Jump to content

Liberal Climate Activist Greta Thunberg calls for insurrection against western democracies


West

Recommended Posts

 

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.  Climate change may or may not lead to a crisis.  I mean it will eventually as it has in the past.  
2. A super volcano or meteor could end us a lot sooner than climate change.  
3. We don’t know the human impact on climate change.  
4. Throwing tax money at “fighting climate change” is pissing in the wind.  Giving money to developing countries to compensate them is next level stupidity on the scale of making reparations to the Loyalists for the land they left behind to in the US.

 

1. Excuse me as I try to rationalize those two sentences beside each other.
2. Irrelevant.
3. We can definitely estimate costs and that's all we need to do for this part of the exercise.
4. I can't resolve these two sentences either.  If you choose to do nothing about a raging fire in your backyard then - yes - you are responsible if it burns down your neighbour's garage.

The rest of your post is circus music... I saw "what a joke" and that just makes me stop reading your post sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

This is the problem with Marxists and Communists.  They think they have a right to everyone else's money and savings.   

Can you do me the favour of responding once to my posts, otherwise these conversations spin out of control.

If I tell you I'm not a Marxist or Communist will you faint ?  I pretty clearly explained that payments are about LIABILITY which is a legal term.

Try to respond to my facts with more facts instead of hyperventilating and gasping the word 'Communist'.  It's actually basic humanity to fix the problems you create, in case you are unfamiliar with moral behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's not math so there can never be 100% proof, but my signature has a link to a post that explains it.  Roughly: Greenhouse effect can be observed in a laboratory, caused by CO2.  We know CO2 has increased in line with the temperature increases expected through the Greenhouse effect.  There's no other feasible explanation for the increasing temperature.
2. Can you be honest ?  If so you need to acknowledge what I have said.
3. If I tell you scientists are convinced of Climate Change you aren't convinced.  But if a priest tells you he turned a cracker into human flesh you are all into it.  I'm not here to make fun of your beliefs but your entire causative framework isn't the same as the general population and you should at least know your limits.

Total CO2 in the atmosphere is very small because it is a trace gas to begin with.  97% of this trace gas called CO2 in the atmosphere is natural.  Man only contributes 3% and out of the total CO2.  That means man contributes next to nothing.  The atmosphere is also full of water vapour which is also a GHG and effects the climate.  How do you know it is man's tiny contribution that is a cause of climate change?  You have not explained anything.  The fact is you don't know and are just assuming man is the cause.  You are like little Greta assuming the worst about mankind and anyone who has any resources or savings like Canada.  Canada's contribution has been likened to throwing a medium size Tim Horton's coffee cup into an Olympic size swimming pool of CO2.  It is nothing.  You really think punishing Canadians will make any difference?

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. Total CO2 in the atmosphere is very small because it is a trace gas to begin with. ... You have not explained anything. 

2.  You are like little Greta ...

3. assuming the worst about mankind and anyone who has any resources or savings like Canada.  Canada's contribution has been likened to throwing a medium size Tim Horton's coffee cup into an Olympic size swimming pool of CO2.  It is nothing.  You really think punishing Canadians will make any difference?

1. Irrelevant.  I could feed you a *tiny* amount of poison and you can tell me how that feels.  You are repeating anti-science noise you have read on some garbage site set up to convince people like you that Climate Change is a hoax.  I already explained that the Greenhouse Effect can be reproduced in the lab.  

You asked me to be honest - will you try to be intellectually honest in kind ?

2. Saying I'm like 'little Greta' isn't really helping your argument.  Your argument was to ignore my point about Greenhouse Effect, post an irrelevant fact and then start name calling.

3. All of this is irrelevant but let's see if you respond honestly to points 1 & 2.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can you do me the favour of responding once to my posts, otherwise these conversations spin out of control.

If I tell you I'm not a Marxist or Communist will you faint ?  I pretty clearly explained that payments are about LIABILITY which is a legal term.

