It's why we don't let them choose to: vote, drink, drive, own guns, own lighters, sign contracts, have sex with older people, buy tobacco, join the military, etc....
I love how the Left ignores this well known fact when some dumb kid says something they like.
You mean when they speak the truth? You don't need a driver's license to do that, you know.
shareQuid veritas?
shareSince 1970 the number of fish in the ocean has dropped by half. The coral reefs are dying because of the warming waters. Bird populations have plummeted almost 30%. And 40% of all insect species are in decline, with about a third seriously endangered - being pillars of the food chain this is not good.
We are at the beginning of a mass extinction. It's happening as we speak. And the fantasy of endless economic growth is indeed a fairy tale. The challenge of our future is figuring out how to live on a finite planet with a stable population and run a high tech society without destroying the ecosystem. We can do it, but we have to get off our asses and get to work right now.
Nice copy and paste from a different post. No citation required just more apocalyptic scare tactics. No different than Greta or media.
We are at the beginning of a mass extinction, really. same as we were 30 years ago when the same threat was given. so when does this mass extinction begin?
!0 years, 100 years, so far they just keep moving the date when there apocolyptic guess doesn't doesn't come true.
Stable population - You can currently fit the world's population quite comfortably into New Zealand.
Everything you mention can be explained through multiple ways. Including logging, agriculture (those vegens need there land for more plant food), invasive animal species, over fishing in certain waters (which by the way there are laws to try and stop that). Yes these are man made issues and need resolving but they are not climate change.
Every 10 years someone comes out and says the ice caps will melt, some part of the planet will be underwater and every 10 years these scare tactics don't come true. Al Gore we are looking at you.
You wanna help, bring solutions, invent technology to replace what we have. Screaming "The end of the world is nigh" doesn't help anyone and just provokes people into not doing anything.
It's funny how they don't reply when you inject some logic into their panicked minds. Very nice, rational, logical post.
The world isn't ending anytime soon. They've been saying it for hundreds of years.
I'm not against helping the environment, I always do what I can, but I am sure as hell against these weirdo climate doomsday prophets telling me the world is going to end tomorrow.
This is a serious question that no one ever answers: Why isn't everyone pissed at Greta, or Leo DiCaprio, or Al Gore, for burning more fuel into the atmosphere flying around in private jets or airplanes...polluting more than any of us will ever get close to in our lifetimes. These climate nuts should be furious with Greta for flying on planes, or ANYTHING that could harm the environment. Right?
This is the most hypocritical issue out there in politics right now, and that's saying a lot in these moronic times we live in.
There are currently 7.7 billion people in the world and New Zealand has a land mass of 268,000 square kilometres. Which by my calculations makes it 38,285 people per square kilometre if we all shift there. Not sure how comfortable I’d be.
share"shift" love it. A term I'd not heard before, yet instantly understood.
shareChris, IF what you're telling us is true; and IF the problem is as extensive as you think; and IF we have only a short time to rectify the problem, how the hell do you expect it to be solved? A catastrophe as big as you describe would be impossible to stop, no matter how soon we "get off our asses and get to work". The only people who imagine it's fixable are young, callow children, who yell at their parents to fix it whenever a toy fails to work.
In these "demonstrations" that you're having, making pests of yourselves, the crowds are always the same; skinny young teenagers with silly faces and the fake-earnest manner and posturing affectations of old-time hippies. Extravagant hairdos and deliberately eccentric clothes are their uniform. Children's faces, but with a rehearsed mask of pretend outrage which makes them look like what they are - children playing at being grown-ups.
So, what are these kiddies doing? They know they can't hope to fix these "problems", so they do the next best thing; what they've done since they were babies; they cry and wail at the grown-ups to fix them. Some of them, like Greta Thunberg, overdo it and actually insult them and abuse them. Being children, simple courtesy isn't in their repertoire yet.
That's why she and her playmates are getting such a backlash. Adults see them for what they are. Anyone who has raised kids through teenage years recognises the same old act. It's kids being kids. They want their mobile phones, their TVs, their video games, their cars, buses and taxis, their hamburgers, but they also want the adults to fix the world so they can continue to enjoy those things
And the really annoying part is that these children know it. Kids will try to get away with whatever adults will allow them to get away with. All these nuisance children will grow up, are growing up as we speak, and in time they'll understand why their behaviour today was so foolish.
Then they'll pull their heads in, get jobs, and start to live in the real world.
Then they'll pull their heads in, get jobs, and start to live in the real world.
Chris, that's kinda like the logical fallacy of "Begging the question". You're trying to convince people that there's a problem, by repeating that there's a problem.
I don't believe there's a "very real and very serious issue". What there is, is a bunch of immature, bored, self-aggrandizing adolescents looking for some "Big Thing" to identify with in the hope that it'll give their pointless young lives a bit of excitement.
They're at the age when dramatic things capture their interest like flames do a moth. And once hooked, it's hard for them to let it go, because it becomes integrated with their fragile developing personality. The clue is that they give themselves "titles". And to reinforce the fantasy that they're in a "real thing", they also give a title to anyone who shows the slightest hint of not wanting to be involved. And the titles they give others are always a little unnecessarily uncivil, the better to tacitly insult their opponents. Note that "Climate Deniers" aren't called simply "dissenters". No, they're called "Denier", because it sounds more accusatory.
