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

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

I made a post just above in which I explained everything.

Getting developing nations into line will is phase 2. I think we all agree they need to be kept under reasonable control. You agree on that, right? Right?

Fail to answer, lose the argument.

When posters start with the demands I stop responding. 

Call it a win if it makes you happy, Bye.

[JamesBlond]

4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

 Civilization is what ends when you bring your type of solution. Russia used your solution, so did China, Cuba, Venezuela and many others. They all had different bogeymen to fight, but used the same solutions.

Back in those days nobody had any idea that economic growth was destructive - it was a race to growth - the only issue was personal freedom. The world has changed. Now we know what we can't carry on doing without watching the world burn (literally, often enough). Now we have superior knowledge and morality. Now there is no excuse. 

 

The Brazilian and Indonesian forests are burning partly because they are kids in a candy shop but mainly because the west doesn't yet care enough to stop them and put punitive measures in place to prevent it.  You do agree they should stop burning the rainforest, right? Right?

Fail to answer, lose the argument.

[canuckamuck]

2 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Back in those days nobody had any idea that economic growth was destructive - it was a race to growth - the only issue was personal freedom. The world has changed. Now we know what we can't carry on doing without watching the world burn (literally, often enough). Now we have superior knowledge and morality. Now there is no excuse. 

 

The Brazilian and Indonesian forests are burning partly because they are kids in a candy shop but mainly because the west doesn't yet care enough to stop them and put punitive measures in place to prevent it.  You do agree they should stop burning the rainforest, right? Right?

Fail to answer, lose the argument.

This time we're going to do socialism right! lol

[RickBradford]

11 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

This time we're going to do socialism right! lol

Socialism isn't going  far enough. It leaves far too much wiggle room for those horrible backward peasants to do things that the self-appointed elites have decided are harmful or "problematic".

 

That's why prominent Left activists are forever fantasizing about the world being put "on a war footing", and the masses "mobilized" as they supposedly were for World War II.

 

You have to wonder about the characters of people who constantly dream about wielding that level of power and control over other people's lives.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Socialism isn't going  far enough. It leaves far too much wiggle room for those horrible backward peasants to do things that the self-appointed elites have decided are harmful or "problematic".

Have to disagree with you this time. Socialism as in the British version that gave them the NHS is good, IMO. It's Communism that is the evil.

NZ used to be socialist. The state owned the electric power, the post office and the post office bank, the railways and the intercity bus service etc. The country was way better back then, IMO. Then the government sold everything and it's all gone to <deleted>. Now everyone is unhappy.

[rabas]

43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

2 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

 

 

Thanks for that CLASSIC clip. 

It sounds just like the doom merchants of today except substitute heat for cold.

Live long and prosper.

 

They're right! We've been in an atypical ice age for 3 million years where CO₂ repeatedly drops to near dying levels during glacial periods as the world begins to freeze. A trend that is worsening. But thanks to abundant CO₂ production, we may have terminated the cycle, but it's uncertain because we don't understand why Earth's CO₂ has been so low recently.  However, now that we have raised the temperature a bit, we need to be very careful not not go to far.

 

See, it does not have to be presented as doomsday.

 

[DrTuner]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually I'm still waiting for any affordable, acceptable and doable solutions from the grown ups on this forum, but nada, so far.

You didn't find my suggestion of planting trees any of those? I recently planted 500 Sai Kaoree (Korean Junipers) around my fortress. I hope there's enough CO2 in the air so they grow inpenetrable quickly.

[Denim]

4 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

You didn't find my suggestion of planting trees any of those? I recently planted 500 Sai Kaoree (Korean Junipers) around my fortress. I hope there's enough CO2 in the air so they grow inpenetrable quickly.

 

Like this but bigger ?

 

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Have to disagree with you this time. Socialism as in the British version that gave them the NHS is good, IMO. It's Communism that is the evil.

NZ used to be socialist. The state owned the electric power, the post office and the post office bank, the railways and the intercity bus service etc. The country was way better back then, IMO. Then the government sold everything and it's all gone to <deleted>. Now everyone is unhappy.