Try to respond to my facts with more facts instead of hyperventilating and gasping the word 'Communist'.  It's actually basic humanity to fix the problems you create, in case you are unfamiliar with moral behaviour.

You assume Canada is liabile without any proof and want Canadians to pay billions of dollars for something that is completely unproven.  And you think that is responsible moral behavior.  That does not fit or meet the standard for legal liability.  If you were in a court of law you would have to have solid proof not speculation and theory to establish legal liability.  I think you need to study the legal meaning of liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Irrelevant.  I could feed you a *tiny* amount of poison and you can tell me how that feels.  You are repeating anti-science noise you have read on some garbage site set up to convince people like you that Climate Change is a hoax.  I already explained that the Greenhouse Effect can be reproduced in the lab.  

You asked me to be honest - will you try to be intellectually honest in kind ?

2. Saying I'm like 'little Greta' isn't really helping your argument.  Your argument was to ignore my point about Greenhouse Effect, post an irrelevant fact and then start name calling.

3. All of this is irrelevant but let's see if you respond honestly to points 1 & 2.
 

What is done in a laboratory is not proof of anything that happens in the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is too large encompassing millions of cubic kilometres and the causes of temperature change are very complex.  The radiation from the sun changes on solar cycles.  There is radiation from space that hits the atmosphere.  There is water vapour that is also a GHG and is a large part of the atmosphere.  There is ocean temperatures and water movement, cloud cover, volcanic activity to name a few.   It cannot be replicated in a laboratory. 

I'm sure if you enclose something in a large test tube with CO2 gas it is going to trap or effect the temperature at the bottom of the container.  But that does not represent the atmosphere which is very large and complex, affected by many factors.   There are many factors that likely affect the temperature in the real world.  It cannot be replicated in a test tube.  Ask any scientist.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except that people were advocating for doing nothing about Climate Change on here years ago, and accepting the risk.  As such, we would feasibly owe for impacts we have wilfully created.  You can't say "do nothing about the problem" then just walk away from impacts, it's not principled.

We haven't done nothing, though. We have spent a fortune on climate change to no actual advantage for anyone but those getting the money. There is nothing Canada can do about climate change other than see to ameliorating the effects in its own territory. Climate change is inevitable and almost no one in the world is doing much to avoid it other than the West.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not math so there can never be 100% proof, but my signature has a link to a post that explains it.  Roughly: Greenhouse effect can be observed in a laboratory, caused by CO2.  We know CO2 has increased in line with the temperature increases expected through the Greenhouse effect.  There's no other feasible explanation for the increasing temperature.

Not to mention, scientists have been warning about this for over 100 years.  And they've been right about the effect of greenhouse gases created by humans.

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. We haven't done nothing, though.
2. We have spent a fortune on climate change to no actual advantage for anyone but those getting the money.
3. There is nothing Canada can do about climate change other than see to ameliorating the effects in its own territory. Climate change is inevitable and almost no one in the world is doing much to avoid it other than the West.

1. Yes and this is reflected in the modified climate change models, ie. we have had an impact.  
2. We are in a better place than we would have been than if we had done nothing.
3. Your statement applies to all collective action - everyone needs to contribute.  If no one is doing much why is Green Technology growing so much as a business ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Not to mention, scientists have been warning about this for over 100 years.  And they've been right about the effect of greenhouse gases created by humans.

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

"10 Failed Global Warming Predictions That You Need To Know About"

"

The 2008 study produced what the U.K. Telegraph very charitably called “a radical set of ‘possible futures,'” among them that the first climate refugees would begin flooding our planet’s icy, southernmost when temperatures made everywhere else too hot to live.

“Refugees are expected to move to Antarctica because of the rising temperatures that will see the population of the continent increase to 3.5 million people by 2040,” the Telegraph reported. “As the world fails to act on climate change, researchers predict that global trade will collapse as oil prices break through $400 a barrel and electrical appliances will get automatically turned off when households exceed energy quotas.”

