By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The teen has polarised many with her passionate speeches about climate change. Sincere teenage fear about her planet's future, or scaremongering rhetoric that is being bankrolled by some organisation(s) from the shadows?
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:10 - Sep 28 with 3368 views
There was an interesting article in the Times yesterday by Ed Conway. He was saying the problem with the climate strikers demands is that if we demolish fossil fuels immediately, you can't build wind and solar farms without using steel, which is mass produced by burning coal. Also, she is saying that leadersare fixated by fairytale of eternal economic growth, like that's a bad thing. You can't raise living standards in Africa or anywhere without it. The thing we should be doing though is to go for green economic growth. All the investment. In it could pay for itself. Our politicians ought to be arguing for that, as it sounds like a better solution than complete deindustrialisation. As medway r points out above though, there is not any focus on the actual issues
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:28 - Sep 28 with 3330 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:10 - Sep 28 by plasmahoop
There was an interesting article in the Times yesterday by Ed Conway. He was saying the problem with the climate strikers demands is that if we demolish fossil fuels immediately, you can't build wind and solar farms without using steel, which is mass produced by burning coal. Also, she is saying that leadersare fixated by fairytale of eternal economic growth, like that's a bad thing. You can't raise living standards in Africa or anywhere without it. The thing we should be doing though is to go for green economic growth. All the investment. In it could pay for itself. Our politicians ought to be arguing for that, as it sounds like a better solution than complete deindustrialisation. As medway r points out above though, there is not any focus on the actual issues
Burning coal and steel manufacture (or any for that matter) can be carbon neutral but is expensive.
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:10 - Sep 28 by plasmahoop
There was an interesting article in the Times yesterday by Ed Conway. He was saying the problem with the climate strikers demands is that if we demolish fossil fuels immediately, you can't build wind and solar farms without using steel, which is mass produced by burning coal. Also, she is saying that leadersare fixated by fairytale of eternal economic growth, like that's a bad thing. You can't raise living standards in Africa or anywhere without it. The thing we should be doing though is to go for green economic growth. All the investment. In it could pay for itself. Our politicians ought to be arguing for that, as it sounds like a better solution than complete deindustrialisation. As medway r points out above though, there is not any focus on the actual issues
If we can convert all energy production to renewable - which is perfectly possible in theory, sun wind and wave power potential is way more than we need - the possibility of more or less permanent economic growth without impact on greenhouse gases is doable. High-tech solutions to a lot of the farming issues is on the way too.
Also, as people get richer, the stuff they want - which is what GDP growth is about - shifts from things made from finite resources into stuff that's "in your head" - music, stories, film, football.
The doomsday stuff is important to wake people up to how bad things could get very soon but a positive goal is more important IMO.
Some of the greens talk about climate crisis like it's "our WW2" which I get, but WW2 wasn't just about stopping the Nazis it was about building a better world when it was over
4
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:33 - Sep 28 with 3326 views
There is a lot of upside for nations which embrace renewables, as an example. Renewables are an opportunity for the UK, we could export surplus green energy. Being self-sufficient in renewable energy would also derisk our economy.
There are also positives for the consumer. Studies are now revealing that lifting the block on new onshore wind turbines would reduce our bills. Onshore wind is the cheapest source of new energy.
It's true that the influential figures in the background could drive real change but in most countries, the change is too slow (a shout out to Costa Rica here, though, their grid can now run on renewables alone for whole months). Margaret Thatcher was the first politician to make a speech about this sort of thing, but think how long ago that was. It's this ongoing wait for decisive action, when tipping points are getting very close, which has given rise to the school strikes and ER.
Right, game time!
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
0
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 14:33 - Sep 28 with 3276 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 08:57 - Sep 28 by GloryHunter
A major scientific paper, which claimed to have found rapid warming in the oceans as a result of manmade global warming, has been withdrawn after an amateur climate scientist found major errors in its statistical methodology.
The paper, from a team led by Laure Resplandy of Princeton University, had received widespread uncritical publicity in the mainstream media when it was published because of its apparently alarming implications for the planet. However, within days of its publication in October 2018, independent scientist Nic Lewis found several serious flaws.
Yesterday, after nearly a year’s delay, the paper was officially withdrawn.
Nic Lewis said
“This is just the latest example of climate scientists letting themselves down by using incorrect statistics. The climate field needs to get professional statisticians involved up front if it is going to avoid this kind of embarrassment in future”.
