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

[RickBradford]

26 minutes ago, sillyfool said:

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. 

Greta's main handler is a German lady named Luisa-Marie Neubauer. She is a member of an organisation called ONE campaign, set up in the early 2000s by Bill Gates and someone called "Bono", probably a Brazilian or Indonesian, having only one name, like Neymar, or Romario.

 

Another funder of ONE foundation is alleged to be George Soros, which has caused some conspiracy theorists to go berserk about Greta being a stalking horse for a world government and so on. Too much is being made of this, in my estimation.

 

Either way, her caravan is not short of money, but it is equally likely that the groups she is speaking to (with the exception of the Pope, perhaps) are happy to pay for their chance to kiss the hem of her corduroys.

 

I don't think her precise funding is important - there's clearly plenty of money sloshing around somewhere.

 

If you're interested in this subject, a persistent blogger has written a long 6-part series called 

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Political Economy of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex

 

http://www.theartofannihilation.com/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

 

 

[Tug]

Greta you have succeeded beyond what I expected just look at this thread everyone is certainly talking that’s how things get going good job girl help it up!!

[canuckamuck]

It is safe to say that Greta and her family aren't clipping coupons and trying on second hand shoes at value village.

[ThaiBunny]

Let's face it, almost every parent of a teenage daughter hears "You have totally ruined my life" on a regular basis.  My niece recently ranted in that vein on being refused permission to go to a sleepover at a friend's house where the parents were known to be away

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

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.

Ergo by dragging the off topic ‘identify politics’ into the discussion you can create a distraction from the lack of science backing up your arguments.

 

The thread has absolutely nothing to do with race or gender activism.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

It is safe to say that Greta and her family aren't clipping coupons and trying on second hand shoes at value village.

What ever possessed you to post such a sad indictment of yourself?

 

It says absolutely nothing about Greta and her family but a great deal about you, none of which is complimentary.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

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.

Explain the term:

 

’Geology covers much of the Earth’s carbon cycle’?

[RideJocky]

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.

•  

Yet you clearly only consider the opinions of those people that make a living publishing papers on global warming.

[rabas]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Explain the term:

 

’Geology covers much of the Earth’s carbon cycle’?

Where is most of the world's carbon and how did it get there? Count the ways and places carbon is sequestered and how it comes out. What is the top of Mount Everest made of? What are most geological layers made of?

 

And of course most everything we know about climate comes from geology.

 

If you want to spend the rest of the month reading you can google "geology and earth's carbon cycle", etc.  There are actually two carbon cycles of geological importance, one involves 'life' carbon and the other involves other geological processes. Eventually though is all has to do with life at some point.

 

The only point I have been making in this tread is it's really, really complicated.

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Yet you clearly only consider the opinions of those people that make a living publishing papers on global warming.
 

 

You mean scientists publishing peer reviewed research?!

[RickBradford]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Ergo by dragging the off topic ‘identify politics’ into the discussion you can create a distraction from the lack of science backing up your arguments.

 

The thread has absolutely nothing to do with race or gender activism.

Greta, recently, has made statements such as "irresponsible behavior", "failures of humankind", that her generation's future had been "stolen", that her dreams had been "stolen", and more besides.

 

There's no science in that, just emotional outbursts.

 

I am not making scientific arguments, any more than Greta is. I'm making a socio-political point, just as Greta is.

 

If you think it's off topic, that's because you have failed to understand that this is not primarily a scientific argument; it's a political argument. That is evident from the fact that some governments have made steps to reduce CO2 emissions, some have not.

 

And dragging identity politics, including race and gender activism, into the public climate debate, which is now commonplace among the wealthiest NGOs, is rank bad strategy.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

Where is most of the world's carbon and how did it get there? Count the ways and places carbon is sequestered and how it comes out. What is the top of Mount Everest made of? What are most geological layers made of?

 

And of course most everything we know about climate comes from geology.

