Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Posting a graphic with NASA written on it is not evidence that it came from NASA.

 

It’s why you rarely, if ever, provide a link to the source of the graphics you post.

I always provide a link to my sources. I did so In this case as well.

 

More questions?

  • Haha 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

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well done.

 

So why all your anger against those who campaign for reducing carbon footprints and the promotion of more sustainable life styles?

I am not against anyone's lifestyle choices, I am against people making lifestyle choices for me. And I am angry at the lie of catastrophic climate change. I am very pro-environment. I am anti-waste, anti-plastic when possible, and anti-pollution. But CO2 is not pollution it is a massively essential gas and free plant food for the world. 

I rail against the madness that world will end by warming a couple of degrees from cow farts. When we will actually end the world through war, species extinction, and socialistic dysfunction.

Edited by canuckamuck
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I am not against anyone's lifestyle choices, I am against people making lifestyle choices for me. And I am angry at the lie of catastrophic climate change. I am very pro-environment. I am anti-waste, anti-plastic when possible, and anti-pollution. But CO2 is not pollution it is a massively essential gas and free plant food for the world. 

I rail against the madness that world will end by warming a couple of degrees. When we will actually end the world through war, species extinction, and socialistic dysfunction.

CO2 is essential up to a point. Beyond that point it becomes harmful. The principle is widespread in nature. Nature - which is to say everything - relies on balance. The balance is extremely delicate and humans are upsetting the balance. Are you with me that far?

 

The world has already ended for many species in very recent history as humans have ushered in a mass extinction period. Do you not rail against all the loss of species that will most definitely result from warming by a couple of degrees or do you only rail about what threatens your lifestyle?

 

Simple prudence demands a change in lifestyle from everyone, which means slowing down, at least to the rate that the consequences of growth can be dealt with. The politicians haven't yet realised that this is all about slowing down economic growth. They are in for a big shock, but they will get it eventually, and if it takes a little girl to wake them up, be it so.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JamesBlond said:

CO2 is essential up to a point. Beyond that point it becomes harmful. The principle is widespread in nature. Nature - which is to say everything - relies on balance. The balance is extremely delicate and humans are upsetting the balance. Are you with me that far?

 

The world has already ended for many species in very recent history as humans have ushered in a mass extinction period. Do you not rail against all the loss of species that will most definitely result from warming by a couple of degrees or do you only rail about what threatens your lifestyle?

 

Simple prudence demands a change in lifestyle from everyone, which means slowing down, at least to the rate that the consequences of growth can be dealt with. The politicians haven't yet realised that this is all about slowing down economic growth. They are in for a big shock, but they will get it eventually, and if it takes a little girl to wake them up, be it so.

 

We are not making a meaningful difference to the temperature, and the ecosystems of the world would love you long time if you gave them more CO2.  We increased the CO2 by 40% in 50 years and we see virtually no change in the temperature. None if you factor in the natural warming trend. That's undeniable.

 

The change in lifestyle which is needed, is an improvement of the living conditions and education in the third world and every country that is breeding like rabbits. The west is very well behaved in their lifestyles and population growth. They should be copied not chastised.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The change in lifestyle which is needed, is an improvement of the living conditions and education in the third world and every country that is breeding like rabbits. The west is very well behaved in their lifestyles and population growth. They should be copied not chastised.

This is what no politician wants to talk about. It's easy to see why: less people mean less votes for the politicians that pay for their votes using the climate taxes. It's called "social democrats", a legal form of Robin Hood politics. The pension ponzi schemes also need fresh meat for the machine, with westeners abstaining from breeding, that needs to be imported and as a side effect their values and belief systems get imported, until they become the majority. It's practically suicide by politics.

 

The first step to controlling the population is to remove politicians  and start direct democracy, something that hasn't been tried since the ancient Greece. The technology to enable that has arrived.

Edited by DrTuner
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems Saint Greta of the Perpetual Scowl has been bery bery busy. She has been in Denver, Idaho, and Montana and is now heading for Alberta in Canada! Wow, her feet must hurt. It's a loooooong walk. Or maybe she is riding a horse....

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Forethat said:

A general advice is that you stop looking at pictures and instead analyse the data. The graph YOU refer to displays the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures, not the rate of increase (which is NOT accelerating). In kindergarten language, that means "what is the temperature". Yes, the mean temperature is increasing.

 

The graph I provided shows the annual increase.