That's just the young ones. The older people whom you see at the "demonstrations" are acting in an altogether different movie. They're the older folk whose lives are empty, maybe because of failed ambitions, failed hopes, lost ideals, etc.. They've got less to lose, (except their dignity), and so the idea of walking along a street with a bunch of children, pretending to be relevant, appeals to them.
It's all happened before, Chris. In the real world, each generation goes through this stage in life, just as they enter their adolescence. It's inevitable. Emerging from their "child" years, when they had no say in anything because Mom and Dad ran their lives, they suddenly feel the instinctive urge to "be" a person in their own right. They look eagerly for a catalyst to help that process. This year, it's the weather...
Well I'm glad you don't believe there's a real and serious issue. I happen to be a physicist myself, and in a position to have evaluated the available evidence. I really am sorry you're dwelling in a different world from the rest of us. Really. But your position is dead wrong, you can believe it with every fiber of your being and that doesn't matter one bit. The laws of physics don't negotiate or respond to lobbyists and money. Thankfully public opinion is no longer on your side. Which means our civilization just might get this under control before it becomes a full-blown disaster.
shareIf you're a physicist, and presumably a rational, educated, level-headed adult, then your manner of enlightening us about your concerns is totally inappropriate.
When Einstein was moved to write to Roosevelt recommending that the US start a nuclear program because Nazi Germany might do so and develop atomic bombs, he wrote the letter in a moderate, calm style, completely free of histrionics. And this was a matter of far, far more immediate concern than the weather! You "Climate Activists" are no Einsteins, that's for sure!
The world I live in is certainly a different world than that of hysterical "Believers In Causes". Monomaniacs who try to turn me to their pet cause by insults, accusations, and outright denunciations reveal their fanatical character more clearly than their Cause. And I think this is the same for many people. We hear a rabid partisan of The Cause berating others and expounding on their beliefs, quoting "facts", and "proofs", and warning of frightening consequences if we don't become Believers. Some of us, certainly, are taken in by the colorful language and the drama. It excites them. But others think it doesn't sound quite right. They're reminded of fire-and-brimstone evangelists who did exactly the same thing in the superstitious past. Not by trying to prove there was a god; but by desperately trying to make us take their word for it that there was.
Public opinion of ranting biblical prophets has never been "on their side". And it's the same for "Climate Activists", with their hysterical forebodings of doom and their tearful staged theatrical performances. If, as you claim, public opinion is not on the side of the rationalists like me, then that is merely an indicator that the public is starved for stimulation and titillation today. And that's the real reason why this "Cause" gets the attention that it does.
Listen to yourself. You certainly don't sound very rational. Likening climate change activists to prophets of doom and their message to religious doctrine amounts to little more than petty name calling. If you were in my class, you'd get an F. Where's the scientific reasoning? Where's the discussion of climatology and what you think is in error? That reply of yours is nothing more than a raw appeal to emotion.
share"...nothing more than a raw appeal to emotion."
:D :D Oh, lordy.... "Climate Activists" never stoop to that tactic, do they, Chris.
Btw, you call yourself a "physicist". I'm guessing you're just a high-school teacher who gives a Physics class. Big difference, as you know..
That’s being far too generous. Just some kid who saw Cosmos on TV and fell for Tyson’s nonsense.
There is no science behind man made climate disruption. It’s a wild guess based on what we’ve observed on Venus. A planet with an atmosphere 90x as dense as Earths, and made up of 96.5% co2. Earths atmosphere is .04% co2. Of that 3.4% is produced by humans. Nothing humans do regarding co2 is going to make a difference in the climate.
That said, we should be addressing the world wide pollution problems primarily cause by Asia.
I think he sounds a lot more rational than you. There are plenty of scientists who say man made global warming is a hoax, with scientific data to back them up. We're far from a consensus.
shareWe achieved a consensus years ago. 97% of the world's climate scientists are in agreement, the remaining 3% ... well a lot of them work for the fossil fuel industry. Sorry. It's just the truth. What Big Oil is doing is reminiscent of Big Tobacco's misinformation campaign to muddy the waters on the smoking-cancer link for decades after there was universal consensus within the medical community. Trying to send that message to the public that it's not that bad, the doctors are all worried over nothing. You can always find a few professionals in any field who can be bought off to say whatever you want them to. And 3% would be a shockingly small number of dissenting voices even if every single one of them were honest players.
Computer modeling and predictions of timelines is complicated but the basic physics is the stuff of a high school curriculum. If you've taken introductory level thermodynamics in college, you understand the greenhouse effect and where the basic warming predictions come from. And we're seeing it. The amount of CO₂ we've added to the atmosphere is a known quantity. It's been tracked by satellite for decades. We know how much, and where it's originating. The change in atmospheric composition can be measured at any spot on Earth - including the room you're sitting in right now. There's more carbon dioxide around you at this very moment than there would've been just ten or fifteen years ago. You can't feel the difference, but with the right lab equipment you could've made two measurements and seen it for yourself. And the amount of warming being observed in the world right now is consistent with the known addition of CO₂ by human activity. There's literally very little room for alternate mechanisms. What we've added is sufficient to explain it all.
Those people with actual PhDs who aren't in the employ of Big Oil yet continue to insist there's a "debate" on climate change are the fringe types. The idiot who kicked off the anti-vaxxer movement was a real doctor. Not anymore, but he was at the time. If you're looking for any reason not to believe the world's in trouble, you can always find someone trumpeting that message. If you look objectively at the vast accumulation of data and the credible science though you just ... can't believe it. So do you want comfort or do you want the truth? That's what you have to decide.
We can still head off the worst of the crisis. Focus on that.
