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

[Airbagwill]

10 hours ago, DrTuner said:

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".

Bit out of touch, eh?

[RickBradford]

Demonstrating how deranged and absurd these "woke" activities have become, a number of activists are now denouncing the Greta Thunberg circus as evidence of "white supremacy", "white privilege" and "white power".

 

You just can't be "woke" enough for some people, it seems.

 

A Ugandan "decolonizing" group called No White Saviors says that Greta is benefiting from a "global system of white supremacy" which has given her "privilege and a platform".

 

"Y'all need to ask yourselves why you find it so much easier to hear from white people, regardless of age, when it comes to the violence they have caused across the world," they said.

 

Another nimrod tweeted that: "Indigenous peoples have been saying this [climate change] for 500 years. So it is not a new message. Her message has political and cultural authority due to white supremacy."

 

So much for "woke" solidarity; it's all about competing identity politics and victimhood status, in the pursuit of power.

 

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[sillyfool]

does anyone know if greta is charging a fee for her speaking engagements ? 

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, Forethat said:

I decided to check how bad it actually is. And when I say CHECK I mean analyse some real data rather than trust media and look at whatever pictures they post for you guys to see.

It actually doesn't look too bad. At least the weather isn't claiming more casualties than they did 100 years ago. I'll dig around a little to see if I can find any D-A-T-A regarding crops and populations as well.

 

Data is king!

 

*All data from CRED (https://www.emdat.be/database)

 

One question: is this when I can expect posters to try to discredit the source and accuse me of lies (as well as accusations of not posting a link to the data)...?

 

There are direct effects and indirect effects.

Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought

There is evidence that the 2007−2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007−2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, sillyfool said:

does anyone know if greta is charging a fee for her speaking engagements ? 

google is your friend:

 

[RideJocky]

In fact, very few are climatologists. Here's a link to someone who did their own private tally of the qualifications of the cosigners.
"I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists... Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one."
He goes on to say that the 2 biggest groups were geologists at 19% and engineers at 21%.  
So why should we pay any attention to this petition?

Yes, we should only pay attention to people making a living off of publishing papers on global warming. The people benefiting are the only ones to be trusted.

I would liken it to tobacco companies doing studies on the heath hazards of smoking.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Demonstrating how deranged and absurd these "woke" activities have become, a number of activists are now denouncing the Greta Thunberg circus as evidence of "white supremacy", "white privilege" and "white power".

 

You just can't be "woke" enough for some people, it seems.

 

A Ugandan "decolonizing" group called No White Saviors says that Greta is benefiting from a "global system of white supremacy" which has given her "privilege and a platform".

 

"Y'all need to ask yourselves why you find it so much easier to hear from white people, regardless of age, when it comes to the violence they have caused across the world," they said.

 

Another nimrod tweeted that: "Indigenous peoples have been saying this [climate change] for 500 years. So it is not a new message. Her message has political and cultural authority due to white supremacy."

 

So much for "woke" solidarity; it's all about competing identity politics and victimhood status, in the pursuit of power.

 

 

Off topic rant triggered by some discussing race, or indigenous peoples or soothing else that most people don’t get wound up by.

[RideJocky]

Nonsense.You make assertions but you don't back them up with links. 

A link to what? You guys regurgitating the 97% lie over and over?

[sillyfool]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

google is your friend:

 

thanks for the info. 

 

so i guess my next question is. who is paying for it all ? 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Yes, we should only pay attention to people making a living off of publishing papers on global warming. The people benefiting are the only ones to be trusted.

I would liken it to tobacco companies doing studies on the heath hazards of smoking.

 

Which is why even today, I believe that that tobacco smoking is not hazardous to your health. Because all those researchers who found differently depend on the medical industrial complex to make tobacco the villain. They'd be out of jobs if they ever tried to publish the truth.

[RickBradford]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Off topic rant triggered by some discussing race, or indigenous peoples or soothing else that most people don’t get wound up by.

No, it's right on point.

 

The point being that the climate change debate has become just another outcrop of SJW identity politics, where the aim is not so much to do anything about climate, but to satisfy "progressive" fantasies about diversity and inclusion. And power, of course.

 

If you don't believe me, just look at what the large environmental NGOs have to say, and you will find statements like "climate justice is gender justice" strewn around all over the place.

 

Now that climate change is mired in this social justice stew, it makes it even harder to find practical ways forward.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, Forethat said:

I decided to check how bad it actually is. And when I say CHECK I mean analyse some real data rather than trust media and look at whatever pictures they post for you guys to see.

It actually doesn't look too bad. At least the weather isn't claiming more casualties than they did 100 years ago. I'll dig around a little to see if I can find any D-A-T-A regarding crops and populations as well.

 

Data is king!

