Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.   

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Crazy Alex
clarification
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

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"?

No the temperature rise is not typical. Because it's rising at an accelerated rate. The same goes for sea levels. Yes, the climate is always changing. But it's the rate of change that's at issue.

But maybe you think rate is irrelevant. You could be one of those people who don't care what rate of interest your money earns, just as long as it's increasing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No the temperature rise is not typical. Because it's rising at an accelerated rate. The same goes for sea levels. Yes, the climate is always changing. But it's the rate of change that's at issue.

But maybe you think rate is irrelevant. You could be one of those people who don't care what rate of interest your money earns, just as long as it's increasing.

It's not accelerating. Please keep to the facts or at least learn the difference between increasing and accelerated rate.

Edited by Forethat
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Forethat said:

It's not accelerating. Please keep to the facts or at least learn the difference between increased rate and accelerated rate.

I don't know what sillly semantic game you think you are playing, but the rate is increasing. And even if, on the off chance, my terminology is wrong, any reasonably intelligent person would understand the intended meaning. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

It is NOT accelerating. Do you have difficulties admitting to be wrong, or what.

 

The temperature rise is NOT accelerating. Plain and simple. This is not something that's up for debate; I'm right and you are wrong. Live with it. 

Do you think asserting something is sufficient? You seem unacquainted with the concept of evidence. Let me introduce you a couple of examples:

 

image.png.fcae0d449cac4c721e5cf93cd984a677.png

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

 

Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to the NOAA 2018 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.17°C / 0.31°F) is more than twice as great.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you don't recognise the difference between increase and accelerate. Let's leave it there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, Forethat said:

No, you don't recognise the difference between increase and accelerate. Let's leave it there.

Not that this semantic question is significant, but once again you are wrong. Dead wrong.

"at an increasing rate" means that the rate itself is increasing; hence a statement about the behaviour of the rate at the point of observation. It is therefore more a description of the rate in terms of continuous behaviour.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/264636/whats-the-difference-between-increased-and-increasing

 

acceleration 
an increase in the rate at which something happens, changes, or grows

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-category/british/rates-of-increase-and-the-process-of-increasing

 

You might have scored a picayune point had I written "increased rate". But I didn't so you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No the temperature rise is not typical. Because it's rising at an accelerated rate. The same goes for sea levels. Yes, the climate is always changing. But it's the rate of change that's at issue.

But maybe you think rate is irrelevant. You could be one of those people who don't care what rate of interest your money earns, just as long as it's increasing.

Great! So let's refer to the NASA global temperature graph and you tell me what I'm supposed to be worried about:

 

image.png.61e0c41c40671ad416563bdf894b0d73.png

 

I'm not sure what my personal finances have to do with it.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Do you think asserting something is sufficient? You seem unacquainted with the concept of evidence. Let me introduce you a couple of examples:

 

image.png.fcae0d449cac4c721e5cf93cd984a677.png

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

 

Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to the NOAA 2018 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.17°C / 0.31°F) is more than twice as great.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

The hockey stick graph scam edited out the Medieval warming period for visual effect:

 

image.png.04c7bf5a399d3b612f83b6255abe81b8.png

  • 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...