An opinion column in an industry friendly publication, which includes some glaring misinformation. He states that the warming trend has leveled off over the last decade - and it most certainly has not!
Here are the top ten hottest years on record:
Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
01 2016 0.94 1.69
02 2015 0.90 1.62
03 2017 0.84 1.51
04 2018 0.77 1.39
05 2014 0.74 1.33
06 2010 0.70 1.26
07 2013 0.66 1.19
08 2005 0.65 1.17
09 2009 0.64 1.15
10 1998 0.63 1.13
Most of them, and the worst, have been in the last ten years. It's like I said. If you cherry pick your sources and give more weight to people saying what you want to hear, you can always convince yourself.
Alex Epstein (not to be confused with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein) founded a think tank called the Center for Industrial Progress. Know who funds them? Exxon-Mobil. Funny he didn't mention that in his column. The guy's not even a scientist. He's an industry shill. Go ahead, look into it on your own. I'm not making this up.
The OSS Foundation is a front for the oil industry. It lists assets of less than $1 million and fewer than 10 employees on its payroll. How much research do you think they're doing? We don't know exactly who's behind them, laws don't require that they disclose their benefactors, but it's believed this is part of the Koch network.
Like I keep saying, if you're determined to seek out sources who are saying what you want to believe, you can do that. If you want to look at real facts and real data (from agencies like NASA) they do not support any of this right wing industry sponsored nonsense. Are you going to dispute the weather information for the last ten years? Are you going to tell me that idiot in Forbes hasn't blatantly contradicted it with his statements (an activity known in less polarized times as lying)?
Look, totally not believing in climate change won't alter a thing. The laws of physics are what they are. The data is what it is. I ask you again: do you want to believe what you want to believe, or do you want to know the truth? Because they may not be the same thing.
I believe the weather is cycling as it's done for millennia.
shareBut it's not. There are ice cores that reveal general climate conditions and atmospheric composition for the last 800,000 years. We are already 25% above the highest previous CO₂ concentration during that time (a little more than 300,000 years ago) and still on a ballistic climb.
This is not a natural phenomenon. As I said, the amount of added CO₂ by humans is a known quantity and is sufficient to explain the observed warming trend in its entirety. There really is no room for additional mechanisms.
I can't understand why so many people these days are almost allergic to changing their positions on anything. It's like Donald Trump's never admit you're wrong, never apologize, always double down, has become contagious. When the facts are obviously pointing in a different direction, you should drop your previous beliefs.
Of course, being a scientist myself I suppose that's just the way I've been trained to think. There's no ego attachment to one particular theory. If the evidence contradicts what you thought before you drop the old theory like a bad habit and embrace a new one. Stubbornly clinging to wrong ideas isn't strength. It's weakness. I wish more politicians would get that.
As a scientist, what are your thoughts on the hockey stick graph? I asked you if you believed in a correlation between carbon emissions and the temperature, but I didn't get an answer yet.
shareYes, absolutely. Has everything I've written not already made that clear? And it's not a matter of belief. It's about the laws of physics and the empirical data.
shareYou do know that the hockey stick graph was debunked and even the IPCC, which is a questionable organization to begin with, has discounted it as well.
shareI wasn't talking about the graph. You wanted to know if I believed there was a connection between carbon emissions and temperature. Yes there is.
You can find questionable conclusions and questionable people among those who call themselves environmentalists. It's always been a right wing tactic to pick them out, hold them up as examples, and claim this quack is the voice of climate science so it's all crap. I really hope you're not going to fall back on that tired trope.
Here's a graph of the global average temperature over the last 800,000 years:
https://i.imgur.com/UzOfJfa.jpg
Note the extremely close correlation between greenhouse gas levels and global average temperature. The rate of CO₂ increase over the last few decades has no precedent. The fastest natural thaws from past ice ages had CO₂ levels go up approximately 35 parts per million (ppm) in 1,000 years. Humans have managed the same change artificially in the last 17 years alone.
So tell me, based on the current high carbon dioxide levels and their ballistic increase where do you think things are headed? Hint: this story does not end well without drastic action.
Where did that graph come from? I'd like to see the source. Please tell me this was a peer reviewed graph as well.
Also, if you complain about trope, you shouldn't do it yourself by quoting that 97% of scientist believe in global warming. It's pointless. I can say the earth is warming, but I can't say why and I haven't seen the proof that carbon emissions is directly related to temperature.
Is Patrick Moore reputable? He has a phd in forest biology and a former member of Greenpeace.
We know where all the CO₂ has been coming from. Did I not mention this before? I'm pretty sure I did. It's accounted for. There's no room for mysterious additional naturally-occurring mechanisms.
That graph (as I mentioned) is based purely on empirical data. The atmospheric CO₂ levels are measured largely by using ice cores from Antarctica and various other locations around the world. There is excellent agreement among the different sites.
There are other sources too. To pick just one example, if you have impermeable rock with air bubbles trapped inside, you date the rocks to determine their approximate age and crack them open to release the trapped air inside a vacuum chamber. Mass spectrometry gives you a highly accurate breakdown of the ancient atmosphere. Again there is good agreement with the ice cores. Unlike politicians and corporate shills, scientists don't just pull numbers out of their asses.
The fact is, 97% of climate scientists are in agreement. Saying they're not, or peddling that oil industry crap about natural climate cycles, is either ignorance or deliberate lying. One or the other.