 

*All data from CRED (https://www.emdat.be/database)

 

One question: is this when I can expect posters to try to discredit the source and accuse me of lies (as well as accusations of not posting a link to the data)...?

 

1. I’ll call you out on your source.

 

You’ve posted a graphic which purports to be a histogram based on data from CRED, you have also posted a link to emdat.be/database.

 

What you have not posted is a link to where the graphic came from.

 

Please provide a link to where you got the graphic that you posted

 

2. What specific analytical methods did you use to analyze the data? 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, it's right on point.

 

The point being that the climate change debate has become just another outcrop of SJW identity politics, where the aim is not so much to do anything about climate, but to satisfy "progressive" fantasies about diversity and inclusion. And power, of course.

 

If you don't believe me, just look at what the large environmental NGOs have to say, and you will find statements like "climate justice is gender justice" strewn around all over the place.

 

Now that climate change is mired in this social justice stew, it makes it even harder to find practical ways forward.

I believe you, and while I don’t swallow your triggered characterization I have no problem at all with discussions on the part race and culture have to play in who gets listened to and who gets ignored.

 

We could discuss this when the topic comes up, not whenever you are triggered into an off topic rant.

[RideJocky]

Which is why even today, I believe that that tobacco smoking is not hazardous to your health. Because all those researchers who found differently depend on the medical industrial complex to make tobacco the villain. They'd be out of jobs if they ever tried to publish the truth.

I thought they were all working for the vape industry now

[Orton Rd]

24 minutes ago, sillyfool said:

does anyone know if greta is charging a fee for her speaking engagements ? 

How dare you!

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I believe you, and while I don’t swallow your triggered characterization I have no problem at all with discussions on the part race and culture have to play in who gets listened to and who gets ignored.

 

We could discuss this when the topic comes up, not whenever you are triggered into an off topic rant.

I don't know precisely what the word "triggered" is supposed to convey, not being well up on the latest SJW vocabulary, so I will simply repeat that lumping climate change together with all the other identity politics games, as NGOs overwhelmingly do, is detrimental to the whole debate.

 

It's just bad business.

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1. I’ll call you out on your source.

 

You’ve posted a graphic which purports to be a histogram based on data from CRED, you have also posted a link to emdat.be/database.

 

What you have not posted is a link to where the graphic came from.

 

Please provide a link to where you got the graphic that you posted

 

2. What specific analytical methods did you use to analyze the data? 

 

 

Well, he has a link in there. The problem is you've got to give them a lot of information to actually gain access to the graphic. But I assume it's the real thing. Still, it doesn't show whether disasters have been on the increase. I did find this from 2005

Disasters Increase, Death Rates Drop

New figures show that the number of disasters worldwide has increased, death rates have decreased, but the number of people affected has increased.

In 2005, there was an 18 percent rise in disasters that killed 91,900 people, and 360 natural disasters in 2005 compared to 305 in 2004, according to official figures issued by the Belgian Université Catholique de Louvain's Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) in Geneva.

https://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/Disasters-Increase-Death-Rates.html

 

And then there's the fact that apparently, earthquakes and tsunamis caused more death than any other kind of natural disaster. 

https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/42895

 

The point being that data can be a false friend if you don't understand what it means and what it doesn't mean. There are reasons that death rates could be dropping that don't correlate with the frequency of natural disasters.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I don't know precisely what the word "triggered" is supposed to convey, not being well up on the latest SJW vocabulary, so I will simply repeat that lumping climate change together with all the other identity politics games, as NGOs overwhelmingly do, is detrimental to the whole debate.

 

It's just bad business.

It’s also off topic, so let’s put it aside for now.

 

How addressing to questions I put to you at #1941?

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I don't know precisely what the word "triggered" is supposed to convey, not being well up on the latest SJW vocabulary, so I will simply repeat that lumping climate change together with all the other identity politics games, as NGOs overwhelmingly do, is detrimental to the whole debate.

 

It's just bad business.

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s also off topic, so let’s put it aside for now.

 

How addressing to questions I put to you at #1941?

You'll note RickBradford's typically unsupported assertion that "so I will simply repeat that lumping climate change together with all the other identity politics games, as NGOs overwhelmingly do"

 

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s also off topic, so let’s put it aside for now.

 

How addressing to questions I put to you at #1941?

It's central to the topic.

 

Greta is touring the world desperately trying to get urgent action on climate change.

 

The more that activists place climate change in the same basket as race, gender, transgender, gender identity and other SJW hobby horses, the less likely it is that action will occur, because they simply acquire an additional set of opponents.

 

You didn't put any questions to me at #1941. Don't you even read your own posts?

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It's central to the topic.

 

Greta is touring the world desperately trying to get urgent action on climate change.

 

The more that activists place climate change in the same basket as race, gender, transgender, gender identity and other SJW hobby horses, the less likely it is that action will occur, because they simply acquire an additional set of opponents.

