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

[Forethat 2,515]

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 October 14, 2019 by Forethat

[RickBradford 6,577]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

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

Except that it doesn't.

 

The IPCC has never said that "our house is on fire".

 

The IPCC has never said that " we probably don’t even have a future any more".

 

The IPCC has never said that in 2030 there will be an "irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

It's just "progressive" activism at its lowest. Most "progressive" adults are brain-dead already, so they have to dig up a schoolgirl to act as their intellectual leader.

 

[Orton Rd 16,246]

40 minutes 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?

Global warming is natural, hardly any contribution from human activity. Greta would be better to be concerned about over population, plastic pollution and de forestation than spending her time wailing about a problem that almost nothing can be done about.

[DrTuner 24,558]

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?

[evadgib 17,468]

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 

Edited October 14, 2019 by evadgib

[Crazy Alex 4,745]

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.

[Crazy Alex 4,745]

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:

 

 

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 October 14, 2019 by Crazy Alex

[Crazy Alex 4,745]

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.

[Crazy Alex 4,745]

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!

[JamesBlond 475]

3 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Global warming is natural, hardly any contribution from human activity. Greta would be better to be concerned about over population, plastic pollution and de forestation than spending her time wailing about a problem that almost nothing can be done about.

Read up on the topic. The earth's climate is EXTREMELY SENSITIVE. Local changes, such a a change in sea temperature, can have runaway effects that can turn into ice-ages.

 

Why suppose Greta isn't concerned about all those things? Of course she is. It all ties in. The issue - all these issues - boil down to one thing: DECELERATING ECONOMIC GROWTH. Growth cannot be pushed forever with the same level of non-sustainability. That is axiomatic. The only question is at what point it is reined in. I say NOW because the loss of the natural world is at a critical level and without it life won't be worth living.

[Orton Rd 16,246]

If she was that bothered about telling off the world about unsustainable growth she would have been better placed in China or India, or maybe Africa, where should could have explained how they were not going to be allowed to get as rich as the likes of smarty pant's parents because it was killing her 'dreams'. Nothing she can say or do is going to change anything, nothing those protesting idiots in London do will change anything either, they would be better employed picking up litter or planting trees.

[kingdong 4,988]

6 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. 

Glad the planet's getting warmer,just received my gas bill,stone the bleeders.

Edited October 14, 2019 by kingdong

[Credo 10,203]

2 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

If she was that bothered about telling off the world about unsustainable growth she would have been better placed in China or India, or maybe Africa, where should could have explained how they were not going to be allowed to get as rich as the likes of smarty pant's parents because it was killing her 'dreams'. Nothing she can say or do is going to change anything, nothing those protesting idiots in London do will change anything either, they would be better employed picking up litter or planting trees.

Typical deflection by deniers.   I think the UN is the best place to let everyone, including, China, India and Africa a message about Climate Change.   

 

[Crazy Alex 4,745]

1 minute ago, Credo said:

Typical deflection by deniers.   I think the UN is the best place to let everyone, including, China, India and Africa a message about Climate Change.   

 

What message? That this current temperature rise is typical of many in the past million years? That sea levels have been rising for thousands of years? What is this message you think should be funneled through the UN, rather than have everyone with all their viewpoints be heard and debated?

 

And specifically, what is a "denier"?

[Crazy Alex 4,745]

4 hours ago, JamesBlond said:

Read up on the topic. The earth's climate is EXTREMELY SENSITIVE. Local changes, such a a change in sea temperature, can have runaway effects that can turn into ice-ages.

 

Why suppose Greta isn't concerned about all those things? Of course she is. It all ties in. The issue - all these issues - boil down to one thing: DECELERATING ECONOMIC GROWTH. Growth cannot be pushed forever with the same level of non-sustainability. That is axiomatic. The only question is at what point it is reined in. I say NOW because the loss of the natural world is at a critical level and without it life won't be worth living.

Earth has had many, many dramatic climate changes for billions of years. 99.999999% to 100% of of them happened with no connection whatsoever to economic growth.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Crazy Alex
clarification