If you are a climate change denier, you are wrong. If you actually believe your denials you're delusional and wrong. If you lash out at people trying to stave off disaster, you're angry, delusional ... and wrong. I'm sorry but science is not politics. Personal beliefs and point of view don't mean a thing. Only the facts - and the facts are against you.
97% in agreement of what exactly?
I'm very skeptical, so I would need to see the source of the graph you produced. As I'm sure you are aware, there are a lot of bogus reports out there.
I agree with you that science isn't politics, but even scientists are letting their political biases get in the way of empirical findings. Obviously, I don't trust anything Michael Mann has produced since his findings are not peer reviewed.
I'd like to know what your take is on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE
Honestly, I don't know one way or the other. There's so many different thoughts, positions and theories coming from all different directions and sifting the truth from the lies has become pretty impossible.
shareYou have to look at where the information is coming from. Almost all of the really vocal deniers have publicly known entanglements with industry or work for shadowy non-profits whose funding is hard to pin down. You can easily find out details on more reputable organizations - who runs them, where their money comes from, etc. Alarms should go off when you have a hard time getting those kinds of specifics.
Entities that do real research will pop up on mainstream media sites and academic sources (including scientific articles). There will be a wide range of different types of search results. The shady guys only show up on Google as results from their own web page or highly opinionated pieces like Mr. Epstein's. Occasionally several such groups will reference one another in a circular manner. But you don't see them anywhere else.
If someone cites the work of Dr. So-and-so, find out who that is. I actually saw a researcher mentioned in an article once who was dismissed from his previous position as a university professor because he was found to have falsified data! One of the few things grievous enough to get a tenured professor fired.
I seriously do not understand this. There have been challenges thrown down for cited facts and plans of action and you, as a scientist, instead choose to keep ranting and insulting others? How about some education? How about some recommendations that would make sense and have a common ground among the widest base possible? So many of "the rest of us" just keep screaming that we need to vote differently but never offer up actionable plans for the individual. Why is that? Why not tell people about the easiest and most cost efficient ways to reduce their carbon footprint? Furthermore, are you doing these yourself?
Yeah, yeah... "Public opinion" may not be on the side of whomever you're ranting against but public action most certainly is. These protestors were riding in SUVs, shoveling Big Macs in their mouths and throwing single-use plastics on the ground just like everyone else. They may claim they want it to stop but they want it to stop as much as an addict does while kowtowing to their own habit. It's insanity. If these people want to be taken seriously they must walk the walk more than they talk the talk.
No, there have no been no credible challenges "thrown down". The arguments that aren't intentional misinformation, if the people citing them really knew their stuff they could answer their own objections. In my experience those who are powerfully opposed to climate research and its conclusions - which have damn near universal acceptance in the scientific community, with good reason - subscribe to their beliefs because they don't want to believe things are as bad as they in fact actually are. The message that it's all good and these scientist types are worried over nothing is comforting. They'd rather believe that.
Guess what? Flat Earthers are wrong too. There are striking parallels between them and climate change deniers. Both groups are intent on believing something that's patently false, and don't want to be convinced otherwise therefore they're resistant to any explanations you try giving them. It's a big conspiracy. There's all this money to be made in conning the world into believing we live on a big ball. Flat Earth is a more ridiculous position, yes, but it's basically the same social phenomenon at work. It's mostly the oil industry that has a huge financial incentive to engage in elaborate misinformation campaigns. Just like the tobacco industry, and their decades long effort to muddy the waters and deny a connection between smoking and cancer long after there was no remaining doubt among doctors.
Why does everyone always miss the second part of the message? We can still (mostly) fix this! It's going to require some major changes, and some short term sacrifices. So what? We've been putting it off, putting it off, for years and decades, just so filthy rich billionaires can make more money right this second. Time to step up. The new clean economy will actually benefit everyone except those heavily invested in the dirty one. Individual lifestyle changes, unfortunately, are only the very tip of the iceberg's tip. At the level of nations and industries is where the real difference is made. People only use plastics because that's what's being manufactured and made available. Fiberglass could easily replace most plastic containers - to pick one example. It has most of the same useful properties as plastic. And those containers will be fully recyclable because ... they're made of glass. Melt it all down and reuse it.
"Individual lifestyle changes, unfortunately, are only the very tip of the iceberg's tip."
Individuals create markets and cause changes in culture. It can happen quicker and without the need to getting special-interest bought politicians to make meaningful changes. If all of these people who "believe" there is a problem they can go a long way in solving the problem by (TADA!) actually living with the sacrifices they know they'll have to make and using their purchasing power to buy the most ecological products.
Instead what we largely see if a bunch of assholes living the same lives as the people they claim to be again and telling everyone else they need to tighten the belt. WTF is that? Anyone who thinks they're an environmentalist who isn't actively decreasing their carbon footprint today is a liar and a fool.
If you're going to be the little defeatist and cry "they don't want to believe things are as bad as they in fact actually are" without presenting the facts then YOU are the problem.
I've presented the facts so many times people have accused me of cutting and pasting responses. Sorry, but the structure of this type of board (and similar ones like Reddit) isn't terribly conducive to detailed debate. You have to keep starting over for those who haven't seen your other threads.
People buy what is made available to them. You can't purchase what's not in stock, and even most things advertised as supposedly eco-friendly are scams (not a lot of regulations regarding the claims companies can make). Everyone can be for green power but the utility companies just ... don't act on it. They do whatever makes them the most money right this second and changing their infrastructure from oil to something else just doesn't do that for them. They won't make those changes until they're forced to from above. I hate to break this to you, but corporations never, ever do the right thing unless the law requires them to.