We get it: you think climate change is bollox.
But please come up with a better argument than 'that paper is wrong, so there's a fair chance they're all wrong'.
For those interested, here's an LA Times article on the paper from last year. Note the caveat expressed in the article:
"The report, however, relies on a novel approach that could revolutionize how scientists measure the ocean’s temperature. The findings would need to be reproduced in coming years to gain widespread acceptance throughout the scientific community." [My italics]
"The report, however, relies on a novel approach that could revolutionize how scientists measure the ocean’s temperature. The findings would need to be reproduced in coming years to gain widespread acceptance throughout the scientific community." [My italics]
[Post edited 28 Sep 2019 15:17]
Would it have been better reading if he’d said that it was the latest paper to be questionable upon investigation?
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:32 - Sep 28 by CiderwithRsie
If we can convert all energy production to renewable - which is perfectly possible in theory, sun wind and wave power potential is way more than we need - the possibility of more or less permanent economic growth without impact on greenhouse gases is doable. High-tech solutions to a lot of the farming issues is on the way too.
Also, as people get richer, the stuff they want - which is what GDP growth is about - shifts from things made from finite resources into stuff that's "in your head" - music, stories, film, football.
The doomsday stuff is important to wake people up to how bad things could get very soon but a positive goal is more important IMO.
Some of the greens talk about climate crisis like it's "our WW2" which I get, but WW2 wasn't just about stopping the Nazis it was about building a better world when it was over
Great post here CiderwithRsie .The most surprising thing I read/heard is how big a carbon footpring the internet is leaving and with the growth of streaming its sky rocketing .This puts me between a rock and hard place because this computer is my QPR lifeline and its not being plugged out.I did get rid of all bottled water and have a little garden I fertilize with cow manure if that helps.Forget that I read cows are the worst carbon offenders fu*k it anyway
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 00:23 - Sep 29 with 3046 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 19:01 - Sep 28 by Boston
Would it have been better reading if he’d said that it was the latest paper to be questionable upon investigation?
Yep, that does sound a lot worse. But is it a fair implication?
I went to Laure Resplandy's page at Princeton and, yes, the paper of October 2018 reviewed in the LA Times wasn't there, presumably retracted, just as GloryHunter said. There were still another half dozen or so of her recent papers listed, and she is just one climate scientist in one institution in one country. [Oh no, next comes the Climate Change Gravy Train/Industry ad hominem argument.]
They are trying to model the future, it isn't always going to work. Getting excited over being able to say "Well that one was wrong" is missing a much bigger message.
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:32 - Sep 28 by CiderwithRsie
If we can convert all energy production to renewable - which is perfectly possible in theory, sun wind and wave power potential is way more than we need - the possibility of more or less permanent economic growth without impact on greenhouse gases is doable. High-tech solutions to a lot of the farming issues is on the way too.
Also, as people get richer, the stuff they want - which is what GDP growth is about - shifts from things made from finite resources into stuff that's "in your head" - music, stories, film, football.
The doomsday stuff is important to wake people up to how bad things could get very soon but a positive goal is more important IMO.
Some of the greens talk about climate crisis like it's "our WW2" which I get, but WW2 wasn't just about stopping the Nazis it was about building a better world when it was over
If we get to a point where we can convert all energy production to renewable I'd hope we're no longer concerned about economic growth.
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 01:11 - Sep 29 with 3010 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 19:01 - Sep 28 by Boston
Would it have been better reading if he’d said that it was the latest paper to be questionable upon investigation?
I don't want to be a cùnt but
This subculture of misunderstanding the peer review process and presenting snapshots of it to internet forums as if it's some kind of gotcha against climate change research, in the face of a just *overwhelming* weight of evidence, akin to that for the theory of gravity - it's so, so muggy.
5
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 08:33 - Sep 29 with 2917 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 01:11 - Sep 29 by FDC
I don't want to be a cùnt but
This subculture of misunderstanding the peer review process and presenting snapshots of it to internet forums as if it's some kind of gotcha against climate change research, in the face of a just *overwhelming* weight of evidence, akin to that for the theory of gravity - it's so, so muggy.
Same goes for the Theory of Evolution.
0
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 01:03 - Oct 2 with 2728 views
Climate change advocacy - as illustrated in this thread as much as anywhere else - reminds me of a religious cult. I say this because the vast majority of advocates do not understand the science, they are simply parroting the mainstream agenda that they believe in - apparently unequivocally. From my perspective, this is not a rational or scientific approach.