 

If you want to spend the rest of the month reading you can google "geology and earth's carbon cycle", etc.  There are actually two carbon cycles of geological importance, one involves 'life' carbon and the other involves other geological processes. Eventually though is all has to do with life at some point.

 

The only point I have been making in this tread is it's really, really complicated.

So complicated scientists come to a consensus but you somehow get an insight that evaded them.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Greta, recently, has made statements such as "irresponsible behavior", "failures of humankind", that her generation's future had been "stolen", that her dreams had been "stolen", and more besides.

 

There's no science in that, just emotional outbursts.

 

I am not making scientific arguments, any more than Greta is. I'm making a socio-political point, just as Greta is.

 

If you think it's off topic, that's because you have failed to understand that this is not primarily a scientific argument; it's a political argument. That is evident from the fact that some governments have made steps to reduce CO2 emissions, some have not.

 

And dragging identity politics, including race and gender activism, into the public climate debate, which is now commonplace among the wealthiest NGOs, is rank bad strategy.

The topic is still not identity politics.

[rabas]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So complicated scientists come to a consensus but you somehow get an insight that evaded them.

I am a scientist.

 

[Rimmer]

Troll post and a reply have been removed

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, rabas said:

I am a scientist.

 

And I’m an Engineer with many years of experience conducting academic research in my field of speciality.

 

Pleased to make your acquaintance.

[Airbagwill]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

I am a scientist.

 

...and apparently not up to date on the latest information.....happens a lot as people get old and become lazy thinkers, preferring assumption to critical thinking

[Airbagwill]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Greta, recently, has made statements such as "irresponsible behavior", "failures of humankind", that her generation's future had been "stolen", that her dreams had been "stolen", and more besides.

 

There's no science in that, just emotional outbursts.

 

I am not making scientific arguments, any more than Greta is. I'm making a socio-political point, just as Greta is.

 

If you think it's off topic, that's because you have failed to understand that this is not primarily a scientific argument; it's a political argument. That is evident from the fact that some governments have made steps to reduce CO2 emissions, some have not.

 

And dragging identity politics, including race and gender activism, into the public climate debate, which is now commonplace among the wealthiest NGOs, is rank bad strategy.

They are opinions and conclusions based on the evidence - it is of course galling to elderly men to be shown up by not just a teenager but a girl as well.

[Forethat]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

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.

So if I understand you correctly, you claim that "data can be a false friend if you don't understand what it means and what it doesn't mean" in the same post where you somehow fail to recognise the difference between weather related incidents (allegedly caused by climate changes) and other natural disasters?

 

Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis don't fall into the "weather related" category, they are categorised as "natural disasters". For that reason I specifically included information regarding the categories included (Droughts, Storms, Hurricanes, Wildfires (Forest fires), Extreme cold, Heatwaves and Landslides).

 

But hey, cudos for pointing out that CRED correctly described that the number of deaths due to weather related incidents have decreased. And again, if you want to know by how much you can simply look at the graph I posted. ????

 

Is there anything specific you want me to look into, like droughts? I'm sure you'll be able to find hundreds of articles where it is claimed that droughts are more frequent and severe the last 20 years due to "climate changes" (almost guaranteed in the Guardian). But are they? Hurricanes and hurricane landfalls are often claimed to have increased and to be more severe the last 20 years. But is that true?

 

What I'm saying is, don't believe everything you read in the Guardian or Washington Post.

[RickBradford]

21 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

They are opinions and conclusions based on the evidence

First, Greta has apparently never seen the scientific evidence. If she had, and could understand it, she would not spout idiotic unsupported nonsense like: "Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

Second, any sensible society would be well advised to be cautious about listening to the "opinions and conclusions" reached by 16-year-olds, as any parent would tell you.

 

The only people that Greta is "showing up" are the shameless activists using her to push their own radical agendas.

