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

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, but as said on another post - "... it can't be ignored it's a trifle useful having a person who can't be attacked running point.". And, of course, she wouldn't be there without a whole lot of support, painting it

as some solo act is ludicrous.

 

She deserves recognition, and perhaps admiration for some of it, but believing there aren't any outside interests involved is choice. I don't doubt she's fully committed or anything.

That's exactly the point i was trying to make since the very beginning of this thread.

Glad that you, and few others, have a balanced opinion on this.

 

[ThePioneer]

All those on here that don't realize yet that this child is being used by some people with an agenda, and actually has no idea what she is talking about, should have a look at this link.

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/24/letter-greta-thunbergs-experience-in-climatology-questioned/

 

(1) Please explain to me what science courses you’ve completed;
(2) What’s your background in mathematics, statistics, and the physical and biological sciences?

(3) How about the ice core data — those which were drilled in the Antarctic down 5 miles, which provides the history of what went on in the past, the history of atmospheric sciences or what went on with weather and temperature?

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It'd be a lot more polite if, posters who accuse others for attacking, being angry or are engaged in all sorts of conspiracies to discredit Greta or someone else, referenced the post where this was supposed to have happened.

Agree, obviously you are not one of those attacking or being angry, but there are a few.

Again, it's bad taste to attack a 16 yrs old child, even if one disagrees with everything she says.

[mauGR1]

Just now, Forethat said:

That sounds like an ill-behaved way of corresponding. I don't think I'll browse through 55 pages and 800 posts to find them.

Well, i did, i can assure you that i'm not telling porkies ????

[BritManToo]

17 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

it's bad taste to attack a 16 yrs old child, even if one disagrees with everything she says.

It's bad taste to use a child to front an extremist political cause.

She should be in school, studying for exams, going out with her pals, camping, etc.

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, Forethat said:

It'd be a lot more polite if, posters who accuse others for attacking, being angry or are engaged in all sorts of conspiracies to discredit Greta or someone else, referenced the post where this was supposed to have happened.

 

It would be a whole lot more polite to stop this nonsense pretending. All you have to do is scroll a bit back the topic. I think there isn't a page or two of comments missing a vile one, at least. Of course, some might think comparing her to a Nazi is legit....

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It's bad taste to use a child to front an extremist political cause.

She should be in school, studying for exams, going out with her pals, camping, etc.

 

Yes, and the concern is touching.

That's why she's being vilified, because posters are worried about her welfare.

Unless I got it wrong, she graduated school early, and what with the Asperger's maybe not a whole lot of pals etc. (admittedly, the last bit based more on personal experience with my favorite nephew).

 

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It's bad taste to use a child to front an extremist political cause.

She should be in school, studying for exams, going out with her pals, camping, etc.

What is extremist about being concerned for the future of our planet ?

And what "she should or should not do" , well, it's not your business.

I agree on the fact that there are some economic interests behind her, but it's also true that we are all being exploited one way or another.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

What is extremist about being concerned for the future of our planet ?

And what "she should or should not do" , well, it's not your business.

I agree on the fact that there are some economic interests behind her, but it's also true that we are all being exploited one way or another.

 

Well, the no-flights bit is extreme. Going to the USA on a boat is extreme and a media stunt.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, the no-flights bit is extreme. Going to the USA on a boat is extreme and a media stunt.

Sure, there are also many posters here advocating banning the cars, because they don't need one.

I am vegetarian, which i think it's good for the planet, but i'm not pestering people to become vegetarian, did i ?

[JamesBlond]

19 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sure, there are also many posters here advocating banning the cars, because they don't need one.

I am vegetarian, which i think it's good for the planet, but i'm not pestering people to become vegetarian, did i ?

I advocate banning private cars because you don't need one, though I'm sure you think you do because you have built your life around having one and now you have got yourself locked in. This is the problem that needs to be undone, and it stems from a sense of precious entitlement. We can at least start by banning more than one car per household.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

I advocate banning private cars because you don't need one, though I'm sure you think you do because you have built your life around having one and now you have got yourself locked in. This is the problem that needs to be undone, and it stems from a sense of precious entitlement. We can at least start by banning more than one car per household.