I am a man-made climate change sceptic. Not a 'denier' as the standard pejorative goes - but a sceptic. I am a sceptic because I have investigated the scientific claims myself, and find them extremely flawed. The chief flaw in the standard climate-change model is the idea that CO2 is the driver of climate change. From my investigations, I find this to be an utterly bogus claim. I will present evidence at the end of my post. Because it is bogus, I have to question what lies behind these claims. It is another common trope amongst climate change advocates that any form of dissent from the orthodox doctrine of man-made climate change must be backed by the oil lobby (or similar vested interests). What I find interesting is that there is no equivalent questioning of what lies behind the CO2 agenda. Just a little digging will reveal a network of vested-interest parties who stand to massively gain (and are already gaining) from the CO2 reduction and carbon capture movement. These parties are squarely behind Ms Thunberg in what could be termed 'the manufacturing of consent'. When investigating any highly charged media campaign it is useful to ask: cui bono - who benefits? (For those of you who are interested, here's an article that explains the web of vested-interest parties: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/21/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-f
I feel I should make it clear at this point that I am NOT saying we should carrying on destroying our planet's ecosystem through industrial pollution, mass deforestation, industrial animal farming and so on. I am squarely against this - possibly more so than many anthropogenic climate change advocates - because I have been actively living as lightly as I can for a long time, long before most advocates even became aware of 'climate change'. To all the climate change advocates in this thread I ask you: have you become vegan? Have you stopped flying? Do you shop locally? Do you mainly walk or cycle or use public transport? Are you also advocating for a complete root and branch transformation of the current financial system? Are you actively participating in that? If your answer is no to all (or even one) of these questions, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Okay, now to the evidence - or lack of it - for CO2 being the driver of climate change. Here is Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explaining this in a talk he gave a few years ago. Before you reply to my post, can I ask that you watch his talk (it's fairly short - less than 20 minutes) first? What he has to say should be fairly eye-opening, if you have been going along with the so-called scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate-change and CO2 as a key driver of this. But this is far from the only rational deconstruction of the climate-change/CO2 agenda. There are other scientific reasons to be sceptical of the agenda, not least that there seems to be a misunderstanding (whether wilful or not) of basic physics in much climate change advocacy. And there is also the fact that nearly all scientific investigation these days relies on funding, and people will rarely bite the hand that feeds them, even if they discover they may be profoundly wrong. A classic example I'd like to cite to support this is the 'dark matter' debate that has dominated quantum physics research (and its funding) for decades, even though not a single experiment or theory has been proven (or remotely proven), and even though it should be obvious that 'dark matter' is in fact a red herring, just as CO2 being a climate change driver is.
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 09:04 - Oct 2 by hubble
Climate change advocacy - as illustrated in this thread as much as anywhere else - reminds me of a religious cult. I say this because the vast majority of advocates do not understand the science, they are simply parroting the mainstream agenda that they believe in - apparently unequivocally. From my perspective, this is not a rational or scientific approach.
I am a man-made climate change sceptic. Not a 'denier' as the standard pejorative goes - but a sceptic. I am a sceptic because I have investigated the scientific claims myself, and find them extremely flawed. The chief flaw in the standard climate-change model is the idea that CO2 is the driver of climate change. From my investigations, I find this to be an utterly bogus claim. I will present evidence at the end of my post. Because it is bogus, I have to question what lies behind these claims. It is another common trope amongst climate change advocates that any form of dissent from the orthodox doctrine of man-made climate change must be backed by the oil lobby (or similar vested interests). What I find interesting is that there is no equivalent questioning of what lies behind the CO2 agenda. Just a little digging will reveal a network of vested-interest parties who stand to massively gain (and are already gaining) from the CO2 reduction and carbon capture movement. These parties are squarely behind Ms Thunberg in what could be termed 'the manufacturing of consent'. When investigating any highly charged media campaign it is useful to ask: cui bono - who benefits? (For those of you who are interested, here's an article that explains the web of vested-interest parties: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/21/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-f
I feel I should make it clear at this point that I am NOT saying we should carrying on destroying our planet's ecosystem through industrial pollution, mass deforestation, industrial animal farming and so on. I am squarely against this - possibly more so than many anthropogenic climate change advocates - because I have been actively living as lightly as I can for a long time, long before most advocates even became aware of 'climate change'. To all the climate change advocates in this thread I ask you: have you become vegan? Have you stopped flying? Do you shop locally? Do you mainly walk or cycle or use public transport? Are you also advocating for a complete root and branch transformation of the current financial system? Are you actively participating in that? If your answer is no to all (or even one) of these questions, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Okay, now to the evidence - or lack of it - for CO2 being the driver of climate change. Here is Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explaining this in a talk he gave a few years ago. Before you reply to my post, can I ask that you watch his talk (it's fairly short - less than 20 minutes) first? What he has to say should be fairly eye-opening, if you have been going along with the so-called scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate-change and CO2 as a key driver of this. But this is far from the only rational deconstruction of the climate-change/CO2 agenda. There are other scientific reasons to be sceptical of the agenda, not least that there seems to be a misunderstanding (whether wilful or not) of basic physics in much climate change advocacy. And there is also the fact that nearly all scientific investigation these days relies on funding, and people will rarely bite the hand that feeds them, even if they discover they may be profoundly wrong. A classic example I'd like to cite to support this is the 'dark matter' debate that has dominated quantum physics research (and its funding) for decades, even though not a single experiment or theory has been proven (or remotely proven), and even though it should be obvious that 'dark matter' is in fact a red herring, just as CO2 being a climate change driver is.