 

You didn't put any questions to me at #1941. Don't you even read your own posts?

You are correct, I apologize, my questions are to Forethat, a mistake of identity on my for which you probably deserve a double apology.

 

Your attempts to drag identity politics into this discussion are nevertheless off topic. Keep your powder dry on that until a thread is opened on the subject.

 

 

 

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your attempts to drag identity politics into this discussion are nevertheless off topic. Keep your powder dry on that until a thread is opened on the subject.

Identity politics is a large part of the ongoing problem with attempting to get sensible action on climate change, which is what Greta is attempting to do.

 

It is therefore quite germane to the topic at issue - if you don't want to engage with it, then don't.

[canuckamuck]

56 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Which is why even today, I believe that that tobacco smoking is not hazardous to your health. Because all those researchers who found differently depend on the medical industrial complex to make tobacco the villain. They'd be out of jobs if they ever tried to publish the truth.

 Was that satire?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

 Was that satire?

Well when some posters make comments like this:

 

"Yes, we should only pay attention to people making a living off of publishing papers on global warming. The people benefiting are the only ones to be trusted.
I would liken it to tobacco companies doing studies on the heath hazards of smoking."

 

I can understand why you might need to ask.

•  

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Identity politics is a large part of the ongoing problem with attempting to get sensible action on climate change, which is what Greta is attempting to do.

 

It is therefore quite germane to the topic at issue - if you don't want to engage with it, then don't.

How about introducing some credible science to back your arguments?

 

 

[canuckamuck]

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well when some posters make comments like this:

 

"Yes, we should only pay attention to people making a living off of publishing papers on global warming. The people benefiting are the only ones to be trusted.
I would liken it to tobacco companies doing studies on the heath hazards of smoking."

 

I can understand why you might need to ask.

•  

I am not sure if you know that the part you just quoted actually was satirical. He was making a good point about not just believing the people who financially and ideologically need something to be true, when they make claims about the issue.

The unbiased people are on the sidelines, not on the payroll. The kinds of people you have said, "Why should I care what they think any more than I would care about a climatologists opinion about theories in particle physics or neurology?"

 

Climate science would be financially decimated if the truth came out that: There is no emergency, there is no way to control the climate, warming is optimal, CO2 is beneficial and higher concentrations will help green the earth, and climate science has become a racket.

Those folks are going to fight to make climate the scariest thing ever. Only scientists with a conscience and no vested interests can be trusted to assess their findings and methodology.

 

[RickBradford]

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How about introducing some credible science to back your arguments?

Well, it's less of an argument than an informed opinion. The point is sociological, and I don't think that large-scale studies have been conducted on that precise point.

 

What data there is strongly suggests the following attitudes:

 

* Most people in the West are concerned about the climate, and would like to see action taken to minimize damage. A YouGov/Guardian poll from May showed that the proportion of climate "deniers" was very low - about 4% in the UK, 8% in Australia, and 13% in the US.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll

 

* Most people in the West are heartily sick of political correctness, which is the hallmark of identity politics. A poll published late last year called "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape", showed that 80% of people agreed with the statement that "political correctness is a problem in our country."

 

https://hiddentribes.us/pdf/hidden_tribes_report.pdf

 

Ergo, by merging climate change with identity politics, the movement merely gains a whole new set of opponents; people who generally support action on climate, but who are not prepared to adopt the shibboleths of radical race and gender activists.

 

Now, you may regard that as credible science or you may not, but at the very least, it is a strong indication that climate activists would be well advised to keep their distance from the SJW/PC/identity politics types.

[sillyfool]

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

How dare you!

can't tell if you statement is sarcastic or not. if it is not. how dare i what ? 

 

how dare i ask a legitimate question ? 

 

where is all the money coming from for this whirlwind tour the young lady is on ? 

 

it's always about the money i'm afraid. that is the life humans have developed and it is not going away any time soon. well for 12 more years anyways. 

[rabas]

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Oh, you think those 500 plus people are actually representative of the scientific community? Maybe you've got some polling data to support your contention? In fact, from the polling data I've seen, the only scientists that have a high level of doubt about the role CO2 plays in global warming are  geologists working for the fossil fuel industry.

Geology covers much of Earth's carbon cycle. Climatologists only take an intro course in geology. 

 

Meteorologists also have more doubt. They are experts on water in the atmosphere. The role of H₂O as a powerful greenhouse gas is poorly understood (NASA various sources), thus their scepticism.

 

Biologists are masters of life's carbon cycle. (greening and sequestration come to mind). Then there are oceanographers and ocean chemists. In truth, Climate involves almost every branch of physical science, the foundations of which are owned by chemists and physicists.  Climatologists are the worker bees.

 

If I want the truth, I would survey all involved scientists. The climatologist may have the same prejudice you ascribe to geologists.