 

Who are you to tell others what they do or do not need?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

I advocate banning private cars because you don't need one, though I'm sure you think you do because you have built your life around having one and now you have got yourself locked in. This is the problem that needs to be undone, and it stems from a sense of precious entitlement. We can at least start by banning more than one car per household.

Sorry, you are wrong, i don't have a car and i don't need it on the island where i live.

Now tell a family of 4/5 people that they don't need a car to go to work, take children to the school, do the shopping and whatnot..

Perhaps they should buy a horse and a cart ?

I think that what you say is  right on principle, but a bit impractical in the reality.

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, Forethat said:

Don't know if I'm the only one noticing that multiple PhDs and Professors from MIT are voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria...

 

It'd be interesting to watch one of them in a debate against Greta.

Apart from Richard Lindzen, who are these MIT professors and PhD's. Or are you claiming that Lindzen suffers from multiple personality disorder and all of his personalities disagree with anthropogenic climate change? And you think that even if they exist they wouldn't be outnumbered by MIT professors and PhD's who disagree with them?

And of course, the whole problem of giving climate skeptics equal time is that they are a tiny minority in the climatological community. And as time passes by and the atmosphere grows steadily warmer, they are a shrinking minority at that.

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Apart from Richard Lindzen, who are these MIT professors and PhD's. Or are you claiming that Lindzen suffers from multiple personality disorder and all of his personalities disagree with anthropogenic climate change? And you think that even if they exist they wouldn't be outnumbered by MIT professors and PhD's who disagree with them?

And of course, the whole problem of giving climate skeptics equal time is that they are a tiny minority in the climatological community. And as time passes by and the atmosphere grows steadily warmer, they are a shrinking minority at that.

What I'm saying is that if I'm noticing that multiple PhDs and Professors from MIT are voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria. Why MiT?

Here's another one. He doesn't question ACC but the motives for taxing producers of CO2 (since it will not lead to reduced CO2 production).

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, Forethat said:

What I'm saying is that if I'm noticing that multiple PhDs and Professors from MIT are voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria. Why MiT?

Here's another one. He doesn't question ACC but the motives for taxing producers of CO2 (since it will not lead to reduced CO2 production).

 

 

 

In other words, it doesn't support your contention that "multiple PhDs and Professors from MIT are voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria."

 

[JamesBlond]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Who are you to tell others what they do or do not need?

I represent Nature and am thereby the conscience of the planet.

Stop and think for a moment - are you actually advocating something that we all know is causing irreparable harm to the environment, just because it suits your own convenience? How selfish is that?

[JamesBlond]

30 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, you are wrong, i don't have a car and i don't need it on the island where i live.

Now tell a family of 4/5 people that they don't need a car to go to work, take children to the school, do the shopping and whatnot..

Perhaps they should buy a horse and a cart ?

I think that what you say is  right on principle, but a bit impractical in the reality.

I don't have a car or children. That's my self-restraint, my modesty, my conscience in action.

Why should everyone get to indulge in whatever immodest luxuries they want when we well know the consequences? Everyone should start making do with less or the addiction to growth will cause the whole system to crash.

The sense of entitlement is the problem, and the sense that 'I am so precious that I have the right to get whatever I want' is getting worse.

[brokenbone]

44 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Apart from Richard Lindzen, who are these MIT professors and PhD's. Or are you claiming that Lindzen suffers from multiple personality disorder and all of his personalities disagree with anthropogenic climate change? And you think that even if they exist they wouldn't be outnumbered by MIT professors and PhD's who disagree with them?