 

The steeper the slope, the steeper the increase. From about 1975 the slope gets steeper. Again in about 2010 the slope gets steeper still. In the last 10 years, the land sea temperature index increased by 0.31. In the 10 years before that 0.22. In the ten year before that 0.16

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

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

We are not making a meaningful difference to the temperature, and the ecosystems of the world would love you long time if you gave them more CO2.  We increased the CO2 by 40% in 50 years and we see virtually no change in the temperature. None if you factor in the natural warming trend. That's undeniable.

 

What natural warming trend would that be? And what is causing it?

 

As for seeing no change in temperature? That's just flat out false. Have you heard the tundra is melting? Depending on what portion of the tundra in question, that means it's warmer there than it's been for anywhere from 11,000 to 33,000 years.

A massive study in Nature just concluded shows that for the first time in at least the last 2000 years, the present is unique in that virtually the entire surface of the planet is getting warmer at the same time. So is that natural and what went on before unnatural?

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

A massive study in Nature just concluded shows that for the first time in at least the last 2000 years, the present is unique in that virtually the entire surface of the planet is getting warmer at the same time. So is that natural and what went on before unnatural?

Ok that got me worried. The only way the surface would be getting hotter beneath the antarctic ice is if the core is overheating. I guess I'll add Earth exploding to the never ending list of things that'll kill me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

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

 

image.png.04c7bf5a399d3b612f83b6255abe81b8.png

And now for dessert.

I looked at that graph of yours and I noticed that it was at variance with virtually every other reconstruction of past temperatures. So I looked up its creator, Craig Loehl. Among other things he has contended that the oceans are actually getting cooler. Among other things, there's a massive measurement  project called Argo which has decisively refuted such nonsense.

I wanted to see where he published his "research".  It turns out it was in a journal called Energy & Environment.

 

"Energy & Environment (E&E) is an academic journal "covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use".[1] Under its editor-in-chief from 1998 to 2017, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, it was known for easygoing peer-review and publishing climate change denial papers.[2] "

 

Even Roger Pielke, Jr., much beloved by denialists, thinks it's a rag.

 

But it gets even better. Loehl himself has disavowed that particular graph in favor of a much reduced rise in temperature. So what kind of website would offer as evidence a graph that its creator himself has disavowed? I'm guessing you're not going to reveal that since I've noticed that denialists are very reluctant to reveal their sources. But you could surprise me of course.

 

And the medieval warm period as reflective of global climate has itself recently been debunked in a paper that appeared in Nature. Turns out the other parts of the world were colder. It was on average, a bit warmer, but nothing like the 6 or even the 3 degrees that Loehl later posited. 


 

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

What natural warming trend would that be? And what is causing it?

 

As for seeing no change in temperature? That's just flat out false. Have you heard the tundra is melting? Depending on what portion of the tundra in question, that means it's warmer there than it's been for anywhere from 11,000 to 33,000 years.

A massive study in Nature just concluded shows that for the first time in at least the last 2000 years, the present is unique in that virtually the entire surface of the planet is getting warmer at the same time. So is that natural and what went on before unnatural?

The temperature has been rising since the last cooling trend ended in 1910. But the amount of CO2 we have been putting in the air has gone up 40% in the last 50 years.

We had the same pace of warming 1910 to 1940 that we had 1970 to 2000. But the CO2 was much greater in the second 30 year period. And we even had cooling and then a flat line after WW2 despite the onset of major industrialization. There is no correlation to be seen between a rise in CO2 and the rise in temperature that cannot be explained as a natural fluctuation. The CO2 increased massively while the temperature rose at the very slow pace of .08 degrees in 100 years. Not at all anomalous in the longer temperature record. The impact of CO2 is proving to be insignificant. Our climate continues to be incredibly stable.

200 years.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, canuckamuck said:

The temperature has been rising since the last cooling trend ended in 1910. But the amount of CO2 we have been putting in the air has gone up 40% in the last 50 years.

We had the same pace of warming 1910 to 1940 that we had 1970 to 2000. But the CO2 was much greater in the second 30 year period. And we even had cooling and then a flat line after WW2 despite the onset of major industrialization. There is no correlation to be seen between a rise in CO2 and the rise in temperature that cannot be explained as a natural fluctuation. The CO2 increased massively while the temperature rose at the very slow pace of .08 degrees in 100 years. Not at all anomalous in the longer temperature record. The impact of CO2 is proving to be insignificant. Our climate continues to be incredibly stable.

200 years.png

Another unattributed graphic.

 

Here’s a clue, something written on a graphic is part of the graphic, it is not confirmation of the source.

 

So please, provide a link to where you got this graphic.

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...