10 Failed Global Warming Predictions That You Need To Know About (westernjournal.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. You assume Canada is liabile without any proof and want Canadians to pay billions of dollars for something that is completely unproven.   

1.  Except you haven't acknowledge the evidence that I provided or provided any reason that it's faulty. [Ok - I see you did in your 2nd post, below]
 

Quote

2. What is done in a laboratory is not proof of anything that happens in the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is too large encompassing millions of cubic kilometres.  It cannot be replicated in a laboratory. 

3. I'm sure if you enclose something in a large test tube with CO2 gas it is going to trap or effect the temperature.  But that does not represent the atmosphere which is very large and complex.   There are many factors that likely affect the temperature in the real world.  It cannot be replicated in a test tube.  Ask any sicentist.

2.   But the properties of the gases can themselves be shown, and given the fact that we are seeing the same effect it's compelling evidence and Climate Science as agreed.  To just say "it's not the same in a laboratory" is a convenient way to ignore compelling evidence.  If this evidence isn't enough for you then you are likely just looking for a reason to dismiss the obvious - there simply could be NO better evidence than we already have.  There would be no way to establish a link better than what we have.

3. And the Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere is cross-referenced with CO2 levels in the past as well and it correlates well.  You talk about the fact that there could be "Many factors" ... and yet those factors have nothing like the evidence I have explained here.  No one has demonstrated other factors that could be causing this warming, that have passed the peer review test.

 ---

But...


At least you have responded, so I will give you that.  But your response amounts to saying you would never accept any evidence, since we could never prove this any more than we have already.  As such, we have a huge global problem and evidence of a cause which is accepted by Climate Science.

Now...

You have no other explanation to the increased temperatures, so I would generously say that your response is 'irresponsible' at best.  Luckily, most people are aware of the problem and have accepted the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes and this is reflected in the modified climate change models, ie. we have had an impact.  
2. We are in a better place than we would have been than if we had done nothing.
3. Your statement applies to all collective action - everyone needs to contribute.  If no one is doing much why is Green Technology growing so much as a business ?

“Green” energy projects are heavily subsidized by taxpayers."

"Green" energy projects are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. - Canadian Energy News Network

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"10 Failed Global Warming Predictions That You Need To Know About"

"

The 2008 study produced what the U.K. Telegraph very charitably called “a radical set of ‘possible futures,'” among them that the first climate refugees would begin flooding our planet’s icy, southernmost when temperatures made everywhere else too hot to live.

“Refugees are expected to move to Antarctica because of the rising temperatures that will see the population of the continent increase to 3.5 million people by 2040,” the Telegraph reported. “As the world fails to act on climate change, researchers predict that global trade will collapse as oil prices break through $400 a barrel and electrical appliances will get automatically turned off when households exceed energy quotas.”

10 Failed Global Warming Predictions That You Need To Know About (westernjournal.com)

You've missed the point.  As predicted 100 years ago, greenhouse gasses warm the planet.  This is true whether you attribute the greenhouse gases to natural or manmade sources  Later, but still decades ago, it was demonstrated that mankind had a significant effect on these gases. 

Just because specific predictions didn't come true doesn't mean the entire premise is wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moonlight Graham said:

Self-hating teenager has the answer to all the world's problems, blames the west and capitalism.  What else is new?

Greta now has a book deal.  Where was my book deal when I was 19?  Would have been just as cringe and useless.

Anything to not talk about Climate Change I guess...

If somebody points at a Meteor coming at earth make sure to take her down based on age and character first and foremost...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

 Just because specific predictions didn't come true doesn't mean the entire premise is wrong.  

And they will make any single person representative of all Climate Science (eg. Al Gore, Greta Thunberg) while shying away from the lies and misinformation that have been generated.  

This poster already has written that CO2 is a 'trace gas'. and then when I pointed out the problem with that logic, just moved on without acknowledging his error.  What do you want to bet we will see someone use this argument on this board again someday ?

