Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, transam said:

And you actually think the worlds governments need to be told by a kid....🤣

 

The worlds governments knew sod all about what humans were doing to the planet until a kid told them...🤔......Gawd.....

It's the continuing attraction of "the Emperor's New Clothes" story - all the adults were too venal to acknowledge what was going on. Same, same

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

As much as I'd like to credit the ending of the ice age to cavemen getting clever and firing up the barbie more often, I think that time it wasn't man made.

Those evolutionary steps led to today's wide use of energy.

Share this post


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

Good news, I found my spoon.

 

5 MILLION YEARS OF WORSENING GLACIATIONS!  We are doomed without more CO2.

 

image.png.ca4f68f3b55c1e63bd1241065425dcc8.png

<Sediment records showing the fluctuating sequences of glacials and interglacials during the last several million years.>

 

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

 

 

That was then, this is now.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-all-the-ice-in-the-arctic-be-gone/

 

It seems to have evaded you that the argument put forward and supported by the scientific consensus is anthropomorphic climate change has occurred and is occurring since the start of the modern human era.

 

What happened 5 million or within the 41K year, or 100K year cycles was certainly not influenced by human activity.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Those evolutionary steps led to today's wide use of energy.

At last something we agree on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

yes, have a wild guess what " Worsening periodic freeze ups "

might refer to ?

surely it cant be the reoccurring ice ages

can it ? and if it is, its due to the orbit around the sun somehow directly

influence co2 levels due to some

kind of attraction to co2,

...and then temperature follows co2,

or issit the other way around ?

blasphemy i say

620px-milankovitchcycles.jpg

800px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png

milankovitch through history.jpg

ice age cycles.jpg

vostok ice cores.jpg

Even more unattributed ripped content.

 

Please provide a link to where you got these images.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That was then, this is now.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-all-the-ice-in-the-arctic-be-gone/

 

It seems to have evaded you that the argument put forward and supported by the scientific consensus is anthropomorphic climate change has occurred and is occurring since the start of the modern human era.

 

What happened 5 million or within the 41K year, or 100K year cycles was certainly not influenced by human activity.

What you say I evaded was precisely my point.

 

Which was, man's use of fossil fuels increasing CO2 may end or at least moderate current ice age glaciations.(freeze ups)

 

Your proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period

Work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[8] The amount of heat trapping (greenhouse) gases being emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere may delay the next glacial period by an additional 50,000 years.

 

Share this post


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

97% of  actively publishing climate scientists agree that there is man made climate change but fools on here know better. Can't trust those smart educated types I guess. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

no, NASA is parroting an imbecile called john cook,

its amazing NASA is so sloppy as to just referring

to this ozzie on a topic that touches science,

cause cook has no clue at all how to make

a meaningful statistic, or are just trolling.

 

 

here is john discussing with fellow enthusiasts

on their blog when they came up with the theory of 97% approve TM

[[John Cook] When I read an abstract like this:

Spatial And Temporal Projected Distribution Of Four Crop Plants In Egypt

... It is projected that there will be increased air temperature throughout all four seasons in the coming 100 years, from the southern towards the northern parts of Egypt...

We can be confident that this statement is based on the fact of AGW. So is it not appropriate to rate it as 'implicit endorsement'? Not all 'predictions of future warming' tip over the line into endorsement but the stronger the prediction, the more the likelihood of implicit endorsement, methinks.]

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

 

and here is the abstract, that, do note, does not mention

co2 or man as cause of the expected temperature increase

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00205.x

its kindergarten drivel behind the 97% consensus,

in the abstracts they 'investigated' was among other

entirely irrelevant stuff like 'white males',

im embarrassed to be rated the same specie as these

imbeciles, and how NASA can refer to this 'statistic' is unbelievable.

 

here is some evaluation of john cooks drivel

that the rumor of 97% scientists approve TM comes from

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/a-psychologists-scathing-review-of-john-cooks-97-consensus-nonsensus-paper/

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

someone that bothered to actually go through the abstracts concluded

less then 1% actually wrote co2

or otherwise man made was behind earth warming and rising sea levels

 

Edited by brokenbone
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Even more unattributed ripped content.

 

Please provide a link to where you got these images.

you could always google milankovitch cycles,

temperature through history

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

What you say I evaded was precisely my point.

 

Which was, man's use of fossil fuels increasing CO2 may end or at least moderate current ice age glaciations.(freeze ups)

 

Your proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period

Work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[8] The amount of heat trapping (greenhouse) gases being emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere may delay the next glacial period by an additional 50,000 years.

 

but if you look at the trend of the milankovitch cycles,

it sure looks like we are now at the peak of warmth,

and it will plummet in a few thousands of years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

you could always google milankovitch cycles,

temperature through history

You could always provide a link to the source of images you post.

 

Why don’t you do that?!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You could always provide a link to the source of images you post.

 

Why don’t you do that?!

god only know how many pages on this topic i have plowed through, it would be as much of a workload for me as for you to google it all over again

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sujo said:

You guys still going on about this.

 

The UN gathered the best climate scientists in the world. They investigated all the evidence and made their decision. 

 

The science is settled and no amount of posturing from pundits on here will change that.

And the science that the UN scientists decided on, bears almost no relation to the apocalyptic nonsense that Greta Thunberg has been spouting all around the globe.

 

As an informed supporter of UN science, can you link to the bit where the UN scientists state - or endorse the idea - that "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."?

 

That was one of the most prominent statements in Greta's address to the UK parliament, and I would appreciate your help in finding out where UN scientists said that, or anything like it.

Edited by RickBradford
Spelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Yes!  and not so accidental. Picture evolving humanoids periodically forced to migrate, learning technology to stay alive, hunt, keep warm, and the invention of fire and fuel. Man's intelligence increases and voila, more CO2 and the ice age retreats. 

 

BINGO! Since the dawn of man, men have adapted to their circumstances. The more technology advances, the more humans can adapt. We are now more able to adapt to the ever-changing climate than any time in history. Yet liberals are more hysterical about the ever-changing climate, even when just a easy look at temperature trends over time indicates what we already know: the only constant with climate is that it's always changing.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...