Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

You couldn't be bothered to look it up?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-bird-population-countryside-reduced-pesticides-france-wildlife-cnrs-a8267246.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47698294

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wildflower-meadows-farms-agriculture-flowers-environment-brexit-butterflies-bees-defra-a8433541.html

If you're not a naturalist you won't see it. In fact, if you're not a naturalist, you are part of the problem.

The rich are not the problem because there's relatively few of them. The problem is the masses who are addicted to 'more' and don't give a stuff about the consequences.

The debauch is over. Everyone has to wind it down.

That is a load of nonsense..."The rich, very few of them".....How old are you...?

 

We are all "rich" now, loads of cars, hols, heating, cooling, you name it....A bit different back when I was a kid...

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You go girl hold their feet to the fire make them face what’s happening so all of us can start making responsible changes and grow into a more sustainable world I’m proud of you kiddo!

And first of all make her shut up. 

Small point that needs clarifying. It was Greta's parents that filled her head with confusion, hate and panic, ergo they "stole her dreams". Textbook child abuse really. When she gets bored of this cl

Posted Images

29 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Your comment clearly lacks any understanding of the scientific process. Your coveted peer reviewed journals are the basic ground level workshop of research and discovery. As careers advance many bright scientists and leaders move on to bigger roles where their views and contributions are shared with a broader audience. Dr. Curry has a most distinguished career. Certainly well above most grunt level climatologists fresh out of college trying to meet their publication quota.

Except she claims she is still going to publish her papers but no longer subject them to peer review. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

You couldn't be bothered to look it up?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/europe-bird-population-countryside-reduced-pesticides-france-wildlife-cnrs-a8267246.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47698294

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wildflower-meadows-farms-agriculture-flowers-environment-brexit-butterflies-bees-defra-a8433541.html

If you're not a naturalist you won't see it. In fact, if you're not a naturalist, you are part of the problem.

The rich are not the problem because there's relatively few of them. The problem is the masses who are addicted to 'more' and don't give a stuff about the consequences.

The debauch is over. Everyone has to wind it down.

Perfect example of finger pointing, ‘not me - them’!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Your comment clearly lacks any understanding of the scientific process. Your coveted peer reviewed journals are the basic ground level workshop of research and discovery. As careers advance many bright scientists and leaders move on to bigger roles where their views and contributions are shared with a broader audience. Dr. Curry has a most distinguished career. Certainly well above most grunt level climatologists fresh out of college trying to meet their publication quota.

Which doesn’t explain Away the scientific consensus and leaves a big question as to why Dr Curry is no longer publishing in peer reviewed papers.

 

Perhaps she sees more dollars in courting controversy while never putting her views to peer review.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It's far too nice a day to go running down all your red herrings, so let me just say it again.

 

That you, and others, prefer the spoon-fed "science" of a 16-year-old know-nothing schoolgirl to the lifetime's work of a respected climatologist simply shows how deranged the "progressive" SJW mindset has become, and why it is pointless to listen to its repetitive puppet-babble.

“ Spoon Fed Science” 

 

Because of course we should each of us do our own science starting from first principles.

 

Away with this nonsense.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

 For people who have nothing concrete to offer, it's a common ploy to resort to predicting the future. That's the great thing about the future. You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it.

Predicting the future, you say...? Doomsday prophecies? Cataclysmic events? Mass extinction? End of civilisation? The Ware-rabbit? Revelation 8:10?

 

The concept isn't exactly new. Scare the cr*p out of people by claiming something horrible what will happen in the future unless they repent, typically by making someone a favour. Or even more common; by paying money.

 

The problem for those predicting the future is that the future eventually becomes present time. The most common solution to this small predicament is to simply ignore previous predictions and hope that when the future eventually DOES arrive, people have all forgotten about the whole thing. Ultimately, the future becomes the past. 