And it's simply a fact: personal lifestyle choices are a drop in the bucket compared to the output of nations and industries. "It all starts with you" is a great message to slap on a bumper sticker, but it doesn't really reflect reality. The power of oil companies over governments must be broken. Laws requiring reductions in emissions and setting at least a preliminary timetable for getting to zero must be passed in countries around the world. Nations that won't sign on need to be sanctioned by everyone else until they do. We're all basically living on a very big space station. What one group does to its environmental quality affects everyone else.
Read up on the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM for short). That's probably the best geological time period to compare with what's beginning to happen now. We've managed to do in 150 years what took 3,000 years back then but the analogy is still a fairly good one. Try to imagine the environmental, economic, and geopolitical consequences of conditions like those returning. Not a literal doomsday, but the beginning of a world much harsher and less hospitable than the one humanity has always known. Just so some oil billionaires can make even more money. Very sad, if it comes to pass. It doesn't have to. But people denying reality only increases the chances of things going in that direction.
You keep running the same track and not presenting anything but excuses. I don't know where you are but where I am we can choose our electric supplier and some of them are green. Most people avoid them because they cost a bit more. People who "believe" in this must pony up or this will not change anytime soon.
Personal lifestyle choices can build markets and cultures. To ignore this is to deny the bottom line. Billionaires didn't just pop up out of the soil, they were made by consumers and consumers can change that tide. They can do it faster and more efficiently than the government has. But so-called environmentalists don't want to make sacrifices, they want to point fingers. I won't make a judgement call about how you live but if you're like most other "environmentalists" your lifestyle likely isn't any different than your neighbor who thinks that climate change is a hoax. The people who are demanding the change must first change themselves or it won't be taken seriously.
And corporations will listen to their consumers if their consumers are ardent enough about their position and actually employee boycott instead of just talking out of their asses.
Well we can't choose our supplier here. But my house runs on a wind/solar combo system with backup batteries in the basement. There are too many power failures where I live, lines down in ice storms and such which take a week or more to fix, I would've installed my own system even without my environmental concerns. Not being at the mercy of those idiots anymore is a good feeling!
I don't know what "excuses" you're talking about. You seem like one of those people who's in denial that we basically (in the US) live under a crony capitalist oligarchy, not a democracy. We have oligarchs in this country just like in Russia. Granted we aren't quite as far down that road as Putin's chunk of paradise but we're headed in that direction with the ridiculous and widening gap between the top and bottom of our economic ladder. Not to mention the filthy, corrupt, money soaked electoral system we have.
Even trivial stuff doesn't get done if big money is against it. More than 90% of the people have wanted the near monopolies of Big Cable dismantled for decades - and it hasn't happened because big money bribes have been paid to make sure of that. The majority of Americans want something done about climate change and carbon pollution. Unfortunately the oil industry practically dictates energy policy. Under the Big Orange Orangutan, more than just practically. What you're saying amounts to, either disconnect from the power grid and go dark or quit yer whining! Because that's the only option left when you ask Big Oil to change their ways and they say "No!".
I happened to be able to afford my own private power system. Not everyone can. Companies will keep burning fossil fuels until they're forced to stop. They will keep manufacturing things out of plastic until regulations require them to use something else, like fiberglass. Consumers protesting won't get that change. They'll be forced to take plastic or nothing. If you don't like your big cable bill, feel free to have no internet. If you don't like the cost of your prescription drugs, fine. Die then. This is how things work. Big industries dictate the terms, they don't let terms get dictated to them by uppity little peasants. There is very little response to consumer demand under our current system.
Thanks for the partisan rant. It clearly shows why you can't have a reasonable discussion about things.
shareI notice you don't dispute any of my statements. When people use the partisan card, criticize you for saying something instead of dissecting it, call you a libtard, or whatever, it's just like what's going on now with the impeachment process argument. You can't dispute facts so you dodge and distract, discuss irrelevancies instead.
What I said was the truth. So much money is thrown around, especially these days after that truly horrific Citizens United decision, the people are not listened to. Policies the vast majority of the public wants to see but big money doesn't are not being enacted, year after year, decade after decade. Oligarchs dictate the agenda. Politicians take their filthy bribe money and do the bidding of their lords and masters. Every few years they go home and lie to their constituents. I'm on your side. I'm fighting for the people. Then they go back to Washington and serve big money. Tell me I'm wrong.
I, in no way, used ad hominem with you. And you certainly never disputed or discussed my points. In this way I guess we're on even grounds. By your own terms you've condemned yourself.
You went off on wild tangents instead of sticking to the topic at hand. You're attempting to loop in unrelated points. That is no basis for a solid discussion. It's a tactic that has no value to me because I don't fall into any neat little box. This is about what people can do to help the process, you seemingly want to turn it into a political debate. I'm not dodging nor distracting. You are.
Not a single fact discussed there buddy. One hundred percent attacking me. This is how people "debate" when they have no counterpoints; because when they do, they go ahead and make them - and skip the personal attacks.
It's not an unrelated set of points. Action on climate change has been stymied for years by Big Oil's dirty money and the puppet politicians who get down on their knees and take it. Climate change in the current sense of the term has been a known issue since at least the 70's, and you can find warnings of an eventual crisis as far back as the 19th century. That's because it's very simple science, computer modeling and predicting of timelines is complicated, but the basic underpinnings are Thermodynamics 101. There are many reasons why the power of corporations and the rich must be broken. To save our democracy for one thing. But saving our planet is even more critical!
