Greta Thunberg speech

[Quickstatus]

I just got home. My house is not on fire. I guess the Solar Panels saved the house...

 

[esseeeayeenn]

As the OP has stated a couple of times, this thread was not about whether climate change is real or not.
I made it clear in my initial contribution that I was citing examples (such as glaciers disappearing in Iceland, the Alps, the Himalayas, and Chile) merely to demonstrate that, whether you agree with her or not, Greta's concerns are not irrational.
I don't understand why a few men seem to feel the need to prosecute the climate change denial argument here.
Nor do I understand why they - who are taking the position supported by less scientific evidence - are the ones who feel the need to declare that the other side is wrong, stupid etc.
I know this post will provoke more of the same, but I'm done. I'm going to unwatch and resist the temptation to contribute anymore.

 

[drron]

And here is the evidence of the retweet.

Roger A. Pielke Sr Retweeted




Roger Pielke Jr.

@RogerPielkeJr
·
Sep 27

My latest
@Forbes
It’s Time To Get Real About The Extreme Scenario Used To Generate Climate cough via
@forbes



It’s Time To Get Real About The Extreme Scenario Used To Generate Climate cough
Discussions of climate policy are thrown off track by the widespread misuse of an extreme climate scenario

forbes.com

 

[esseeeayeenn]

And here is the evidence of the retweet.

Oh FFS if my son published an article I'd retweet the hell out of it even if I thought it was utter rubbish.

 

[drron]

Well why don't you give me some references refuting the article.the article is all from the IPCC's reports.
the media and certain elites have seized on RCP 8.5 as the most likely scenario when in fact it was the worst case scenario.Since those scenario's were originally produced by the IPCC emissions have been less than the 8.5 scenario.
But it is the 8.5 scenario being swallowed hook,line and sinker by the media.Then regurgitated by the school strike and extinction rebellion amongst others.

 

[RooFlyer]

I don't understand why a few men ...

I don't understand why gender is important here ! Is moral superiority gender-specific?

Nor do I understand why they - who are taking the position supported by less scientific evidence - are the ones who feel the need to declare that the other side is wrong, stupid etc.

We are in agreement here .. I don't understand the need to introduce insults (real and imagined) like 'climate denier', 'right winger'. etc. But there you go.

 

[Moody]

There, I said it. I'm a climate extremist. And 'right wing' (in your parlance, I guess). Go figure.

Alan Jones - right wing commentator and climate idiot
Andrew Bolt - right wing commentator and climate idiot
Miranda Devine - right wing commentator and climate idiot
yada yada yada .....

Sure - I'm highlighting the worst of them, and I'm sure you can point out extremists who are making doomsday predictions on the back of dodgy modelling. That's the job of the IPCC - publish the facts, review the models, and come up with a global consensus.

Which the right wing then ignore. Go figure.

 

[Pushka]

It’s taken on the dogma of religion.

BTW did Greta fly back?

I think the support crew had to do that though...

 

[Pushka]

As the OP has stated a couple of times, this thread was not about whether climate change is real or not.
I made it clear in my initial contribution that I was citing examples (such as glaciers disappearing in Iceland, the Alps, the Himalayas, and Chile) merely to demonstrate that, whether you agree with her or not, Greta's concerns are not irrational.
I don't understand why a few men seem to feel the need to prosecute the climate change denial argument here.
Nor do I understand why they - who are taking the position supported by less scientific evidence - are the ones who feel the need to declare that the other side is wrong, stupid etc.
I know this post will provoke more of the same, but I'm done. I'm going to unwatch and resist the temptation to contribute anymore.

I’m not a man.

Why do people resort to extreme examples to try prove their point of view, especially commentators whom most of Australia would disagree with.

 

[RooFlyer]

Alan Jones - right wing commentator and climate idiot
Andrew Bolt - right wing commentator and climate idiot
Miranda Devine - right wing commentator and climate idiot
yada yada yada .....

Sigh. What did I say above about insults and abuse? Anything else to contribute to the discussion?

 

[juddles]

......

Why do people resort to extreme examples to try prove their point of view, especially commentators whom most of Australia would disagree with.

This sort of thing is exactly what shows that the whole topic has gone way out of common sense. And it crossed from a sane "topic" or "issue" into a quasi-religious extremism many years ago. Maybe it is because most people are not very devout these days, yet humans seem to need a religion? So Climate Change has become their faith of choice.

As I have said many a time, I believe that the climate changes. But at a dinner party I would be thrown by Moody into the group of "right wing denialists" (or climate idiots??) just because I disagree with the focus given to the topic, and refuse to join the gang of henchmen that want to execute anyone who does not cheer at every single chant of the religious ferverts.

