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

[DannyCarlton]

5 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

and how you want to do this ... go there by yourself ...?

No chance. E=mc2

[Tagged]

Just imagine having social media in Martin Luther King eara? 

 

How would you guys react to his speaches about racism, equal rights ? 

 

Thank god we have evolved since that time. 

[nobodysfriend]

4 minutes ago, steven100 said:

Record highs don’t prove extreme global warming.

An increasing number of record highs does not prove or disprove catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. They are merely changes in temperature within a larger climatic period.

It’s no surprise that local record highs become more common during a warming period. The mercury has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age, so it is nearly inevitable that new records will be set each year. The records are indeed one evidence of warming, but they’re no evidence of its cause.

Carbon dioxide emission from human activity has actually failed to cause substantial increase in global temperatures.

Climate alarmists, relying on computer climate models, predicted that the earth’s temperature would increase rapidly (typical predictions calling for about 0.3ºC of warming per decade) over the past two decades. Their forecasts proved to be wrong. Global average temperature failed to rise significantly during the past 18 years.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide are one of many causes are of global warming, but they’re not the primary driver.

Climate data from the past contradict the alarmist’s claims that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity have been the primary drivers of global temperatures.

Data show that the current warming is not unprecedented but was matched by the Roman Warm Period (roughly 250–400) and Medieval Warm Period (roughly 950–1250).

During those periods, carbon dioxide emissions from human activity were negligible compared to today’s levels. It follows that warming of the magnitude of the last 150 years or more can happen with or without human contribution.

Further, no conclusive evidence shows that the current warming has been exaggerated by human emissions.

Well . it is not about WHY it happens , it is more about HOW to prevent the damage by the fast development of the effects of climate changes .

And that the climate is changing is a fact , or do you deny that ...?

[yankee99]

pure example of bad parenting 

[DannyCarlton]

Just now, Tagged said:

When we are ready, there will be ships sent for other planets with lifeforms onboard to explore planets. 

 

The earth could also have been a target for this one time, and maybe still is. 

And clearly you think that Star Trek is factual.

 

Live long and prosper. Or is it Nanu nanu? 555

[nobodysfriend]

6 minutes ago, Tagged said:

When we are ready, there will be ships sent for other planets with lifeforms onboard to explore planets. 

That is just Fantasy , that most likely will never come true ...

Do you know what will happen , if the atmosphere warms up just 4 degrees ...?

---->  bye bye mankind .

[DannyCarlton]

4 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Well . it is not about WHY it happens , it is more about HOW to prevent the damage by the fast development of the effects of climate changes .

And that the climate is changing is a fact , or do you deny that ...?

Check the source of this garbage out. "Spiked".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)

[DannyCarlton]

5 minutes ago, yankee99 said:

pure example of bad parenting 

What? You are? Brave of you to admit it.

[faraday]

34 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Exactly. If you're not already doing so, please stop using them.

Please do not 'speak' to me in this way.

 

Do you not think that the production of plastic is linked to the alleged climate change?

[donnacha]

 

35 minutes ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

To oppose and dispute the argument. Why else?

You are dealing with religion. There is literally nothing you can say to dissuade a believer.

The best you can do is to point out that the only solutions being offered involve an increase in environmental taxes (for example new surcharges on domestic electricity just as electric cars are about to become popular) that are not actually spent on anything to do with the environment, more government spending on massive "green" projects managed by the same fossil fuel companies who are supposed to be the bad guys, stunted growth in countries being denied their turn to industrialize, and increases in the costs of basic food sources, such as meat, that disproportionately hurt the poor.

All of this will happen. That will be obvious by 2030, whereas doomsday will have been pushed forward to 2040. The battle now is to terrify and brainwash the population, in particular schoolchildren, into accepting an ever-greater centralization of money into the state.

Governments, which are just a front for corporations, will use whatever stick they have to beat their populations into compliance. In the past, it was usually some enemy, some war - sometimes a hot war, sometimes a cold war ... it didn't matter as long as the "voters" agreed to put aside their own interests.

Now, after decades of sand wars, the populations are burnt out on that particular excuse, so, now, the corporations have reverted to a far older, more primal enemy: our own activities, our own sins, leading to The End of the World!

This enemy will be a far more effective and longer-lasting leash than any rogue nation, or political movement. It is a war that can never be won, not until the climate stops changing and, of course, that will never happen.

If you point that out, there is a small chance that some of those currently panicking will realize they are being used as pawns. Anthropomorphic climate change is a problem, but just one of many problems the human race faces, and nowhere in the top 20. Almost all the suggested solutions will do nothing to prevent it, whereas solving the other problems first will almost certainly assist us in finding real solutions to climate change.

You just have to get people to see that they are being lied to about the actual timelines, the consequences, and the complete disconnect between that and the proposed solutions. It is tough, but they have to see that they are passionately fighting for precisely the wrong things.



 

[nobodysfriend]

7 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Check the source of this garbage out. "Spiked".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)

I checked it , but found no link ...!

[Deli]

If I would have had a child like that, I definitely would have given her for adoption to North Korea.

[DannyCarlton]

44 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

It would be nice (and compliant with forum rules) if you had quoted your source.

 

39 minutes ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

But people would just query the source.

 

34 minutes ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

To oppose and dispute the argument. Why else?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/24/why-climate-change-teachers-are-a-bad-idea/

 

3 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

I checked it , but found no link ...!

 

[brucec64]

The only deserving recipient of a LOL is you yourself.

The worst part of far left liberals is actually not that they are offended by absolutely everything. It's the fact that they are so overwhelmed with their self importance that they have no sense of humor and just plain tedious.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Tagged]

2 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

And clearly you think that Star Trek is factual.

 

Live long and prosper. Or is it Nanu nanu? 555

Why should it be hard to send a object to another planet alike earth. We have Voyager 1 and 2, still sending back information back to us, and that with that times tech. Imagine what we can do in just a few years. 

 

Why is that so hard to believe? We can actually send lifeforms to other sustainable planets? How sure can we be, there have not been same scenario other places in galaxy or universe before us. 

 

"Einstein showed that time and space are intimately linked and that the progression of time is relative, not absolute. Although there is nothing in physics that says time must flow in a certain direction, scientists generally agree that time is a very real property of the Universe. Our science is thus based on the assumption that the laws of physics, and the passage of time, exist throughout the Universe."

 

Some of the biggest brains in our time, say thats whats going to happend in the future. That includes Stephen Hawking. 

 

Stehpen Hawking

Stephen Hawking: Humans Must Leave Earth Within 600 Years

This estimate is an increase from his previous timeline of 100 years.

https://futurism.com/stephen-hawking-humans-must-leave-earth-within-600-years

 

Michio Kaku

“Either we must leave the Earth or we will perish.”

 

If you take a look at evolution on Earth, 99.9 percent of all life forms have gone extinct. When things change, either you adapt or die. That’s the law of Mother Nature. We face various hazards. First of all, we have self-inflicted problems like global warming, nuclear proliferation and bio-engineered germ warfare. Plus, Mother Nature has hurled at the Earth a number of extinction cycles.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/there-s-only-one-way-for-humanity-to-survive--go-to-mars-/

 

 

[brucec64]

Well I give her credit for her strong belief in her cause. 
But I don't believe that climate change is caused by humans. The world has been around for millions of years as has the universe. The emissions and gases entering the atmosphere related to human intervention would be the size of a pin head compared to the universe, as such I don't buy it. Your welcome to believe in it and that's your opinion and choice.
Likewise, I have my opinion as others do, and that's mine.

But you are a strong prayut supporter so that pretty much erases any credibility for basically anything else.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Lacessit]

58 minutes ago, daoyai said:

and you are forgetting (if you ever knew) a very important rule of scientific research ..."correlation does not imply causation "

In that case, please enlighten me as to your alternative hypothesis of causation.

FYI, I was a research scientist, and a pretty good one. Save the put-downs for some-one else.

[Tagged]

18 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

And clearly you think that Star Trek is factual.

 

Live long and prosper. Or is it Nanu nanu? 555

No, but some think god as man made religion is true, and I would rather think we wil be able to evolve in to other planets in the future. 

 

There was a time, where just crossing the ocean was a hard task, and now, we had people on moon 50 years ago. 

[Lacessit]

9 minutes ago, donnacha said:

 

You are dealing with religion. There is literally nothing you can say to dissuade a believer.

The best you can do is to point out that the only solutions being offered involve an increase in environmental taxes (for example new surcharges on domestic electricity just as electric cars are about to become popular) that are not actually spent on anything to do with the environment, more government spending on massive "green" projects managed by the same fossil fuel companies who are supposed to be the bad guys, stunted growth in countries being denied their turn to industrialize, and increases in the costs of basic food sources, such as meat, that disproportionately hurt the poor.

All of this will happen. That will be obvious by 2030, whereas doomsday will have been pushed forward to 2040. The battle now is to terrify and brainwash the population, in particular schoolchildren, into accepting an ever-greater centralization of money into the state.

Governments, which are just a front for corporations, will use whatever stick they have to beat their populations into compliance. In the past, it was usually some enemy, some war - sometimes a hot war, sometimes a cold war ... it didn't matter as long as the "voters" agreed to put aside their own interests.

Now, after decades of sand wars, the populations are burnt out on that particular excuse, so, now, the corporations have reverted to a far older, more primal enemy: our own activities, our own sins, leading to The End of the World!

This enemy will be a far more effective and longer-lasting leash than any rogue nation, or political movement. It is a war that can never be won, not until the climate stops changing and, of course, that will never happen.

If you point that out, there is a small chance that some of those currently panicking will realize they are being used as pawns. Anthropomorphic climate change is a problem, but just one of many problems the human race faces, and nowhere in the top 20. Almost all the suggested solutions will do nothing to prevent it, whereas solving the other problems first will almost certainly assist us in finding real solutions to climate change.

You just have to get people to see that they are being lied to about the actual timelines, the consequences, and the complete disconnect between that and the proposed solutions. It is tough, but they have to see that they are passionately fighting for precisely the wrong things.



 

Economics and growth are not religions to many people?

AFAIK, most scientists are atheists and agnostics.

[nobodysfriend]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Bingo!!! We would be better off executing all the politicians and economists, and putting the scientists in charge. They could not do any worse.

That is right !

I said this as well many times on this forum already . They would do much better . Politicians have proofed being unable to solve many problems .

[nobodysfriend]

3 minutes ago, Tagged said:

No, but some think god as man made religion is true, and I would rather think we wil be able to evolve in to other planets in the future. 

 

There was a time, where just crossing the ocean was a hard task, and now, we had people on moon 50 years ago. 

Religion was and still is used to control people , and that for thousands of years ...

 

 

[DannyCarlton]

7 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Why should it be hard to send a object to another planet alike earth. We have Voyager 1 and 2, still sending back information back to us, and that with that times tech. Imagine what we can do in just a few years. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-planets/astronomers-find-seven-earth-size-planets-where-life-is-possible-idUSKBN1612BM

 

40 light years away and nothing like Earth's current atmosphere.

 

We cannot travel at anything like the speed of light and mathematically impossible to ever each the speed of light. Or so Albert Einstein says.

[Skallywag]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

 a dying fossil fuel industry

Not dying unfortunately.  one "Oil CLock" online predicts we run out in 49 years though

As Neil Young sang, "got fuel to burn got roads to drive"

Then there is coal, etc...

I wonder if she walks or bicycles to the market, restaurant, clinic, or cinema like I do - hahaha

https://www.peterleeds.com/oil-clock.htm

[JonnyF]

I think it's pretty evil how a child with mental health issues is being used as some kind of human shield for the climate change extremists. 

 

She reminded me of some bad Lakorn actress with those facial expressions. Painful to watch, I really hope that is some kind of act because if that's for real then she needs help and someone (her parents if they are responsible enough) should be taking good care of her away from the cameras and publicity.

[DannyCarlton]

8 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

Your welcome to believe in it and that's your opinion and choice.

No, it's the opinion of the vast majority of scientists.

[DannyCarlton]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I think it's pretty evil how a child with mental health issues is being used as some kind of human shield for the climate change extremists. 

 

She reminded me of some bad Lakorn actress with those facial expressions. Painful to watch, I really hope that is some kind of act because if that's for real then she needs help and someone (her parents if they are responsible enough) should be taking good care of her away from the cameras and publicity.

 

[Lacessit]

Mods, please shut this thread down. The amount of hot air being generated is adding to global warming.

[rabas]

10 minutes ago, donnacha said:

 

You are dealing with religion. There is literally nothing you can say to dissuade a believer.

The best you can do is to point out that the only solutions being offered involve an increase in environmental taxes (for example new surcharges on domestic electricity just as electric cars are about to become popular) that are not actually spent on anything to do with the environment, more government spending on massive "green" projects managed by the same fossil fuel companies who are supposed to be the bad guys, stunted growth in countries being denied their turn to industrialize, and increases in the costs of basic food sources, such as meat, that disproportionately hurt the poor.

All of this will happen. That will be obvious by 2030, whereas doomsday will have been pushed forward to 2040. The battle now is to terrify and brainwash the population, in particular schoolchildren, into accepting an ever-greater centralization of money into the state.

Governments, which are just a front for corporations, will use whatever stick they have to beat their populations into compliance. In the past, it was usually some enemy, some war - sometimes a hot war, sometimes a cold war ... it didn't matter as long as the "voters" agreed to put aside their own interests.

Now, after decades of sand wars, the populations are burnt out on that particular excuse, so, now, the corporations have reverted to a far older, more primal enemy: our own activities, our own sins, leading to The End of the World!

This enemy will be a far more effective and longer-lasting leash than any rogue nation, or political movement. It is a war that can never be won, not until the climate stops changing and, of course, that will never happen.

If you point that out, there is a small chance that some of those currently panicking will realize they are being used as pawns. Anthropomorphic climate change is a problem, but just one of many problems the human race faces, and nowhere in the top 20. Almost all the suggested solutions will do nothing to prevent it, whereas solving the other problems first will almost certainly assist us in finding a real solution.

You just have to get people to see that they are being lied to about the actual timelines, the consequences, and the complete disconnect between that and the proposed solutions. It is tough, but they have to see that they are passionately fighting for precisely the wrong things.
 

 

Thank you for posting. I've always wondered about the idea we must all pay countless trillions to use less of everything. Just imagine if we reduced everything 20%, drive 20% less, buy 20% fewer cloths, appliances, toys, and handphones, 20% fewer holidays, turn down the heat or aircon 20%, eat 20% less, build a 20% smaller houses using 20% less cement and wood, use a car 20% longer before buying a new one, and turn off our handphones of 20% of the time. And please stop manufacturing disposable products we must continue buying.

 

How much would that save? It would cost industry, bankers, investors, and governments countless trillions. And they all know that.

 

 

[nobodysfriend]

22 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Why should it be hard to send a object to another planet alike earth. We have Voyager 1 and 2, still sending back information back to us, and that with that times tech. Imagine what we can do in just a few years. 

 

Why is that so hard to believe? We can actually send lifeforms to other sustainable planets? How sure can we be, there have not been same scenario other places in galaxy or universe before us. 

 

"Einstein showed that time and space are intimately linked and that the progression of time is relative, not absolute. Although there is nothing in physics that says time must flow in a certain direction, scientists generally agree that time is a very real property of the Universe. Our science is thus based on the assumption that the laws of physics, and the passage of time, exist throughout the Universe."

 

Some of the biggest brains in our time, say thats whats going to happend in the future. That includes Stephen Hawking. 

 

Stehpen Hawking

Stephen Hawking: Humans Must Leave Earth Within 600 Years

This estimate is an increase from his previous timeline of 100 years.

https://futurism.com/stephen-hawking-humans-must-leave-earth-within-600-years

 

Michio Kaku

“Either we must leave the Earth or we will perish.”

 

If you take a look at evolution on Earth, 99.9 percent of all life forms have gone extinct. When things change, either you adapt or die. That’s the law of Mother Nature. We face various hazards. First of all, we have self-inflicted problems like global warming, nuclear proliferation and bio-engineered germ warfare. Plus, Mother Nature has hurled at the Earth a number of extinction cycles.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/there-s-only-one-way-for-humanity-to-survive--go-to-mars-/

 

 

---> Why should it be hard to send a object to another planet alike earth. <----

Did you ever think of how life first developed on our planet ... Where it came from after the planet's crust surface cooled down enough ( about 4 billion years ago ...) ?

There was no water , no atmosphere protecting the planet from the impacts of meteorites ... well it was the frozen meteorites that brought the water , where the first life forms finally developed .

The outer space is full of meteorite , komets , asteroids that travel in space and occasionally impact on planets that have no protecting atmosphere . The water they carry brings the life . Not only to our planet ...

[donnacha]

17 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Economics and growth are not religions to many people?

People seeking economic growth have a straightforward way to tell, pretty quickly, if they are going in the right direction: they grow. A country can become infected by terrible economic ideas, but almost all communist countries have failed spectacularly, or transitioned to better ideas.
 

 

17 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

AFAIK, most scientists are atheists and agnostics.

The activists are almost never scientists. Deliberately misrepresenting science is pretty much the opposite of science. Attacking anyone who questions your claims is also deeply unscientific. Screaming that such heretics are "anti-science" does not make you a scientist.

If you think about it, in a supposedly atheistic age, the only way that a powerful new dogma could emerge was if it claimed, for itself, the legitimacy of science. It was predictable that this would happen.

If you keep stating, again and again, highly questionable stats such as "99% of scientists believe in climate change" and then further change the context to pretend that all these scientists, from whenever that poll was supposedly taken (I have been hearing that stat since the 90s), were agreeing with your new contention that the world is finished by 2030, well, that goes beyond simple religion, you now have a doomsday cult.

Again, this is all deeply stupid, and clearly being pushed to further the agendas of those with power. As religion almost always is.