I hope someday you become reasonable enough to re-read this thread and understand that you went very off topic, made baseless accusations and resorted to a victim complex play before anyone else.
I wonder if you even understand that we're both on the same side of the issue.
All smoke and no substance, yet again. Looking back at the posts I see that I've been trying to explain myself each time and you've been attacking ... me. Not my facts. Sorry you don't like the message. That you haven't even attempted to refute it directly speaks volumes though. I'm done. There's not much point debating someone who isn't actually addressing what you say, merely criticizing the way you're saying it. So signing off, over and out ...
shareNo, I tried to bring out the potential of the individual and you kept presenting excuses for their laziness and excusing your own lack of not contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way with talk like "I've presented the facts so many times people have accused me of cutting and pasting responses. Sorry, but the structure of this type of board (and similar ones like Reddit) isn't terribly conducive to detailed debate. You have to keep starting over for those who haven't seen your other threads."
You're the one who doesn't like the message. And the message that you openly claim not to like has more to do with you than me. Someday you'll hopefully come to terms with this because your defeatist attitude and talking in circles isn't solving anything for anyone. It's just giving you a soapbox to rant rant from.
Another response that consists of one hundred percent attacking me. Typical right winger. Go watch Fox "News" and leave the discussion to those who actually want to discuss real issues - not each other. 😝
You will respond I have no doubt. People like you always, always need to have the last word. If I replied twenty more times, you'd reply 21 times. Gotta have that last word! Go ahead, knock yourself out. I won't be checking this thread anymore. What small amusement there was in trying to debate you is long gone.
Funny. I quoted you and responded to it but all you wanted to do was insult and attack me? Never watched Fox News. I'm not a right winger. You have a problem with me so you're framing everything to keep me in a little box that makes it easier for you to dismiss the facts.
You claimed you were done on the last post. How about sticking to it.
while you're at it; stop having kids, eating meat, using AC and traveling for no good reason. If you're a real environmentalist you'll do these things. If you scoff at your choices having any difference then you're not committed to it at all.
How much did that wind/solar system with batteries cost including the installation?
shareJust shy of $50,000. Yeah. Like I said, a lot of people can't afford that.
shareAre you completely off grid and receive all the electricity you need from the system? Also, how long are the batteries good for and how much are the replacements?
shareYes, I'm completely off grid. Battery lifespan varies between about 5 and 15 years they tell me - my system's been in place for 3 and none of them have failed yet. They cost between $5000 and $7000 to replace, depending on what type you get. How many you require depends on your power usage - which should be on your bill - and on how many days of autonomy (the time you can run on batteries alone) you want to build in.
Hybrid solar-wind systems have the advantage that power is usually still being generated at night, whereas with pure solar you're always running off batteries after dark. The price of your system will depend on factors related to your house and property too. If you're interested in such a system yourself, get an installer to come and give you an estimate.
Thanks for the info.
Now this is the problem. The cost is way too high. Current monthly electric bills are going to be about $100-200 a month. So if we say it's $150 a month it comes out to $1800 a year.
If the batteries let's say last 10 years and we'll use the low end cost of $5K, that amounts to a yearly cost of $500/year.
What this means is a household won't see any cost benefits of owning their own system until 38.5 years. Also, during those years, who knows what else might break. Solar panels will have to be replaced and maybe your wind blades or your generator. All that will extend the length until you'll see any benefit.
Now you're saying you're benefiting from not polluting and not using fossil fuels and this is where everything is hidden. Was your solar panels made with solar power? Was the lithium mined for your batteries mined by use of solar/wind/hydroelectric power? Was your generator and fan blades made by use of wind power?
Also, solar panels and batteries go bad and you can't throw them to biodegrade in a landfill and they're not recyclable. Those items will pollute the ground water.
So not only is it not economically feasible, it is not even a 1:1 ratio of environmental benefit when you take into the account the pollution it took to create your system.
The amount of pollution (which is mostly conjecture anyway unless you know the exact facility it was manufactured in) involved in making a single set of blades, panels, inverters, etc., is insignificant. Far far less than the carbon footprint of getting your power from a coal fired plant over the useful lifetime of your system.
Li-ion batteries are certainly recyclable. Right now you have to seek out a center that can process the batteries properly and take them there. If you just dump them in the colored recycling bin for municipal collection they may get where they need to go, and they may not. There definitely needs to be a systematic program for collecting and recycling these things, because lithium is a comparatively scarce element whose supply will become a problem if we don't reuse it.
Your assessment of the environmental benefit is wrong, it does make a difference and would be hugely beneficial on a large scale. The cost would indeed be problematic though. In some specific areas it's feasible, but not everywhere. Government programs to create additional tax credits or even outright subsidies would, again, be good in certain locations but cost far too much on a nationwide basis for everyone.
I installed my system as much because of the unreliability of our local utility as for my personal environmental concerns. Overly frequent and lengthy power failures, particularly during the winter, just got to be too much. The grid out here sucks and so does the power company. They get rate increases every other year but do nothing to upgrade their aging infrastructure as promised.
One of the things we need to do, which I'm surprised is discussed so little in public, is to complete the development of nuclear fusion. We actually have working fusion reactors. They consume more power than they put out, making them useless for power plants, but that's just an engineering problem. Increasing efficiencies until power output becomes net positive. This will not only allow us to generate almost unlimited clean power using deuterium - present in all water - but it works equally well anywhere on Earth including arctic latitudes where wind is sometimes inefficient and solar completely useless for months at a time.