It's not really binary, many forms of "socialism". Social democrats, while tax hungry, are the least destructive. Some of their policies like state owning (and leasing out) infrastructure makes sense. But only the essentials like you mentioned they had in NZ, I'd add internet access to it. For those it makes sense to pay taxes. For CO2, it's a scam.

[JimmyJ]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin.

 

And we've seen young schoolgirls being used as propaganda pawns by some very unsavory people in the 20th century.

 

• "Misattributed"
  • "Often attributed to Stalin, there is not a single source which show that Stalin said this at any given time."
  • - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
  •  

[DrTuner]

4 minutes ago, Denim said:

 

Like this but bigger ?

 

Different type, can't find a photo right now. They are 3m tall and will grow into a 80cm thick fence. Plenty of biomass. Lovely little tree in your photo, too, even a bonsai would help mother earth.

 

Here's a suggestions to all those activists: learn how to farm. 

[canuckamuck]

20 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

It's not really binary, many forms of "socialism". Social democrats, while tax hungry, are the least destructive. Some of their policies like state owning (and leasing out) infrastructure makes sense. But only the essentials like you mentioned they had in NZ, I'd add internet access to it. For those it makes sense to pay taxes. For CO2, it's a scam.

When the state controls the means of production (industry), sets price controls and restricts citizen consumption (sorry no gas grill for you). You get the predictable, tried many times, totalitarian regime. You still have the same amount of elites but everyone else are slaves or criminals.

Nothing wrong with some state run institutions like medicine for example. Its a little different when Nike is making Mao suits in one color for everyone and you got to eat carrots for three weeks because that is what the store has currently, while they wait on the wheat harvest to make bread.

[Airbagwill]

The scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has passed 99%. Denial is political, not scientific.

[pgs]

How are houses heated in Sweden? (I haven't been there, totally valid question).

[JimmyJ]

13 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

The scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has passed 99%. Denial is political, not scientific.

Denial is total ignorance.

 

I pop in here once in awhile. It's grotesquely interesting.

 

Like reading a thread with Creationists, who find it impossible to believe the incontrovertible evidence of Evolution, but have no problem believing - with a total lack of evidence - that there was an ark which carried 2 of every animal species on Earth including dinosaurs.

 

Willful ignorance? Cognitive dissonance? Lack of oxygen when exiting the womb?

 

This thread should really be put in a time capsule, so that when future generations ask, "How could they have let this happen?", they can read it.

[JimmyJ]

9 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Since you know nothing about my views on climate science...

 

Great point.

 

If only you were posting in a thread on the climate emergency and making hundreds of posts in that and other related threads, it might have been possible to have a good idea of your views.

 

But since you aren't doing that...

[canuckamuck]

29 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

The scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has passed 99%. Denial is political, not scientific.

Are you keeping track? Are you sure you didn't miss a few? like the 500 climate scientists who just petitioned the UN saying their is no climate crisis.

[JimmyJ]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Are you keeping track? Are you sure you didn't miss a few? like the 500 climate scientists who just petitioned the UN saying their is no climate crisis.

"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%^[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change....The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science".

 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

[canuckamuck]

26 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%^[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change....The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science".

 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

I am sure the gatekeepers of WIKI are in consensus. But a majority is meaningless in science. How many auto workers would vote to ban cars?

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

The scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has passed 99%. Denial is political, not scientific.

I'm pretty sure it'll pass 101% soon.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.  Link

 

Here are their main points

• There is no climate emergency
• Climate science should be less political
• Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
• Warming is far slower than predicted
• Climate policy relies on inadequate models
• CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
• Global warming has not increased natural disasters
• Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

From AEI.org neoconservative lobby group funded by:

 

A 2013 study by Drexel University Sociologist Robert J. Brulle noted that AEI received $86.7 million dollars between 2003 and 2010, with the single largest source being Donors Trust, which has Charles Koch and David Koch as its largest contributors.^[154]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, pgs said:

How are houses heated in Sweden? (I haven't been there, totally valid question).

