Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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?

I guess so. I thought the threats of the were-rabbit were substantially more real, to be fair.

Edited by Forethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamesBlond said:

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?

The problem with that is it's too easy to measure the actual effect of the policies, you know, curbing population growth, the area and density of forests, air quality and other tangibles. Where's the money in that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s odd given I wasn’t taken in by evadgib’s mysterious soothsaying. 

I only offered an opinion & cannot recall aiming it anywhere near you :blink:

Edited by evadgib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She’s got your attention.... How much time have you spent ranting against her?!

Less than the time you've spent ranting against others who oppose her ideas and claims.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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. 

 

There is absolutely nothing increasingly rapid about the current rate of temperature increase. There have been several such increases in the last million years alone:

 

image.png.446c64e89617c8dd727ab844a8539006.png

 

As you can see (I'm sure you can read a graph, yes?), there have been at least three increases in temperature higher than the present one- several more similar rises. The temperature goes up, the temperature goes down. That is the natural cycle of things. Propagandizing a little girl into being terrified about what happens again and again is pure EVIL.

 

Now, while we're at it, let's touch on sea levels rising- another meme climate change hustlers use to terrorize people. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. But how do we know for sure? Simple. Take this discovery in the gulf of Mexico, for example. This 7,000 year-old burial ground was found under 21 feet of ocean. Obviously, sea levels have been rising for at least that long, correct?

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/florida-native-american-indian-burial-underwater/

 

So you see, when many people observe simple truths and facts and apply logic, then look at poor little Greta having temper tantrums and claiming her dreams have been stolen from her, we see the evil face of climate change hustlers. We see they are willing to terrorize children. We see the simple facts of the two items above, plus how these very same hustlers burn more carbon individually than entire towns. We see all that and of course protest it as any ethical, logical person would.

Edited by Crazy Alex
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Really? Have you looked at the IPCC report on the probable different fates awaiting the climate and humanity if global warming exceeds 1.5 degrees celsius vs 2 degrees celsius vs. even higher? Given your assertions here, I'd guess not.

And the esteemed Dr. Curry has decided to no longer publish in peer-reviewed journals. So much easier not to be subject to fact checking.

The IPCC is a group of political activists, so that's not very impressive. Once again, one needs only a basic fact or two to have strong doubts about climate change hustler hysteria.

 

CO2 levels were nearly four times higher during the Cretaceous period than they are now. Life flourished. And of course, humans now are more adaptable to climate changes than at any other time in history. You know, electricity, running water, TECHNOLOGY.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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.

I couldn't agree more. Now tell me, wasn't it YOU that just posted IPCC predictions about the future? While we're at it, why don't we take a few minutes to have some laughs about climate change predictions made that ended up being complete BS?

 

Here, you pick a source. There are plenty:

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate+change+predictions+that+didn't+happen&t=ffnt&atb=v118-1&ia=news

 

In fact, remember how it used to be "global warming"? What changed, other than multiple bouts of record cold weather and snow? So now it's "climate change"- which, of course has been happening since the beginning of time itself.  Oh those people who resort to predictions about the future when they have nothing else indeed!

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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...