The disadvantage of real science it that it's empirical - it has to build on real arguments.  Trash science blows smoke, rehashes falsehoods and benefits from all of the noise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Irrelevant.  I could feed you a *tiny* amount of poison and you can tell me how that feels.  You are repeating anti-science noise you have read on some garbage site set up to convince people like you that Climate Change is a hoax.  I already explained that the Greenhouse Effect can be reproduced in the lab.  

You asked me to be honest - will you try to be intellectually honest in kind ?

2. Saying I'm like 'little Greta' isn't really helping your argument.  Your argument was to ignore my point about Greenhouse Effect, post an irrelevant fact and then start name calling.

3. All of this is irrelevant but let's see if you respond honestly to points 1 & 2.
 

Solar Output

The main source of Earth’s heat is the Sun, so even small variations in solar output can have an impact on the climate. Researchers monitor these changes by observing sunspots and (more recently) satellite measurements.

When there is an increase in sunspots, solar output also increases. Scientists at the University of Washington have determined that at the peak of the 11-year solar cycle, increased solar output causes a sudden warming of the atmosphere of 0.16 °C.

Orbital Changes

Changes in the Earth’s orbit mean that the distance between the Earth and Sun varies over a long period of time, causing frequent variations in the total amount of solar energy reaching our planet. These variations affect terrestrial climate change and the characteristic frequencies are known as Milankovitch cycles.  unquote

3 Main Natural Causes of Climate Change | Greentumble

 The fact is you believe man can control the climate, but the reality is it is very doubtful because in order to stop emitting CO2, man would have to destroy almost everything to try to stop releasing CO2.  The energy industries like oil and gas, the coal mining, driving motor vehicles, shipping goods on the ocean and flying aircraft.  Manufacturing would have to stop using oil and most things use oil to be produced.  The agriculture industry uses machinery that requires oil.  Where would our food come from and how would it be shipped.  Life on the planet is built on and depends on the existing energy industry for oil/gas.  Mankind would die if it disappeared.  It's not going to happen.  Taking money from working people in the west to give to the third world is not going to stop climate change either.  It will only hurt hundreds of millions of people.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

1. Excuse me as I try to rationalize those two sentences beside each other.
2. Irrelevant.
3. We can definitely estimate costs and that's all we need to do for this part of the exercise.
4. I can't resolve these two sentences either.  If you choose to do nothing about a raging fire in your backyard then - yes - you are responsible if it burns down your neighbour's garage.

The rest of your post is circus music... I saw "what a joke" and that just makes me stop reading your post sorry.

The climate change I’m referring to is part of a natural cycle as we move between glacial periods.  People have migrated in response to natural climate change for thousands of years.  Easter Island is just one example.  We’re better positioned to adapt than at any time in human history. More people are impacted by disasters because there are a lot more people in the world, but the world population will flatten due to demographics, education, and urbanization by the 2050’s.  Squeezing populations financially and threatening our energy and food security to pursue theoretical solutions that may have no significant impact is stupid.

Again, if it’s that important to you, use your power as a consumer and influencer to change human behaviour.  Give up your central heating and live in a hemp tent and eat lichen and bugs.  One less carbon footprint.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Anything to not talk about Climate Change I guess...

If somebody points at a Meteor coming at earth make sure to take her down based on age and character first and foremost...

I have a book coming out about how drinking paint is bad for your health.

I don't dislike her, I just don't understand why anyone would care about what she has to say.  She has no expertise about anything, she's literally a random person like you or I.  We should be listening to scientists not teenager activists.

Her economics expertise is also zero.  She doesn't mention that western capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty and saved countless lives.  It's not as black and white as most college kids think it is, who tend to only see the negative in anything that has power.  USA, capitalism, rich people, western civilization, whitey, men...we know the drill.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Irrelevant.  I could feed you a *tiny* amount of poison and you can tell me how that feels.  You are repeating anti-science noise you have read on some garbage site set up to convince people like you that Climate Change is a hoax.  I already explained that the Greenhouse Effect can be reproduced in the lab.  