 

Oh yes, the future, this remote time where polar ice caps melt and tropical atolls are wiped out due to rising sea levels. Or wait, that's in the past, it was predicted they'd be gone by now. It's true, Al Gore had lots of fancy diagram from scientists. 

 

And you're saying that those who doubt the prophecies are the ones predicting the future?

"You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it."

:cheesy:

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Forethat said:

tPredicting the future, you say...? Doomsday prophecies? Cataclysmic events? Mass extinction? End of civilisation? The Ware-rabbit? Revelation 8:10?

 

The concept isn't exactly new. Scare the cr*p out of people by claiming something horrible what will happen in the future unless they repent, typically by making someone a favour. Or even more common; by paying money.

 

The problem for those predicting the future is that the future eventually becomes present time. The most common solution to this small predicament is to simply ignore previous predictions and hope that when the future eventually DOES arrive, people have all forgotten about the whole thing. Ultimately, the future becomes the past. 

 

Oh yes, the future, this remote time where polar ice caps melt and tropical atolls are wiped out due to rising sea levels. Or wait, that's in the past, it was predicted they'd be gone by now. It's true, Al Gore had lots of fancy diagram from scientists. 

 

And you're saying that those who doubt the prophecies are the ones predicting the future?

"You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it."

:cheesy:

 

Were not the streets of Manhatten supposed to be under sea water by now, and what about the Pacific islands actually growing in size instead of vanishing?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Stop lying. That has never been the consensus of the climatological scientific community. Not even close. 

 

And the future that was once predicted is already here. As predicted, it's getting warmer at an increasingly rapid rate. If the climate proceeds at its current pace, 2019 could beat 2016 as the warmest year on record. And unlike 2016, that's without the benefit of an el nino. 

Really cold where I am. I'd welcome a bit of warming. Unfortunately the climate isn't doing what it's been supposed to and getting hotter here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which doesn’t explain Away the scientific consensus and leaves a big question as to why Dr Curry is no longer publishing in peer reviewed papers.

 

Perhaps she sees more dollars in courting controversy while never putting her views to peer review.

Maybe, the anit-Gore?

 

While you are here. Define what you mean by the term "scientific consensus", a consensus of what specific parts of climate/Earth science. I ask from the POV that Earth's environment and it's study is the singularly most complex there ever was or ever will be.       

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What does it matter if Thunberg's science was "spoon-fed"  or not since it's the climatological scientific community doing the feeding?

Except that it isn't.

 

Her principal handlers are committed Green activists, with no more background in climate science than Thunberg herself.

 

There is Lisa-Marie Neubauer, a prominent activist in her own right, and a member of the very wealthy One Foundation. She is also a member of Alliance 90/The Greens and the Green Youth. A textbook activist, in fact.

 

And there is Jennifer Morgan, who has worked for Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G), the US Climate Action Network, the European Business Council for Sustainable Energy....

 

It's Green activists all the way down.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

In the 70's the doom merchants were predicting a new ice age with millions dying of starvation by the turn of the century. Man made global warming hysteria is nor based on real scientific data any more the Jehovah's witnesses preaching the end of the world is.

Forget about climate change if it's too subtle for you. Concentrate on the attrition of the natural environment - habitat loss, species loss - and throw in quality of life loss, because nature is the touchstone of all meaning.

The on-going catastrophe of that is self-evident, and it's man-made.

Is that not enough for you to justify more prudent and less self-indulgent political/economic policies, which is all that is being asked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Except that it isn't.

 

Her principal handlers are committed Green activists, with no more background in climate science than Thunberg herself.

 

There is Lisa-Marie Neubauer, a prominent activist in her own right, and a member of the very wealthy One Foundation. She is also a member of Alliance 90/The Greens and the Green Youth. A textbook activist, in fact.

 

And there is Jennifer Morgan, who has worked for Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G), the US Climate Action Network, the European Business Council for Sustainable Energy....

 

It's Green activists all the way down.

As I've pointed out her version tallies with that of the IPCC report. Who cares where her information allegedly comes from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...