And another comment, which is important for me with my life-long interest in philosophy of science, is that at the end of the day, scientists are just people. Each one with their own needs and daily challenges. So I understand that so many scientists realized many years ago that there is far more money available in grants if you prostitute yourself a bit to provide some more "climate cough".

Edit: whoops! I used the word "henchmen". What is the correct term acceptable to the masses now? Henchpeople??

 

[tgh]

All popcorn 10% off

.. because the thread is likely to be.. er truncated soon the way it is going...

 

[juddles]

All popcorn 10% off

.. because the thread is likely to be.. er truncated soon the way it is going...

Actually, I disagree - there has been mud thrown - but I think people on both "sides" have been careful (or lucky) in that it has been thrown at third parties or generalizations of people, rather than individual members.

And I am sure that if their is a God, he (or she) will be happily scoffing celestial popcorn and drinking lemonade watching this small climate change chapter in human history

 

[Renato1]

Greta's mother is on the record as saying that Greta actually sees carbon dioxide molecules in the air.

The speech was equally delusional. Nobody dares ever ask her exactly who said the world would end in ten years, and where precisely are all these people dying all over the place from the Climate Crisis?

Pandering to people's delusions, I suspect, is ultimately very unhelpful to them.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Quickstatus]

I’m expecting lots of kids walking to school when school resumes in a couple of weeks.
Hopefully the traffic will be easier.

 

[drron]

A big issue recently has been again the Arctic sea ice.Proudly reported as a tie for the second lowest on record with 2007-what no change since 2007.

The problem is that a couple of days later the Danes revealed that the sea ice was thicker than usual as winds had driven the sea ice of western Svarlbad onto the north east coast of Greenland.

So the extremist outlook as presented by Greenpeace and Al Gore is not being born out by the observations.
On the other hand the ABC,bless their little socks,reported the most bizarre climate protest.
.

Climate protest in the snow at Mount Hotham

Trusted and independent source of local, national and world news. In-depth analysis, business, sport, weather and more.

www.abc.net.au

 

[RooFlyer]

And another comment, which is important for me with my life-long interest in philosophy of science, is that at the end of the day, scientists are just people. Each one with their own needs and daily challenges. So I understand that so many scientists realized many years ago that there is far more money available in grants if you prostitute yourself a bit to provide some more "climate cough".

As a practicing scientist, this is my greatest point of dismay - the prostitution of some science in pursuit of in pursuit of a fundamentalist objective. I was going to say "follow the money", but I discovered that that was just a movie construct. But its easy to see that if you are in the field, you need to publish in support of 'climate change' - if you don't, you won't get published, and you'll be professionally screwed, no matter how good your work. And if you are employed by the University of Townsville, you'll probably get sacked. The University of East Anglia e-mail scandal showed the ways the climate mafia went to suppress dissenting views in the academic press.

When you get there scientific papers released to co-incide with big global events, with media releases etc etc, to me, that's not science. Its turned into propaganda.

Al Gore said, notoriously, and repeatedly, "The Science is settled", and this got swallowed, and is still regurgitated. Science, almost by definition, is NEVER settled. Anyone from the science community here who agrees that 'science can be settled'?

The media have discovered this great new phrase "peer-review", while remaining clueless about what it means, how it can be abused and rendered meaningless. (I have experience with 'peer review' in scientific journals - I've written them ... I will recount some time.).

But as juddles says, most are just people trying to feed their family.

 

[Moody]

Greta's mother is on the record as saying that Greta actually sees carbon dioxide molecules in the air.

The speech was equally delusional. Nobody dares ever ask her exactly who said the world would end in ten years, and where precisely are all these people dying all over the place from the Climate Crisis?

Pandering to people's delusions, I suspect, is ultimately very unhelpful to them.
Regards,
Renato

Hey Renato - where does she say the world will end in 10 years? I posted a link to the full transcript.

And CO2 pollution and the subsequent climate changes are already killing people and wildlife.

 

[Pushka]

I’ve heard volcanoes and earthquakes are very detrimental to wildlife and people as well. I don’t think we humans can bear responsibility for those things.

 

[Moody]

Sigh. What did I say above about insults and abuse? Anything else to contribute to the discussion?

Sigh. I suppose I should have provided a language warning before using the term "right wing commentator". My bad.

Sigher. And I DID contribute further .... only you have decided to ignore it. An inconvenient truth, perhaps?

Sighest. [ This comment is under self review ]