And of course, the whole problem of giving climate skeptics equal time is that they are a tiny minority in the climatological community. And as time passes by and the atmosphere grows steadily warmer, they are a shrinking minority at that.

the scientists that ipcc contracted to support their agenda

responded that it was all wishful thinking that had no basis.

ipcc response to that was to censor out all the work

that pointed out there was no basis,

but still list the scientists as supporting their agenda

[Forethat]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

In other words, it doesn't support your contention that "multiple PhDs and Professors from MIT are voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria."

 

That is exactly what it supports. The question is why MIT have more than one that are active. Two of them are actively producing media. Sceptics are typically retired (so they don't risk getting shunned). 

[bristolboy]

28 minutes ago, Forethat said:

That is exactly what it supports. The question is why MIT have more than one that are active. Two of them are actively producing media. Sceptics are typically retired (so they don't risk getting shunned). 

That professor is not questioning the dangers posed by ACC. He is only questioning a method used to lower CO2. He has a problem with that particular means, not the goal. And while I'm not sure I even understand this, "Sceptics are typically retired (so they don't risk getting shunned)." I'm sure it's baseless. 

[Forethat]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

That professor is not questioning the dangers posed by ACC. He is only questioning a method used to lower CO2. He has a problem with that particular means, not the goal. And while I'm not sure I even understand this, "Sceptics are typically retired (so they don't risk getting shunned)." I'm sure it's baseless. 

Perhaps your reading comprehension is simply not up to par? You really need to pay more attention to what posters write. The person in the video I linked is not a Professor. I have no doubt that you have no clue who he is, but no, he's a PhD. And he's voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria. 

[bristolboy]

 

21 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Perhaps your reading comprehension is simply not up to par? You really need to pay more attention to what posters write. The person in the video I linked is not a Professor. I have no doubt that you have no clue who he is, but no, he's a PhD. And he's voicing an opinion in direct contradiction to the climate change hysteria. 

Wrong. Right at the beginning he questions carbon tax credits on the grounds that it's supporting pollution. In other words, unlike denialists, he thinks CO2 is a pollutant.

And who exactly is this person? Got a link for him? Vimeo offers no information. He just gives a surname which I can't make out.

As for me getting it wrong that he's a PhD and not a professor, you must be desperate for victories to think that has any bearing on the issue at hand.

[Forethat]

Just now, bristolboy said:

 

Wrong. Right at the beginning he questions carbon tax credits on the grounds that it's supporting pollution. In other words, unlike denialists, he thinks CO2 is a pollutant.

And who exactly is this person? Got a link for him? Vimeo offers no information. He just gives a surname which I can't make out.

As for me getting it wrong that he's a PhD and not a professor, you must be desperate for victories to think that has any bearing on the issue at hand.

He's written books and is running for Senate. Surprised you don't know who he is, but that just shows how uninformed you are.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

He's written books and is running for Senate. Surprised you don't know who he is, but that just shows how uninformed you are.

No, I just don't watch TV or videos on Facebook. I read. And you still haven't said who he is. Hiding something?

[Forethat]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

No, I just don't watch TV or videos on Facebook. I read. And you still haven't said who he is. Hiding something?

Not really. But I admit it's amusing that you don't know the MiT PhD who invented email and is now making his mark in the climate debate. Good thing is you've learned something new today. Congratulations. Keep it up!

 

http://shiva4senate.com/

[Sujo]

28 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Not really. But I admit it's amusing that you don't know the MiT PhD who invented email and is now making his mark in the climate debate. Good thing is you've learned something new today. Congratulations. Keep it up!

 

http://shiva4senate.com/

Which is irrelevant as thousands of scientists have a consensus its settled science.

[Forethat]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Which is irrelevant as thousands of scientists have a consensus its settled science.

And most likely just about as many who don't agree.

[Sujo]

17 minutes ago, Forethat said:

And most likely just about as many who don't agree.

A guess at best.

 

But if they werent on the panel then they werent that good.

[RideJocky]

It is worth noting that virtually all the “scientists” that support AGW have a vested interest in i.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect