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

[Orton Rd]

40 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Forget about climate change if it's too subtle for you. Concentrate on the attrition of the natural environment - habitat loss, species loss - and throw in quality of life loss, because nature is the touchstone of all meaning.

The on-going catastrophe of that is self-evident, and it's man-made.

Is that not enough for you to justify more prudent and less self-indulgent political/economic policies, which is all that is being asked?

Global warming is natural, hardly any contribution from human activity. Greta would be better to be concerned about over population, plastic pollution and de forestation than spending her time wailing about a problem that almost nothing can be done about.

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, JamesBlond said:

Forget about climate change if it's too subtle for you. Concentrate on the attrition of the natural environment - habitat loss, species loss - and throw in quality of life loss, because nature is the touchstone of all meaning.

The on-going catastrophe of that is self-evident, and it's man-made.

Is that not enough for you to justify more prudent and less self-indulgent political/economic policies, which is all that is being asked?

The problem with that is it's too easy to measure the actual effect of the policies, you know, curbing population growth, the area and density of forests, air quality and other tangibles. Where's the money in that?

[evadgib]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s odd given I wasn’t taken in by evadgib’s mysterious soothsaying. 

I only offered an opinion & cannot recall aiming it anywhere near you 

[Crazy Alex]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She’s got your attention.... How much time have you spent ranting against her?!

Less than the time you've spent ranting against others who oppose her ideas and claims.

[Crazy Alex]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Stop lying. That has never been the consensus of the climatological scientific community. Not even close. 

 

And the future that was once predicted is already here. As predicted, it's getting warmer at an increasingly rapid rate. If the climate proceeds at its current pace, 2019 could beat 2016 as the warmest year on record. And unlike 2016, that's without the benefit of an el nino. 

 

There is absolutely nothing increasingly rapid about the current rate of temperature increase. There have been several such increases in the last million years alone:

 

 

As you can see (I'm sure you can read a graph, yes?), there have been at least three increases in temperature higher than the present one- several more similar rises. The temperature goes up, the temperature goes down. That is the natural cycle of things. Propagandizing a little girl into being terrified about what happens again and again is pure EVIL.

 

Now, while we're at it, let's touch on sea levels rising- another meme climate change hustlers use to terrorize people. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. But how do we know for sure? Simple. Take this discovery in the gulf of Mexico, for example. This 7,000 year-old burial ground was found under 21 feet of ocean. Obviously, sea levels have been rising for at least that long, correct?

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/florida-native-american-indian-burial-underwater/

 

So you see, when many people observe simple truths and facts and apply logic, then look at poor little Greta having temper tantrums and claiming her dreams have been stolen from her, we see the evil face of climate change hustlers. We see they are willing to terrorize children. We see the simple facts of the two items above, plus how these very same hustlers burn more carbon individually than entire towns. We see all that and of course protest it as any ethical, logical person would.

[Crazy Alex]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Really? Have you looked at the IPCC report on the probable different fates awaiting the climate and humanity if global warming exceeds 1.5 degrees celsius vs 2 degrees celsius vs. even higher? Given your assertions here, I'd guess not.

And the esteemed Dr. Curry has decided to no longer publish in peer-reviewed journals. So much easier not to be subject to fact checking.

The IPCC is a group of political activists, so that's not very impressive. Once again, one needs only a basic fact or two to have strong doubts about climate change hustler hysteria.

 

CO2 levels were nearly four times higher during the Cretaceous period than they are now. Life flourished. And of course, humans now are more adaptable to climate changes than at any other time in history. You know, electricity, running water, TECHNOLOGY.

[Crazy Alex]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 For people who have nothing concrete to offer, it's a common ploy to resort to predicting the future. That's the great thing about the future. You can say, wihin reason, pretty much what you want about it and there's no way of refuting it.

I couldn't agree more. Now tell me, wasn't it YOU that just posted IPCC predictions about the future? While we're at it, why don't we take a few minutes to have some laughs about climate change predictions made that ended up being complete BS?

 

Here, you pick a source. There are plenty:

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=climate+change+predictions+that+didn't+happen&t=ffnt&atb=v118-1&ia=news

 

In fact, remember how it used to be "global warming"? What changed, other than multiple bouts of record cold weather and snow? So now it's "climate change"- which, of course has been happening since the beginning of time itself.  Oh those people who resort to predictions about the future when they have nothing else indeed!

[JamesBlond]

3 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Global warming is natural, hardly any contribution from human activity. Greta would be better to be concerned about over population, plastic pollution and de forestation than spending her time wailing about a problem that almost nothing can be done about.

Read up on the topic. The earth's climate is EXTREMELY SENSITIVE. Local changes, such a a change in sea temperature, can have runaway effects that can turn into ice-ages.

 

Why suppose Greta isn't concerned about all those things? Of course she is. It all ties in. The issue - all these issues - boil down to one thing: DECELERATING ECONOMIC GROWTH. Growth cannot be pushed forever with the same level of non-sustainability. That is axiomatic. The only question is at what point it is reined in. I say NOW because the loss of the natural world is at a critical level and without it life won't be worth living.

[Orton Rd]

If she was that bothered about telling off the world about unsustainable growth she would have been better placed in China or India, or maybe Africa, where should could have explained how they were not going to be allowed to get as rich as the likes of smarty pant's parents because it was killing her 'dreams'. Nothing she can say or do is going to change anything, nothing those protesting idiots in London do will change anything either, they would be better employed picking up litter or planting trees.

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Stop lying. That has never been the consensus of the climatological scientific community. Not even close. 

 

And the future that was once predicted is already here. As predicted, it's getting warmer at an increasingly rapid rate. If the climate proceeds at its current pace, 2019 could beat 2016 as the warmest year on record. And unlike 2016, that's without the benefit of an el nino. 

Glad the planet's getting warmer,just received my gas bill,stone the bleeders.

[Credo]

2 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

If she was that bothered about telling off the world about unsustainable growth she would have been better placed in China or India, or maybe Africa, where should could have explained how they were not going to be allowed to get as rich as the likes of smarty pant's parents because it was killing her 'dreams'. Nothing she can say or do is going to change anything, nothing those protesting idiots in London do will change anything either, they would be better employed picking up litter or planting trees.

Typical deflection by deniers.   I think the UN is the best place to let everyone, including, China, India and Africa a message about Climate Change.   

 

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, Credo said:

Typical deflection by deniers.   I think the UN is the best place to let everyone, including, China, India and Africa a message about Climate Change.   

 

What message? That this current temperature rise is typical of many in the past million years? That sea levels have been rising for thousands of years? What is this message you think should be funneled through the UN, rather than have everyone with all their viewpoints be heard and debated?

 

And specifically, what is a "denier"?

[Crazy Alex]

4 hours ago, JamesBlond said:

Read up on the topic. The earth's climate is EXTREMELY SENSITIVE. Local changes, such a a change in sea temperature, can have runaway effects that can turn into ice-ages.

 

Why suppose Greta isn't concerned about all those things? Of course she is. It all ties in. The issue - all these issues - boil down to one thing: DECELERATING ECONOMIC GROWTH. Growth cannot be pushed forever with the same level of non-sustainability. That is axiomatic. The only question is at what point it is reined in. I say NOW because the loss of the natural world is at a critical level and without it life won't be worth living.

Earth has had many, many dramatic climate changes for billions of years. 99.999999% to 100% of of them happened with no connection whatsoever to economic growth.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

What message? That this current temperature rise is typical of many in the past million years? That sea levels have been rising for thousands of years? What is this message you think should be funneled through the UN, rather than have everyone with all their viewpoints be heard and debated?

 

And specifically, what is a "denier"?

No the temperature rise is not typical. Because it's rising at an accelerated rate. The same goes for sea levels. Yes, the climate is always changing. But it's the rate of change that's at issue.

But maybe you think rate is irrelevant. You could be one of those people who don't care what rate of interest your money earns, just as long as it's increasing.

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No the temperature rise is not typical. Because it's rising at an accelerated rate. The same goes for sea levels. Yes, the climate is always changing. But it's the rate of change that's at issue.

But maybe you think rate is irrelevant. You could be one of those people who don't care what rate of interest your money earns, just as long as it's increasing.

It's not accelerating. Please keep to the facts or at least learn the difference between increasing and accelerated rate.

[bristolboy]

Just now, Forethat said:

It's not accelerating. Please keep to the facts or at least learn the difference between increased rate and accelerated rate.

I don't know what sillly semantic game you think you are playing, but the rate is increasing. And even if, on the off chance, my terminology is wrong, any reasonably intelligent person would understand the intended meaning. 

[Forethat]

Just now, bristolboy said:

I don't know what sillly semantic game you think you are playing, but the rate is increasing. And even if, on the off chance, my terminology is wrong, any reasonably intelligent person would understand the intended meaning. 

It is NOT accelerating. Do you have difficulties admitting to be wrong, or what.

 

The temperature rise is NOT accelerating. Plain and simple. This is not something that's up for debate; I'm right and you are wrong. Live with it. 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

It is NOT accelerating. Do you have difficulties admitting to be wrong, or what.

 

The temperature rise is NOT accelerating. Plain and simple. This is not something that's up for debate; I'm right and you are wrong. Live with it. 

Do you think asserting something is sufficient? You seem unacquainted with the concept of evidence. Let me introduce you a couple of examples:

 

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.^[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

 

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

 

Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to the NOAA 2018 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.17°C / 0.31°F) is more than twice as great.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

[Forethat]

No, you don't recognise the difference between increase and accelerate. Let's leave it there.

[bristolboy]

 

13 minutes ago, Forethat said:

No, you don't recognise the difference between increase and accelerate. Let's leave it there.