Patrick Moore's talk:
[Post edited 2 Oct 2019 9:05]
Patrick Moore's talk wouldn't play. Perhaps you'd like to give us the gist?
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 09:04 - Oct 2 by hubble
Climate change advocacy - as illustrated in this thread as much as anywhere else - reminds me of a religious cult. I say this because the vast majority of advocates do not understand the science, they are simply parroting the mainstream agenda that they believe in - apparently unequivocally. From my perspective, this is not a rational or scientific approach.
I am a man-made climate change sceptic. Not a 'denier' as the standard pejorative goes - but a sceptic. I am a sceptic because I have investigated the scientific claims myself, and find them extremely flawed. The chief flaw in the standard climate-change model is the idea that CO2 is the driver of climate change. From my investigations, I find this to be an utterly bogus claim. I will present evidence at the end of my post. Because it is bogus, I have to question what lies behind these claims. It is another common trope amongst climate change advocates that any form of dissent from the orthodox doctrine of man-made climate change must be backed by the oil lobby (or similar vested interests). What I find interesting is that there is no equivalent questioning of what lies behind the CO2 agenda. Just a little digging will reveal a network of vested-interest parties who stand to massively gain (and are already gaining) from the CO2 reduction and carbon capture movement. These parties are squarely behind Ms Thunberg in what could be termed 'the manufacturing of consent'. When investigating any highly charged media campaign it is useful to ask: cui bono - who benefits? (For those of you who are interested, here's an article that explains the web of vested-interest parties: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/21/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-f
I feel I should make it clear at this point that I am NOT saying we should carrying on destroying our planet's ecosystem through industrial pollution, mass deforestation, industrial animal farming and so on. I am squarely against this - possibly more so than many anthropogenic climate change advocates - because I have been actively living as lightly as I can for a long time, long before most advocates even became aware of 'climate change'. To all the climate change advocates in this thread I ask you: have you become vegan? Have you stopped flying? Do you shop locally? Do you mainly walk or cycle or use public transport? Are you also advocating for a complete root and branch transformation of the current financial system? Are you actively participating in that? If your answer is no to all (or even one) of these questions, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Okay, now to the evidence - or lack of it - for CO2 being the driver of climate change. Here is Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explaining this in a talk he gave a few years ago. Before you reply to my post, can I ask that you watch his talk (it's fairly short - less than 20 minutes) first? What he has to say should be fairly eye-opening, if you have been going along with the so-called scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate-change and CO2 as a key driver of this. But this is far from the only rational deconstruction of the climate-change/CO2 agenda. There are other scientific reasons to be sceptical of the agenda, not least that there seems to be a misunderstanding (whether wilful or not) of basic physics in much climate change advocacy. And there is also the fact that nearly all scientific investigation these days relies on funding, and people will rarely bite the hand that feeds them, even if they discover they may be profoundly wrong. A classic example I'd like to cite to support this is the 'dark matter' debate that has dominated quantum physics research (and its funding) for decades, even though not a single experiment or theory has been proven (or remotely proven), and even though it should be obvious that 'dark matter' is in fact a red herring, just as CO2 being a climate change driver is.