As a side benefit thermonuclear powered rocket engines would open up the solar system to us in a whole new way. Imagine a three or four day trip to Mars in something the size of a cruise ship. You could reach the outer planets in a few weeks. All the stuff of sci-fi, mining operations, colonies, giant artificial habitats, which will never be possible with wimpy chemical rockets, become possible with fusion.
I appreciate your answer.
Let me say I understand your issue of power outages. That's a perfectly understandable reason to get off the grid and I would do the same if I could.
We know that mining pollutes a lot. With industrial dump trucks and excavators running all day and burning 50 gallons of diesel per day, the pollution is measurable. After that, it's the refining of the lithium uses fossil fuels and then the production of the specific battery types uses fossil fuels again. No where in this process is solar and wind feasible in sustaining this production cycle.
The government subsidies for solar has been a failure because even with government paying for some of the cost, the cost still outweighs the benefits. We aren't at the point where solar power cost effective.
Also, the huge solar and wind farms in the desert require a huge amount of land. The amount of energy/sq ft. is low compared to coal and oil plants. Even though these are out in the desert, it does negatively impact the environment with the animals living in that eco-system. Also, they're ugly. Just watch the opening of Blade Runner 2049.
I do agree with you when it comes to nuclear fusion. I do think we should retrofit and turn on our outdated nuclear power plants. It is technology that is cost effective and produces very little carbon emissions. Although a meltdown is always a possibility, there has only been three accidents in the world. Naval ships run on a nuclear reactor and no major incidents reported.
The nuclear fusion that you are talking about isn't way down the line, but definitely worthy of research.
So let me impose this question. What do we do now? Being that solar and wind are economically infeasible, what are you solutions?
Solar and wind are economically feasible to provide most power in a few places, like those desert environments (solar and wind farms are at worst no uglier than a smoke belching coal plant). They are even feasible to provide some of the energy in most places.
Nuclear fusion reactors already exist, and just need to be made efficient enough to produce net positive power output. Commercial power plants could be ready to go in the timespan of 15-20 years, possibly closer to 10 years if we sank enough money into the effort.
Under other circumstances I'd oppose generating more high level nuclear waste that will need to be stored somewhere for a very long time, but these days it may be the lesser of two evils. Still the construction of new nuclear fission power plants is not quick. Especially with licensing and the opposition of residents which will result in a lot of lengthy litigation.
Geothermal plants can theoretically be built anywhere. Using geothermal for things like residential heating and cooling are much easier than electricity though. It would reduce the load on the power grid since that's a significant consumer of energy.
Powersats are a cool idea. Huge solar collector arrays in space, where the sun always shines and the light is more intense than on the surface of the Earth. But this isn't really a short term solution since it would take decades to put in place. I only mention it because our entire grid could potentially be powered this way.
We really needed to start our energy transition back in the 80's or 90's. It's been put off and put off and put off because of big oil and their money's death grip on government. If you look at the Green New Deal being proposed by some progressive candidates, that's what it will take. When you wait until the week before the final exams to start reading the course material you have to cram like hell instead of taking it a bit at a time. That's the situation we're in unfortunately. We need to go to clean sources, no matter how unpalatable the cost, even if it further explodes the debt.
Where no clean option exists in the short term (such as aviation) we need to look into the construction of carbon sequestration plants to balance out the emissions we can't avoid. And also the deployment of aerosols into the stratosphere to generate a temporary global cooling effect - much like a major volcanic eruption would produce naturally.
Again, when it comes to a solar farm, the energy produced per sq. ft is a fraction compared to nuclear or gas refinery. Then you have the environmental issue of habitat displacement. We may not live out there, and we may not see it on a day to day basis, but do you really want to lose all of our natural landscape and only produce a fraction per sq. ft not to mention the maintenance and security of such a large area.
So given the choice of nuclear vs. solar and wind, you'd choose solar and wind? Give me the square foot size of a solar and wind farm to power NYC? It's infeasible. You say it's feasible in a few places and those places are most probably in state like New Mexico and Wyoming where cities are far and few between. Stating that, it doesn't change the fact of the high cost. Does the benefit outweigh the cost even if possible? I don't think people want to pay $500/month on their electric bill compared to $100 and that's pricing it conservatively.
Lets say the US adopts these expensive programs. What about the rest of the world? How are you going to make China, India, and the developing African nations change?
Being that this is a global issue and being that the US is not the #1 polluter of carbon emissions, how is us changing and them not changing supposed to work?
We are the number two polluter, second only to China. Have you been out in the desert southwest? The amount of area taken up by solar and/or wind farms would be so insignificant it would hardly have an impact on habitat. Global warming is a hell of a lot worse for wildlife, that's for sure.
China is starting to come around now. Their policies over the past few decades have been even more shortsighted than ours and resulted not only in horrible air quality in industrial areas but the contamination of water and soil over vast areas of agricultural land, now useless for the foreseeable future.
African nations don't contribute significantly to global carbon emissions. Except for South Africa, which is way down at the number 15 spot. Brazil emits more CO₂ than they do. And Brazil's emissions are less than ten percent of ours.
I didn't say I'd choose to ditch nuclear, merely recognized that the lack of new licenses issued in the US is directly linked to popular opposition to nuclear plants in the area by local residents around the country. It gets tied up in litigation for years and years, finally companies just gave up trying. And long term storage is a real issue. What happens if your central repository is ever compromised, say by an earthquake? It's just a safer bet. The risk of a massive release is very small over the span of a century, whereas the risk of unchecked global warming is very high.
