Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

Just now, RickBradford said:

Greta, recently, has made statements such as "irresponsible behavior", "failures of humankind", that her generation's future had been "stolen", that her dreams had been "stolen", and more besides.

 

There's no science in that, just emotional outbursts.

 

I am not making scientific arguments, any more than Greta is. I'm making a socio-political point, just as Greta is.

 

If you think it's off topic, that's because you have failed to understand that this is not primarily a scientific argument; it's a political argument. That is evident from the fact that some governments have made steps to reduce CO2 emissions, some have not.

 

And dragging identity politics, including race and gender activism, into the public climate debate, which is now commonplace among the wealthiest NGOs, is rank bad strategy.

The topic is still not identity politics.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

So complicated scientists come to a consensus but you somehow get an insight that evaded them.

I am a scientist.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll post and a reply have been removed

Share this post


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

I am a scientist.

 

And I’m an Engineer with many years of experience conducting academic research in my field of speciality.

 

Pleased to make your acquaintance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I am a scientist.

 

...and apparently not up to date on the latest information.....happens a lot as people get old and become lazy thinkers, preferring assumption to critical thinking

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Well, he has a link in there. The problem is you've got to give them a lot of information to actually gain access to the graphic. But I assume it's the real thing. Still, it doesn't show whether disasters have been on the increase. I did find this from 2005

Disasters Increase, Death Rates Drop

New figures show that the number of disasters worldwide has increased, death rates have decreased, but the number of people affected has increased.

In 2005, there was an 18 percent rise in disasters that killed 91,900 people, and 360 natural disasters in 2005 compared to 305 in 2004, according to official figures issued by the Belgian Université Catholique de Louvain's Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) in Geneva.

https://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/Disasters-Increase-Death-Rates.html

 

And then there's the fact that apparently, earthquakes and tsunamis caused more death than any other kind of natural disaster. 

https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/42895

 

The point being that data can be a false friend if you don't understand what it means and what it doesn't mean. There are reasons that death rates could be dropping that don't correlate with the frequency of natural disasters.

So if I understand you correctly, you claim that "data can be a false friend if you don't understand what it means and what it doesn't mean" in the same post where you somehow fail to recognise the difference between weather related incidents (allegedly caused by climate changes) and other natural disasters?

 

Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis don't fall into the "weather related" category, they are categorised as "natural disasters". For that reason I specifically included information regarding the categories included (Droughts, Storms, Hurricanes, Wildfires (Forest fires), Extreme cold, Heatwaves and Landslides).

 

But hey, cudos for pointing out that CRED correctly described that the number of deaths due to weather related incidents have decreased. And again, if you want to know by how much you can simply look at the graph I posted. 👍

 

Is there anything specific you want me to look into, like droughts? I'm sure you'll be able to find hundreds of articles where it is claimed that droughts are more frequent and severe the last 20 years due to "climate changes" (almost guaranteed in the Guardian). But are they? Hurricanes and hurricane landfalls are often claimed to have increased and to be more severe the last 20 years. But is that true?

 

What I'm saying is, don't believe everything you read in the Guardian or Washington Post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

They are opinions and conclusions based on the evidence

First, Greta has apparently never seen the scientific evidence. If she had, and could understand it, she would not spout idiotic unsupported nonsense like: "Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

Second, any sensible society would be well advised to be cautious about listening to the "opinions and conclusions" reached by 16-year-olds, as any parent would tell you.

 

The only people that Greta is "showing up" are the shameless activists using her to push their own radical agendas.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

New figures show that the number of disasters worldwide has increased, death rates have decreased, but the number of people affected has increased.

Well yeah, the number of people affected would rise as the population headcount per square km rises, as it has. And it's becoming more and more centered around cities. One good bang in a megapolis and the charts immediately go off the scales.

 

Urbanization is not a good thing. Among other problems it creates angry teenage city slickers completely out of touch with nature.

Share this post


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

First, Greta has apparently never seen the scientific evidence. If she had, and could understand it, she would not spout idiotic unsupported nonsense like: "Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

Second, any sensible society would be well advised to be cautious about listening to the "opinions and conclusions" reached by 16-year-olds, as any parent would tell you.

 

The only people that Greta is "showing up" are the shameless activists using her to push their own radical agendas.

Of course she has, its just that blustering fuddy-duddies cant accept that a 16 year old.... and a GIRL at that ... has bested them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Of course she has, its just that blustering fuddy-duddies cant accept that a 16 year old.... and a GIRL at that ... has bested them.

That's a very disrespectful description of the Pope, and in any case, he had some quite friendly words to say to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean scientists publishing peer reviewed research?!


No, I mean climatologists publishing peer reviewed papers, or which would generally only include a fraction of the actual research.

But even if I did mean all scientists publishing peer reviewed papers, that still would not include enough scientists to support the 97% lie you guys are constantly regurgitating.

For every climatologist there are how many other scientists?

For every publishing scientist there are how many that don’t publish?

Keep drinking the Koolaide...
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 6:46 PM, rabas said:

 

They're right! We've been in an atypical ice age for 3 million years where CO2 repeatedly drops to near dying levels during glacial periods as the world begins to freeze. A trend that is worsening. But thanks to abundant CO2 production, we may have terminated the cycle, but it's uncertain because we don't understand why Earth's CO2 has been so low recently.  However, now that we have raised the temperature a bit, we need to be very careful not not go to far.

 

See, it does not have to be presented as doomsday.

 

The human % of CO2 is small compared to natural causes. I doubt anything we can do will make any difference whatsoever in the overall situation.

Try getting everyone with a fossil fuelled vehicle to buy a new electric one- impossible. They couldn't even make enough electric cars in the next 10 years and that's when the doom merchants say it's sayonara for us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'd say people are getting pretty sick of these so called "climate activists". Today they dragged them to the ground and kicked the <deleted> out of them. 

 

Just saying.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/17/angry-commuters-drag-xr-protesters-off-tube-try-glue-10933003/

Ah, the worms have turned. Expect more such. The police response is only to be expected but pathetic. They need to be nipping these disruptive protests in the bud, not waiting till they have blocked roads and stopped trains.

Time for some proactive policing, and pensioners that join in should be punished as severely as the younger ones, if any have actually been punished at all.

 

I spent 3 hours a day getting to and from work in an overcrowded London tube carriage. Had some <deleted> made my journey any more inconvenient and unpleasant I'd have been severely PO.

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...