You asked me to be honest - will you try to be intellectually honest in kind ?

2. Saying I'm like 'little Greta' isn't really helping your argument.  Your argument was to ignore my point about Greenhouse Effect, post an irrelevant fact and then start name calling.

3. All of this is irrelevant but let's see if you respond honestly to points 1 & 2.
 

“Fighting climate change” through taxpayer-funded programs and draconian regulations on energy production is a scam that turns over money and geopolitical control to countries that aren’t as gullible as we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  I just don't understand why anyone would care about what she has to say. 
2. She has no expertise about anything, she's literally a random person like you or I.  We should be listening to scientists not teenager activists.

3. Her economics expertise is also zero.  She doesn't mention that western capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty and saved countless lives.  It's not as black and white as most college kids think it is, who tend to only see the negative in anything that has power.  USA, capitalism, rich people, western civilization, whitey, men...we know the drill.

1. Who knows why people get popular in the Zeitgeist ?  Maybe Zeitgeist does.
2. Well, sure, but... we don't listen to scientists either.  How many people know her name vs. say Michael Mann.
3. Does she really want to 'end' capitalism ?  Seems like a characterization of her position that isn't purely correct:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. Solar Output

2. Orbital Changes

3. The fact is you believe man can control the climate, but the reality is it is very doubtful because in order to stop emitting CO2, man would have to destroy almost everything to try to stop releasing CO2. 

4.  Taking money from working people in the west to give to the third world is not going to stop climate change either.  It will only hurt hundreds of millions of people.

1. There have been plenty of papers on Solar Output and they don't correlate with increases in temperature.
2. Orbital changes, cosmic rays etc.  I have read on this also... it hasn't convinced Climate Scientists.
3. This is a strawman argument... we don't have to stop releasing CO2.
4. "Working people" have to deal with the effects of climate change.  They can't all afford air conditioning etc.  And the narrative of "working people" as well as the disinfo sites you appear to follow... it's funded by Fossil Fuel lobby groups - you know that right ?

Main thing you haven't addressed with this response is that there's nothing that could possibly convince you that Greenhouse Gases are the cause, even if they were.  You see ?

That's why I say that your position is irresponsible.  You're now grabbing onto theories that have far less evidence for some reason.  I have made my points here.  I would like to hear your response to this though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. The climate change I’m referring to is part of a natural cycle as we move between glacial periods.  People have migrated in response to natural climate change for thousands of years.  
2.  We’re better positioned to adapt than at any time in human history. More people are impacted by disasters because there are a lot more people in the world, but the world population will flatten due to demographics, education, and urbanization by the 2050’s.  
3. Squeezing populations financially and threatening our energy and food security to pursue theoretical solutions that may have no significant impact is stupid.
4. Again, if it’s that important to you, use your power as a consumer and influencer to change human behaviour.  Give up your central heating and live in a hemp tent and eat lichen and bugs.  One less carbon footprint.

1. Yes we know about that.
2. Yes.
3. The cost to mitigate climate change was estimated by the UN Climate Change group as single digit percentage of GDP, I think perhaps even low single digits.  If there's an economic argument, let's have it.  But let's not exaggerate.   And in a thread where people are scoffing at helping poor nations who are impacted, let's frame exactly whose food security or general security is "threatened" under various scenarios.
4. Also my power as an advocate, as someone who has free speech, and as a voter.  I don't ever want to give up central heating or do those things, nor do I need to.  Hysterical arguments like that coming from people who are screaming about an 11-cent gas tax are discouraging, to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,418
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    stevenwilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • ironstone went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • reason10 went up a rank
      Veteran
    • Manymoons11 earned a badge
      First Post
    • LTJ earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • akayy earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...