Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, nothing wrong with your post, but i have a little objection.

If i wanted to sell, say, solar panels, i can hire a scientist or 2, and let them explain to the populace, on a newspaper page which i can buy, that solar panels are good for you and for the environment.

After making some money with solar panels, i can finance another scientific study, that highlights how solar panels are somehow damaging the environment, while, say, wind turbines are the real solution.. and the cycle goes on..

Now, i'm not saying that wind turbines or solar panels or nuclear energy are the right (or the wrong) choice, i'm just saying that it's the economic interest who is on the driver's seat, and we have to be vigilant on where it's taking us.

And, while there might not be many climate scientist here, there are seasoned business people and those with experience on research funding, who would be on the right side of that D-K curve. Money talks.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You go girl hold their feet to the fire make them face what’s happening so all of us can start making responsible changes and grow into a more sustainable world I’m proud of you kiddo!

And first of all make her shut up. 

Small point that needs clarifying. It was Greta's parents that filled her head with confusion, hate and panic, ergo they "stole her dreams". Textbook child abuse really. When she gets bored of this cl

Posted Images

Just now, BritManToo said:

Those who currently study 'climate science', would be the same people that used to study 'sociology'

It's a easy degree, no quality high school grades required, no real science involved, and you can pass by agreeing with your lecturers.

Real degrees are in medicine, pharmacy, physics, electronics, engineering.

You can add journalism in there. They were all attached to each other at the department of humanistic studies of the university where I did research in computer science, along with yet another one, women studies aka feminists. Birds of feather.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

a radio interview with the lead scientist in seal level

evaluation in the infamous ipcc report think its an insult

to science to use kids to push the agenda.

(as you might have come to expect, he was ignored

by the ipcc when it turned out he wouldnt sell his pride)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, nothing wrong with your post, but i have a little objection.

If i wanted to sell, say, solar panels, i can hire a scientist or 2, and let them explain to the populace, on a newspaper page which i can buy, that solar panels are good for you and for the environment.

After making some money with solar panels, i can finance another scientific study, that highlights how solar panels are somehow damaging the environment, while, say, wind turbines are the real solution.. and the cycle goes on..

Now, i'm not saying that wind turbines or solar panels or nuclear energy are the right (or the wrong) choice, i'm just saying that it's the economic interest who is on the driver's seat, and we have to be vigilant on where it's taking us.

The fossil fuel industry is awash with money and always has been.

 

Despite their efforts to fund scientist to prove anthropomorphic climate change a myth, they have been able to do so. - Bang goes your ‘pay a scientist’ argument.

 

Failing to challenge the scientific consensus the fossil fuel industry switched tactics and set about funding advertising, lobbyists and denialist outfits to spread distrust in the scientific consensus.

 

Which is where you get your arguments and find your part to play in spreading nonsense.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Those who currently study 'climate science', would be the people that historically studied 'sociology'

It's a easy degree, no quality high school grades required, no real science involved, and you can pass by agreeing with your lecturers.

Real degrees are in medicine, pharmacy, physics, electronics, engineering.

 

Apparently, from the OP, a socially inept 16 year old girl is as worthy of debating climate science as anyone else.

Utter hogwash.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The fossil fuel industry is awash with money and always has been.

 

Despite their efforts to fund scientist to prove anthropomorphic climate change a myth, they have been able to do so. - Bang goes your ‘pay a scientist’ argument.

 

Failing to challenge the scientific consensus the fossil fuel industry switched tactics and set about funding advertising, lobbyists and denialist outfits to spread distrust in the scientific consensus.

 

Which is where you get your arguments and find your part to play in spreading nonsense.

Sorry, but 'staying vigilant' is not nonsense, at least not more nonsense of your mantra of "scientific consensus", which is undoubtedly existing in your dreams.

If the fossil fuels industry chiefs are not complete morons, they are most likely, by now, investing on renewable energies, which is a positive.

I am simply not expecting the big corporations to act just for the benefit of the planet, that would be unreal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, but 'staying vigilant' is not nonsense, at least not more nonsense of your mantra of "scientific consensus", which is undoubtedly existing in your dreams.

If the fossil fuels industry chiefs are not complete morons, they are most likely, by now, investing on renewable energies, which is a positive.

I am simply not expecting the big corporations to act just for the benefit of the planet, that would be unreal.

Who is claiming big corporations act or might act just for the benefit of the planet?

 

I ask because it’s not something I’ve ever heard.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who is claiming big corporations act or might act just for the benefit of the planet?

 

I ask because it’s not something I’ve ever heard.

No one has claimed that , a poster stated that he wasnt expecting them to do that .

   That is why youve never heard of it , because no one has stated it 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who is claiming big corporations act or might act just for the benefit of the planet?

 

I ask because it’s not something I’ve ever heard.

I made some point on this long thread, i'll let you connect the dots.

Now we both could be right or we both could be wrong, and there is something called "reality" which can be quite subjective, depending on one's point of view.

To answer your question, science it's an expensive business, find out who's paying the bills, and there you'll get your answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes science is expensive, but not so expensive the fossil fuel industry can’t afford to pay scientists to undertake research.

 

When they do, the results don’t support the fossil fuel industry’s claims.

 

Hence the efforts to undermine science with propaganda helped along by shills eager to do their bit.

 

The vitriol and bile poured out on a child in this thread by the denialist shills being text book examples.

 

Indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes science is expensive, but not so expensive the fossil fuel industry can’t afford to pay scientists to undertake research.

 

When they do, the results don’t support the fossil fuel industry’s claims.

 

Hence the efforts to undermine science with propaganda helped along by shills eager to do their bit.

 

The vitriol and bile poured out on a child in this thread by the denialist shills being text book examples.

 

Well, i stated repeatedly that i admire and respect Greta, and all the idealist teens who shout for a better world.

Science is not and will never be settled, otherwise is not science. No one in this thread is undermining science, we are just discussing it.

Apparently, fossil fuels, besides being environment and health damaging, are a finite resource, so it's quite rational to invest on research on cleaner and renewable energies.

That said, the " climate alarmism" is not only unnecessary, but it may cloud the judgement of many.

Personally, i'm more alarmed by wars, social injustice, slavery, and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Those who currently study 'climate science', would be the people that historically studied 'sociology'

It's a easy degree, no quality high school grades required, no real science involved, and you can pass by agreeing with your lecturers.

Real degrees are in medicine, pharmacy, physics, electronics, engineering.

 

Apparently, from the OP, a socially inept 16 year old girl is as worthy of debating climate science as anyone else.

No, climate science is just as much a proper degree as physics or engineering, both of which it is closely related to. The clue is in the word Science, science is a method, not a faith system. We are not talking about gender studies or some such here. 

 

I haven't really listened to Greta much, but my understanding is that she is not debating the science, or claiming to be an expert. She accepts the overwhelming evidence (As any sensible person should IMO) and is advocating a response to the situation.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...