[DrTuner]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

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

Well yeah, the number of people affected would rise as the population headcount per square km rises, as it has. And it's becoming more and more centered around cities. One good bang in a megapolis and the charts immediately go off the scales.

 

Urbanization is not a good thing. Among other problems it creates angry teenage city slickers completely out of touch with nature.

[Airbagwill]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

First, Greta has apparently never seen the scientific evidence. If she had, and could understand it, she would not spout idiotic unsupported nonsense like: "Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

Second, any sensible society would be well advised to be cautious about listening to the "opinions and conclusions" reached by 16-year-olds, as any parent would tell you.

 

The only people that Greta is "showing up" are the shameless activists using her to push their own radical agendas.

Of course she has, its just that blustering fuddy-duddies cant accept that a 16 year old.... and a GIRL at that ... has bested them.

[RickBradford]

31 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Of course she has, its just that blustering fuddy-duddies cant accept that a 16 year old.... and a GIRL at that ... has bested them.

That's a very disrespectful description of the Pope, and in any case, he had some quite friendly words to say to her.

[RideJocky]

You mean scientists publishing peer reviewed research?!

No, I mean climatologists publishing peer reviewed papers, or which would generally only include a fraction of the actual research.

But even if I did mean all scientists publishing peer reviewed papers, that still would not include enough scientists to support the 97% lie you guys are constantly regurgitating.

For every climatologist there are how many other scientists?

For every publishing scientist there are how many that don’t publish?

Keep drinking the Koolaide...

[Forethat]

I'd say people are getting pretty sick of these so called "climate activists". Today they dragged them to the ground and kicked the <deleted> out of them. 

 

Just saying.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/17/angry-commuters-drag-xr-protesters-off-tube-try-glue-10933003/

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/16/2019 at 6:46 PM, rabas said:

 

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.

 

The human % of CO2 is small compared to natural causes. I doubt anything we can do will make any difference whatsoever in the overall situation.

Try getting everyone with a fossil fuelled vehicle to buy a new electric one- impossible. They couldn't even make enough electric cars in the next 10 years and that's when the doom merchants say it's sayonara for us.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Forethat said:

I'd say people are getting pretty sick of these so called "climate activists". Today they dragged them to the ground and kicked the <deleted> out of them. 

 

Just saying.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/17/angry-commuters-drag-xr-protesters-off-tube-try-glue-10933003/

Ah, the worms have turned. Expect more such. The police response is only to be expected but pathetic. They need to be nipping these disruptive protests in the bud, not waiting till they have blocked roads and stopped trains.

Time for some proactive policing, and pensioners that join in should be punished as severely as the younger ones, if any have actually been punished at all.

 

I spent 3 hours a day getting to and from work in an overcrowded London tube carriage. Had some <deleted> made my journey any more inconvenient and unpleasant I'd have been severely PO.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/16/2019 at 7:50 PM, 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.

Planting trees to "offset" CO2 is a faux scheme while the old growth rain forests in Sth America, Africa and Indonesia are being destroyed at an astonishing rate.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/16/2019 at 8:16 PM, canuckamuck said:

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.

No, NZ had state ownership of essential resources, controlled the distance trucks could transport goods, citizens had little choice in what they bought ( everything was imported or a monopoly ), controlled how much money could be sent overseas, even banned wage increases and buying petrol on weekends at one point, but the country was far better off and more socially cohesive. Now it's all about GREED and we the people are screwed, unless mega rich.

Never mind though- as long as the masses can get sports on tv they don't seem to care.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/16/2019 at 11:18 PM, JimmyJ said:

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.

So, I'll ask you the time honoured questions. What are your solutions?

How much CO2 does humanity create compared with natural sources?

Can we actually change climate, and to what should we change it?

Has the sea risen where you are?

Is overpopulation a factor, or is it the main factor in man made CO2.

Is it even possible to replace every fossil fuelled vehicle on the planet in the next 10 years.

 

Complaining without solutions is like a dog yapping at passing cars- makes zero difference ( IMO ).