives "reality as it really is" because we will all have different viewpoints.

 

The reality is that the world has grown more peaceable,more secure,more pluralistic and can at least discuss and address the current problems.

 

I do not how it will all go-but at least we (and our offspring) are debating. the issue.

 

 

The reality is that the world has grown more peaceable,more secure,more pluralistic and can at least discuss and address the current problems.

I think there are a lot of Chinese that would disagree with you.

China isn't the only country that applies to.

The reality of a peasant in an Asian country is very different from that of a middle class child in a well off western country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

The reality is certainly different than how you perceive it,I think.

 

No-one perceives "reality as it really is" because we will all have different viewpoints.

 

The reality is that the world has grown more peaceable,more secure,more pluralistic and can at least discuss and address the current problems.

 

I do not how it will all go-but at least we (and our offspring) are debating. the issue.

 

 

I am not saying that you are wrong, but i guess that, for the moment, we must be content with debating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

They put their stuff up for peer review, did they? Here is what they did in Ronan Connolly's own words. It is to laugh:

'In 2009, we began systematically investigating the challenging subject of climate change in detail. After five years of this research, we realised that we had gained a lot of important insights which would be of interest to the scientific community. We set up a website, OpenPeerReviewJournal.com, where we published all our results and findings as a series of eight scientific papers.'

https://ronanconnollyscience.com/

They put up their research and their methodologies for all the world to see. Sure that is not the route you take when you are trying to get published in a mainstream scientific journal. But we all know the same group that owns the journals are the guys pushing the narrative. They only want to publish stuff that satisfies their politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

On the other issue, well, tbh, if only half the population stopped having children, who would go to work ? Who would pay your pension ? It's not as easy as that, and again, i don't see easy solutions.

The scientists are working very hard to invent machines that will do all that pesky physical work for us. I don't expect it will be necessary to have a large work force in the near future. People are already being made redundant in the thousands by the machines and expect that to become millions shortly (  even pole dancers are being threatened with redundancy as there are already robot pole dancers in use. Not very attractive as yet, but wrap them in a Japanese love doll's body and voila, the perfect pole dancer )

In the meantime, there are millions and millions and millions of people from Africa that are literally dying to get into western countries to work.

The idea that western countries need to breed more workers is a nonsense in our brave new world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

They put up their research and their methodologies for all the world to see. Sure that is not the route you take when you are trying to get published in a mainstream scientific journal. But we all know the same group that owns the journals are the guys pushing the narrative. They only want to publish stuff that satisfies their politics.

And your claim that their work was subjected to peer review? Ya think because they self-publish in a website called OpenPeerReviewJournal.com that means that their work actually was peer reviewed. And all you've got to justify it is a conspiracy theory about how climatological research gets done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And your claim that their work was subjected to peer review? Ya think because they self-publish in a website called OpenPeerReviewJournal.com that means that their work actually was peer reviewed. And all you've got to justify it is a conspiracy theory about how climatological research gets done.

Got anything to say about their theories Mr. Gatekeeper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The year I was born there were 2.7 billion people inhabiting the planet. Today, there are more than 7.7 billion. Five billion more people in 64 years is the problem. Nothing else matters. Keep adding to the number and Earth will become a garbage dump. The only people able to afford that guy's Eco-shed will be the Zuckerberg's of the 22nd century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Let's see him take his shed to northern Minnesota. A winter there and it will wipe that sh!t eating grin right off his face.

Why would he build his shed for Minnesota if he need a shed for Florida weather? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Anybody can come up with a theory. And create a website. And publish on that website. But unless it's subjected to rigorous scientific peer review it doesn't mean a damned thing. 

Do you think Galileo could have got a peer reviewed paper from the Vatican in his day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Do you think Galileo could have got a peer reviewed paper from the Vatican in his day?

Galileo was a scientist. The Vatican was composed of theologists. All you have to liken the vast majority of scientists to the vatican is your unfounded belief that at best this majority is not only misguided in their research but all misguided in the same way. At worst, they're all participating in some massive conspiracy. The Vatican never put its beliefs to be scrutinized by scientific research. Climatologists do exactly that. That's why they're scientists.

And doesn't it tell you anything about the Connollys that they named their "journal" the OpenPeerReviewJournal.com even though genuine peer review is entirely absent from it? They're obviously cranks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DoctorG said:

I might be inclined towards some action if the predictions were anywhere near believable. Attached is just some of the "scientific predictions" that have been made. There are plenty more to be laughed at in other sites.

 

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

 

THANKS for this.  Brilliant compilation of all the <deleted> "predictions" I have lived through.  (How well I remember the gloomster predictions of Paul Ehrlich in the late 60s and early 70s.)

 

  What absolute bo££ocks it all was/is.

 

Last week I was (in my university) having lunch with some guys from the Chemistry Dept.  I asked them "what d'you think about all this climate-change stuff?"  

Well, says one, "the climate's been changing for the last 4 billion years, hasn't it?"

 

97% of scientists ?????? 55555

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

THANKS for this.  Brilliant compilation of all the <deleted> "predictions" I have lived through.  (How well I remember the gloomster predictions of Paul Ehrlich in the late 60s and early 70s.)

 

  What absolute bo££ocks it all was/is.

 

Last week I was (in my university) having lunch with some guys from the Chemistry Dept.  I asked them "what d'you think about all this climate-change stuff?"  

Well, says one, "the climate's been changing for the last 4 billion years, hasn't it?"

 

97% of scientists ?????? 55555

Not 97% of scientists. 97% of climatologists.

But thanks for your report of what some chemists allegedly said. I guess in your world, anecdotes and anonymity are part and parcel of the scientific method.

As is playing silly semantic games. Yes climate is always changing. But now it's about the rate and direction of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The scientists are working very hard to invent machines that will do all that pesky physical work for us. I don't expect it will be necessary to have a large work force in the near future. People are already being made redundant in the thousands by the machines and expect that to become millions shortly (  even pole dancers are being threatened with redundancy as there are already robot pole dancers in use. Not very attractive as yet, but wrap them in a Japanese love doll's body and voila, the perfect pole dancer )

In the meantime, there are millions and millions and millions of people from Africa that are literally dying to get into western countries to work.

The idea that western countries need to breed more workers is a nonsense in our brave new world.

well, you know, people want to have children, and machines who do that "pesky physical work" will also create unemployment, so it goes both ways, far from being a solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Galileo was a scientist. The Vatican was composed of theologists. All you have to liken the vast majority of scientists to the vatican is your unfounded belief that at best this majority is not only misguided in their research but all misguided in the same way. At worst, they're all participating in some massive conspiracy. The Vatican never put its beliefs to be scrutinized by scientific research. Climatologists do exactly that. That's why they're scientists.

And doesn't it tell you anything about the Connollys that they named their "journal" the OpenPeerReviewJournal.com even though genuine peer review is entirely absent from it? They're obviously cranks.

The Journal publishers today are in a similar position to what the Vatican occupied. The Vatican controlled what was sanctified and what was not. That was the point. The conspiracy is not to hard to imagine. They publish what is in their interest to publish. Apocolyptic climate change is juicy. Everything is OK, not so juicy.

But I see you needed that deflection because you can't discredit the the research from the video. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...