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

[Bluespunk]

11 minutes ago, transam said:

You mean close Bentley, RR, all the gas guzzler stuff. All shops, malls and hotels to not use heating or A/C. One car per household, holiday in your own country resorts...Is this what you mean...?

No. 

[RideJocky]

You mean close Bentley, RR, all the gas guzzler stuff. All shops, malls and hotels to not use heating or A/C. One car per household, holiday in your own country resorts...Is this what you mean...?

No, they never want to eliminate anything, they only want to tax these things such that they’re kept out of reach of the hoi polloi...

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Post 984, actually i'm starting to doubt your intellectual honesty, are you reading my posts ?

I said already that some change will have to be imposed if we are to tackle the climate change issues we are facing. 
 

Oh, I really don’t care what people think of me. 

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

For example?

 

Ban all single use plastics

 

Renewable energies promoted over fossil fuels. 
 

There’s two to be getting on with. 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No. 

Is that it....?

 

You are on a one man crusade regarding your climate control, and your answer is NO...????

[brokenbone]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Not much. Here's what you wrote:

 

"If the IPCC disagreed they’d all be looking for work. They (like the 97%) have a vested interest."

 

So their research isn't false but their the results of their research are due to having " a vested interest." and not based on ascertaining the facts?

Who are you kidding? Unless you can explain why your statement doesn't accuse them of dishonesty, what other explanation can there be for your contention?

the scientists research concluded there is

no evidence that CO2, let alone man made,

has increased temperature.

but ipcc had an agenda and released

the report contradicting the scientists conclusion,

censoring out their opinion

[Bluespunk]

Just now, transam said:

Is that it....?

 

You are on a one man crusade regarding your climate control, and your answer is NO...????

You asked me if that was what I meant. 
 

I answered you. 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I said already that some change will have to be imposed if we are to tackle the climate change issues we are facing. 

I think most people agree with that, the problem is what changes, their implications, and how to implement them.

[zydeco]

Maybe part of the issue is the scale of life. This article says that postwar suburban homes were about 850 square feet, compared to 1600 square feet today. At the same time, the size of families has become smaller. Lawns and attached property are also smaller. Big houses on postage stamp sized lawns. Sounds awful to me, but a lot of people have it as their dream. I'd rather have a yard with grass, swings, trees, and things to do. But apparently McMansions are still in vogue. Need more electrical outlets and bigger central heat and air units. This goes for resorts, hotels, malls, and shopping centers, too. People apparently want bigger and bigger and bigger. Personally, I like and feel more comfortable with a smaller scale of life. But then I walk everywhere within a 3 km radius, too, instead of taking cars. But I do enjoy my plastic bags!

 https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/09/american-houses-big/597811/

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

She include Argentinia, Brazil and Turkey in the countries that has too high CO2 emmisions but exclude China, why? I am not against the theory of climate change but against a child with angst attacks. The child had clothes on, she sat in a building, spoke over a microphone, stayed in an hotel ate food etc etc. All these things contribute to climate change yet someone ekse stole her youth?

I would recommend you do what she says and believe the settled science.
 
I understand it may be difficult for some to actually know what she is saying. She only asks leaders to do their job, accept what experts in their field tell them and act on it.
 
If u have an issue with that then you should have sent your expert synopsis on climate change for consideration.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[RideJocky]

Ban all single use plastics
 
Renewable energies promoted over fossil fuels. 
 
There’s two to be getting on with. 

Mobile phones, medical devices, automobiles, computers, water pipe, construction materials are all loaded with single use plastics, you would eliminate all of these?

Are not renewable energies already promoted over fossil fuels? What changes would you make to the existing incentive programs?

[RideJocky]

You mean close Bentley, RR, all the gas guzzler stuff. All shops, malls and hotels to not use heating or A/C. One car per household, holiday in your own country resorts...Is this what you mean...?

Gas guzzlers? My mom’s ‘64 BB Grand Prix got about 5mpg. Passed everything but a gas station...

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Mobile phones, medical devices, automobiles, computers, water pipe, construction materials are all loaded with single use plastics, you would eliminate all of these?

Are not renewable energies already promoted over fossil fuels? What changes would you make to the existing incentive programs?
 

I think, well i hope, that there are already computer models and studies on how to tackle all those issues.

If it was possible to solve those issues without the economy collapsing, the change would be already under way.

Given that billions of people on the planet are living "hand to mouth" any big change in the current system would be most probably a huge humanitarian catastrophe.

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Mobile phones, medical devices, automobiles, computers, water pipe, construction materials are all loaded with single use plastics, you would eliminate all of these?

Are not renewable energies already promoted over fossil fuels? What changes would you make to the existing incentive programs?
 

 

No, you find ways to replace how they are made. Thats what the girl was saying. Climate change is real. Do your job to find a way we can have all we want but without it damaging so much.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Change has to be made. There will be consequences but they will not be as catastrophic as irreparable environmental collapse. 

 

The "not be as catastrophic" part is your opinion, not necessarily fact based. Acknowledging environmental issues is one thing, offhand dismissal of other considerations is another.