Not that this semantic question is significant, but once again you are wrong. Dead wrong.

"at an increasing rate" means that the rate itself is increasing; hence a statement about the behaviour of the rate at the point of observation. It is therefore more a description of the rate in terms of continuous behaviour.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/264636/whats-the-difference-between-increased-and-increasing

 

acceleration 
an increase in the rate at which something happens, changes, or grows

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-category/british/rates-of-increase-and-the-process-of-increasing

 

You might have scored a picayune point had I written "increased rate". But I didn't so you don't.

[Crazy Alex]

43 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No the temperature rise is not typical. Because it's rising at an accelerated rate. The same goes for sea levels. Yes, the climate is always changing. But it's the rate of change that's at issue.

But maybe you think rate is irrelevant. You could be one of those people who don't care what rate of interest your money earns, just as long as it's increasing.

Great! So let's refer to the NASA global temperature graph and you tell me what I'm supposed to be worried about:

 

 

I'm not sure what my personal finances have to do with it.

[Crazy Alex]

33 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Do you think asserting something is sufficient? You seem unacquainted with the concept of evidence. Let me introduce you a couple of examples:

 

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.^[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

 

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

 

Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to the NOAA 2018 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.17°C / 0.31°F) is more than twice as great.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

The hockey stick graph scam edited out the Medieval warming period for visual effect:

 

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Great! So let's refer to the NASA global temperature graph and you tell me what I'm supposed to be worried about:

 

 

I'm not sure what my personal finances have to do with it.

I don't know where you got that image from, but it clearly wasn't from a page on the Nasa website. It's a Nasa image. Had you done so you would have read: 

"When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

The apparent similarities have to do with the granularity of the image. It's too small to show how much faster the current and accelerating rise in temperatures is. Over the last century the global average temperature has risen about 1 degree Celsius. You do the math.

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't know where you got that image from, but it clearly wasn't from a page on the Nasa website. It's a Nasa image. Had you done so you would have read: 

"When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

The apparent similarities have to do with the granularity of the image. It's too small to show how much faster the current and accelerating rise in temperatures is. Over the last century the global average temperature has risen about 1 degree Celsius. You do the math.

 

 

OK, so we both agree it is a NASA image. Great.

 

Now we move on to the prediction, which if it happens, will be "extremely unusual". That doesn't sound very scientific at all to me. And honestly, given how many dire predictions made turned out to be false, why on Earth would any rational person worry about something that may or may not happen, and even if it does, is "extremely unusual"?

[bristolboy]

59 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

OK, so we both agree it is a NASA image. Great.

 

Now we move on to the prediction, which if it happens, will be "extremely unusual". That doesn't sound very scientific at all to me. And honestly, given how many dire predictions made turned out to be false, why on Earth would any rational person worry about something that may or may not happen, and even if it does, is "extremely unusual"?

Because it's already happening.

[toast1]

>I know that I am going to hell for saying this but I actually laughed out loud whilst watching her speech. It is good that she is passionate about her ideology

 

Children, uninformed, immature, easily manipulated and over emotional, are often passionate about silly things they do not understand.

[Forethat]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Do you think asserting something is sufficient? You seem unacquainted with the concept of evidence. Let me introduce you a couple of examples:

 

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.^[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

 

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

 

Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to the NOAA 2018 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.17°C / 0.31°F) is more than twice as great.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

Rather than just quoting data sources you don't fully understand, perhaps you should make an attempt at looking at the actual data sets. I've done it for you. Here is a graph representing NASA GMT annual increase. Please tell me where the increase is accelerating? In particular, pay attention to the last two years. I wouldn't call it 'decelerate', but the rise in temperature is decreasing. This is the SAME source you quoted. Good heavens...

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

Bye for now.

 

[canuckamuck]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Do you think asserting something is sufficient? You seem unacquainted with the concept of evidence. Let me introduce you a couple of examples:

 

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.^[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.^[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

 

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

 

Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to the NOAA 2018 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.17°C / 0.31°F) is more than twice as great.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

Did you even look at your own graph. It doesn't have a legend, So no explanation is given for the spooky red line at the end. But the blue and green lines indicate a temperature variation of less than 0.4 degrees in 1000 years. Even I think that is very low warming. I guess when they removed the medieval warm period, the rest of the line plumped up.

Clearly we are heading for the end of life as we know it. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Forethat said:

Rather than just quoting data sources you don't fully understand, perhaps you should make an attempt at looking at the actual data sets. I've done it for you. Here is a graph representing NASA GMT annual increase. Please tell me where the increase is accelerating? In particular, pay attention to the last two years. I wouldn't call it 'decelerate', but the rise in temperature is decreasing. This is the SAME source you quoted. Good heavens...

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

Bye for now.

 

Who needs statistical analytical tools when we have Forethat telling us what we should be seeing?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

The hockey stick graph scam edited out the Medieval warming period for visual effect:

 

More unattributed graphics.