Patrick Moore's talk:
[Post edited 2 Oct 2019 9:05]
"I have been actively living as lightly as I can for a long time, long before most advocates even became aware of 'climate change'". Thank you, nice one, honestly, thank you.
However, the fact that C02 causes warming is basic, long accepted physics, originally proved by Tyndall in the 18th century. The greenhouse effect of CO2 can be simply demonstrated, I’ve seen it done, it is a basic experiment which can be performed in a kitchen (sorry, it does not involve cheese).
As I said earlier, the science is clear, clear enough for 185 nations to have signed the Paris accord. Even Russia has now signed the Paris climate accord. Imagine, Russia!
To your other questions: To all the climate change advocates in this thread I ask you: have you become vegan? - To be honest, no, but I have cut my meat consumption by about 75%.
Have you stopped flying? - Not totally but I actively avoid it. Every other main holiday I have is deliberately undertaken by train, as (one) example.
Do you shop locally? - Yes.
Do you mainly walk or cycle or use public transport? - Yes. I am one of the few residents of Berkshire to cycle to Homebase LOL.
Are you also advocating for a complete root and branch transformation of the current financial system? - Yes, e.g. I made sure my ISA is not investing in fossil fuel companies. Are you actively participating in that? - Yes, via divestment protests.
Oh, and you could have added: “Do you have children?” My answer: No. NB: I am not saying people should stop procreating, it’s just that if you are going to have a list of “dark green” climate saving actions, that unfortunately needs to be on it.
“What I find interesting is that there is no equivalent questioning of what lies behind the CO2 agenda”. - There is huge and frequent questioning of it, even on here.
“Just a little digging will reveal a network of vested-interest parties who stand to massively gain (and are already gaining) from the CO2 reduction and carbon capture movement”. - A network? And how is, say, the Met Office gaining? NASA? Penn State University? As I have said before, the list of contributors to, as an example, the IPCC reports is freely available (or was the last time I went to look for it) and it is not composed of green lobby groups and left-leaning political parties. Are the millions of people who are protesting about climate change, globally, all part of the network? If so, I must be too.
Look, this is not a conspiracy. Millions of ordinary people, many of them with no interest in politics, can see the damage that many aspects of normal life are causing and want change. There are upsides to this too. A move to renewables will improve air quality and have a positive impact on the tens of thousands of premature deaths due to it in the UK every year, energy prices will come down, reefs (where one fifth of fish live) will recover and flooding will become less of a scourge.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 15:03 - Oct 2 with 2455 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:50 - Oct 2 by isawqpratwcity
Patrick Moore's talk wouldn't play. Perhaps you'd like to give us the gist?
I can't give you the gist - it's too involved and I'd have to provide links to all the evidence he references. You need to watch it. Google it if it doesn't play - Patrick Moore the sensible environmentalist is the title (posted on YouTube September 2015).
R from Afar hasn't watched it and posts the usual stuff above. No, CO2 is NOT proven to be the greenhouse gas you say it is - since there are numerous occurrences in the geological record where CO2 has been much higher than it is now, without any correlation to global temperature rise, in fact the opposite has often been true. You need to watch the video - as I requested - before coming back to me with what you claim is unequivocal evidence - but isn't.
Here's the link again just in case it works this time:
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 16:07 - Sep 26 by FDC
Labour's policy on allowing developing countries free access to green tech developed here, in the spirit of reparations and to assist in global efforts to reduce carbon emissions is excellent.
Excellent ideology perhaps but very expensive in practice. Given that we can't afford it, I doubt Labour will implement it. To solve the problem the world needs to come together and consider realistic solutions.
[Post edited 2 Oct 2019 22:29]
0
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 21:59 - Oct 2 with 2307 views
Someone needs to say it like it is - and I don't care how she chooses to say it.
I'm making changes because otherwise I can't look my children and grand children in the eye.
The science is accepted and clear now
That's very commendable but it'll mean nothing unless the entire globe is on the same page. It's all fair and well asking nations to cut back when we've already had our industrial revolutions but can we reasonably deny developing nations their chance to develop?
[Post edited 2 Oct 2019 22:37]
0
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 01:22 - Oct 3 with 2259 views
The people saying it's natural to chop down all the trees, kill everything, pollute everything...if they're wrong (and i can't imagine anything more certain), it's a gamble that will probably spell extinction for the entire human race, and justly so.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