Probably same as Finland, electric, oil furnaces, some older places use wood and in some cities there might be pipes carrying heat from power plants that circulates warm water in the heaters. Of those only electric and heat produced with nuclear, wind or hydro is "clean".

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

From AEI.org neoconservative lobby group funded by:

 

A 2013 study by Drexel University Sociologist Robert J. Brulle noted that AEI received $86.7 million dollars between 2003 and 2010, with the single largest source being Donors Trust, which has Charles Koch and David Koch as its largest contributors.^[154]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

This right here is why I hesitate to post links. The website didn't hire the scientists to make a petition. The website is reporting on the petition. But you will make it all about the website which is simply making a verifiable news report. A report which will never be seen on the MSM because it contradicts the narrative.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, JimmyJ said:

"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%^[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change....The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science".

 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

 

According to the graphic, only the 200 most frequently publishing climatologists reaches a 98% consensus. Scientists publishing on climate change is only 84%, 88% of all climatologists and only 82% of Earth Science researchers/faculty. And they only "agree humans are making a significant contribution".

 

In science, significant does not mean the biggest/most. It means

1) sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

2) having a particular meaning; indicative of something.

 

So, the science of global warming is not all known and fully understood science. Far from it.

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, pgs said:

How are houses heated in Sweden? (I haven't been there, totally valid question).

I read an article somewhere about geoenergy and heat exchangers. It was mentioned that Norway is about to ban the use of oil boilers. I can't find the article now but if I recall correctly there were in the neighbourhood of 100K oil boilers still in use in Norway. Sweden, in comparison, had half that amount.

 

The most popular heating technology was electricity. The second most popular was geoenergy (they drill a hole in the ground to some 100m and pull the heat out of the ground with a ground source heat pump). Pretty cool technology.

 

 

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

According to the graphic, only the 200 most frequently publishing climatologists reaches a 98% consensus. Scientists publishing on climate change is only 84%, 88% of all climatologists and only 82% of Earth Science researchers/faculty. And they only "agree humans are making a significant contribution".

 

In science, significant does not mean the biggest/most. It means

1) sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

2) having a particular meaning; indicative of something.

 

So, the science of global warming is not all known and fully understood science. Far from it.

In the same way that not all geologists publish about tectonic plate theory. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

This right here is why I hesitate to post links. The website didn't hire the scientists to make a petition. The website is reporting on the petition. But you will make it all about the website which is simply making a verifiable news report. A report which will never be seen on the MSM because it contradicts the narrative.

This right here is why you need to post a link, you’ve pulled information from a Blog, posted on the website of a neoconservative lobby group funded by the Koch brothers and ExxonMobile.

 

Not news, a Blog.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

According to the graphic, only the 200 most frequently publishing climatologists reaches a 98% consensus. Scientists publishing on climate change is only 84%, 88% of all climatologists and only 82% of Earth Science researchers/faculty. And they only "agree humans are making a significant contribution".

 

In science, significant does not mean the biggest/most. It means

1) sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

2) having a particular meaning; indicative of something.

 

So, the science of global warming is not all known and fully understood science. Far from it.

You are confusing ‘Significant’ with ‘Significance’.

 

The technical use of the latter in no way excludes use of the former.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Are you keeping track? Are you sure you didn't miss a few? like the 500 climate scientists who just petitioned the UN saying their is no climate crisis.

Are you keeping track? Are you sure it was 500 climate scientists? Or just 500 people from various professions? Not all of them even being scientists. Here's a link from a group that backed the petition. 

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

So, no. It wasn't 500 climate scientists.

 

[RideJocky]

Somebody stating they disagree with an opinion is not evidence that they employed any thought on the matter.
 
They might simply believe stating they disagree gives an impression of being smart or perhaps they wish to signal their affiliation with others who they know disagree on the matter.
 
To indicate thought on the matter, considered counter opinions are needed, preferably offered in the absence of ad hominem attacks on the person holding the views that are being contested.

So disagreeing is much the same as agreeing yes?