 

Looking at history, times of economic crisis and social  unrest aren't exactly the heralds of all that's good in our species. Perhaps the same can be said about mass social engineering projects.

[DrTuner]

BTW did the investigators ever get a description of the dreams that were stolen? When I was 16 my dream was to become a race car driver. Somebody must've stolen it. 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Gas guzzlers? My mom’s ‘64 BB Grand Prix got about 5mpg. Passed everything but a gas station...


 

 

I was on 6 mp(UK)g in my Pontiac....

[RideJocky]

No, you find ways to replace how they are made. Thats what the girl was saying. Climate change is real. Do your job to find a way we can have all we want but without it damaging so much.

Yes, all we need is Felix’s bag of tricks and we can just pull out wherever we need, problem solved!

[Bluespunk]

17 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Mobile phones, medical devices, automobiles, computers, water pipe, construction materials are all loaded with single use plastics, you would eliminate all of these?

Are not renewable energies already promoted over fossil fuels? What changes would you make to the existing incentive programs?
 

 

Question one, while that is not what is meant by single use plastic, yes I would like to see them where possible eliminated. 
 

Question two, I’d like them to be the only source. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Question one, while that is not what is meant by single use plastic, yes I would like to see them where possible eliminated. 
 

Question two, I’d like them to be the only source. 

 

That gap between "would like" and "how to".

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The "not be as catastrophic" part is your opinion, not necessarily fact based. Acknowledging environmental issues is one thing, offhand dismissal of other considerations is another.

 

Looking at history, times of economic crisis and social  unrest aren't exactly the heralds of all that's good in our species. Perhaps the same can be said about mass social engineering projects.

We clear have very different views on the catastrophe that awaits if we do not make the changes required now. 

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That gap between "would like" and "how to".

Then perhaps the govts need to get cracking on funding finding them...

 

If impossible and the environmental cost outweighs the usefulness/necessity of the product, then tough choices will have to be made and they may need to go.  

[Morch]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

We clear have very different views on the catastrophe that awaits if we do not make the changes required now. 

 

Not really. I do not deny environmental issues are real and consequences might be grave. It's just that the adoption of solutions focused solely on this front, while ignoring their effects on other issues, could lead to an even more complicates situation. You, on the other hand, seem insistent on reducing things to catchy, handy labels aimed at sidelining any consideration not narrowly addressing the environmental agenda.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not really. I do not deny environmental issues are real and consequences might be grave. It's just that the adoption of solutions focused solely on this front, while ignoring their effects on other issues, could lead to an even more complicates situation. You, on the other hand, seem insistent on reducing things to catchy, handy labels aimed at sidelining any consideration not narrowly addressing the environmental agenda.

No, I previously responded to one of your posts saying there may be consequences and these will need to be addressed as well. #992
 

Might want to check that before engaging in your usual finger wagging accusations. 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Then perhaps the govts need to get cracking on funding finding them...

 

If impossible and the environmental cost outweighs the usefulness/necessity of the product, then they need to go.  

 

They should. But then there's a whole list of shoulds which are often left ineffectively addressed. Somehow not seeing the Greta show as about to change that much. That's a realistic take, not an anti-environmental one.

 

The second part of your post is, again, more of a creed than a reasoned argument. It fails to address who determines the "usefulness/necessity" and how.

 

[ivor bigun]

I would love to know what " dreams" of hers i have stolen, anyone know?

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No, I previously responded to one of your posts saying there may be consequences and these will need to be addressed as well. #992
 

Might want to check that before engaging in your usual finger wagging accusations. 

 

We'll have to disagree on what amounts to "address". Considering your post also seemed to categorize all other considerations as "less comfortable life", hard to take it as a serious effort.

[RickBradford]

17 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Well how else could it work. There are roughly 35,000 climatologists. How is it that they wouldn't be challenging each other if their research was consistently false? How would their journals know which papers to reject and which to accept? The only way the widespread propagation of a falsehood that you profess acc to be is if there is a conspiracy. 

A very well-timed reply given that a major paper published in Nature, and which was prominently cited in a recent IPCC report, has been retracted (a year late, but there you go) due to shoddy statistics. Naturally, it took an outside source, who knows something about statistics, to force the retraction.

 

This rotten peer-reviewed paper exaggerated (of course) ocean warming and was (of course) trumpeted in the compliant mainstream media. I doubt they will give the retraction such wall-to-wall coverage.

[Bluespunk]

Just now, Morch said:

 

We'll have to disagree on what amounts to "address". Considering your post also seemed to categorize all other considerations as "less comfortable life", hard to take it as a serious effort.

Think what you like but doesn’t change fact that many items that are environmentally damaging are used out of convenience rather than necessity. 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Think what you like but doesn’t change fact that many items that are environmentally damaging are used out of convenience rather than necessity. 

 

Yes, they are. But that's more to do with addressing things on a personal level. Behind most (if not all) of these products there's also industry, commerce and people making a living. Banning the product, and even finding an acceptable replacement doesn't address what happens to these when the product becomes redundant. Or, taken on a larger scale, how such changes effect national (and global economy), societies and international relations.

 

It's an "inconvenience" to the more privileged, maybe a tad different for the less fortunate.