What you do with solar and wind (and don't forget geothermal) is put the stations where they need to go and distribute the power through the grid. Obviously there isn't enough space near the city of New York to site all the power generating capacity it needs!
Wind farms are best set up offshore. Rich people who are picky about their oceanfront view will have to suck it up and deal. With these farms dotting our coastlines a significant amount of power could be delivered to cities up and down the two seaboards.
Read the various Green New Deal proposals. Significant cuts to carbon emissions by 2030 are quite feasible, as is zero net emissions in the 2040-2050 range. A lot of government investment will be needed. Those folks who hate anything government and think we should privatize secondary education, social security, and pretty much everything else are going to bitch and moan - but like the rich entitled twits who don't want to see windmills from their oceanfront mansions they're going to have to suck it up and deal. If we wanted a slow and gradual transition the time for that is decades behind us. We shouldn't have let Big Oil hold our energy policy hostage for so long.
Whatever the cost, this must be done. The effects we've seen so far are just the teaser trailer. It's going to get worse, and very very bad indeed if we keep going the way we are. Check out the latest estimates of cities likely to be inundated or flooded frequently by 2050. Every year the worst case scenarios have to be revised upward, because the warming is happening faster than anyone expected.
Let me ask you, do you believe their is a correlation between carbon emissions and the temperature? Is so, what is your basis for that reason?
What exactly is China doing and how are we going to enforce them or any other country?
No, I've never been to the desert in the southwest, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is how much land are you going to use for a solar farm?
People don't want offshore oil rigs not only because it pollutes the water, but also because they're eyesores. Do you want to see a beach sunset with a wind turbine or oil rig in it?
Rich people have to "suck it up"? Do you really think the residents of the Hamptons are going to allow wind farms to be erected off their coast?
So how much is it going to cost to build wind turbines offshore and the necessary cables to run to a power plant? Is the cost/benefit ratio feasible?
You seemed to have read the New Green Deal. Tell me a couple of things that are feasible currently.
Commercial solar plants can be of the solar thermal type; i.e. mirror systems that focus the sun's light and heat water to steam, driving a turbine to generate electricity. This is a more efficient process for large scale power production but isn't practical at the smaller residential scale. Photovoltaics have dropped dramatically in price and continue to decline. Right now the biggest obstacle to really cheap solar panels is Donald Trump's idiotic trade war.
Solar thermal plants could replace fossil fuel stations across much of the country. Power storage is the main challenge, although there are ways other than batteries to solve that. Artificial hydroelectric reservoirs are one option for example.
And yes, rich people have to suck it up. Too bad if they don't like looking at windmills off in the distance. The government will have to force it on them through regulation. We could always shoot these morons if they want to fight it. That works too. 😊
In answer to your question about cost though, in many cases these large scale projects compare favorably with the current plants and even when they don't, they come close enough. Government regulation and subsidies will be required in a lot of places. And if - perish the thought! - taxes need to be raised, make them progressive (higher percentages for higher income earners) and implement them.
Short term sacrifices and inconveniences may be necessary. There's no getting around it. Those people who want to be selfish and don't care about tomorrow, only today ... well we're going to be telling them they can't do that. Too bad if they don't like it. Read up on a geological period called the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) if you want a preview of the sort of thing we could be dealing with if we don't rein in global warming. Not a literal doomsday. But the end of the relatively benign Earth humanity has always known and the beginning of a much harsher world. Future generations really and truly will hate our guts for it.
Look, we're running out of space here. We should probably quit before we're writing in a single column down the page. There are plenty of places where you can find information on climate change and the plans to fight it. If you care to. There's so much information, I can't possibly convey more than snippets here. The internet is a wonderful thing. It's all out there for you.
Do you mean that you’re not connected to the grid at all or just that you don’t ever need to use utility power?
shareReconnecting to the grid could be done fairly quickly if I ever needed to, but at the moment my link is completely cut. Yes I could be making a little money selling power back to the company. But their service is so bad and they've pissed me off so much with their constant outages and excessive repair time over the years that I just wanted to kiss them off forever.
shareNice!
shareThe Earth has been at the beginning of a mass extinction since the first multi celled organism came into being. The Earth and species on it are ALWAYS in flux, and mass extinction of species has been happening for millions of years before humans came into the picture.
shareMass extinctions have occurred periodically throughout Earth's history. But we're causing this one, it is not a natural phenomenon. Humans exist now. We're the dominant force on the planet. And we'd better start acting more responsibly, pronto!
shareWe are affecting the planet, undoubtedly, for good AND bad and it's purely speculative the degree of our influence. Your assertion that everything negative that is happening is due to humans is speculative and flawed. It's illogical to assume that the normal changes in climate that occurred long before humans, is now solely due to humans. I had school textbooks in the late 80s that said we were headed towards the next ice age, which was the popular scientific opinion at the time. Either they were wrong, and you concede that science isn't always precise and opinions can quickly change, or attribute it to the fact that scientific opinion sways with the political climate and with corporate interests, but it has to be one of those.
shareThis graph shows atmospheric CO₂ concentrations in ppm over the last 800,000 years:
https://i.imgur.com/a5ZCcAn.gif
And this one expands the view, showing the increase from 1975 to present:
https://i.imgur.com/EVWPesp.png
In case there's any remaining doubt, check out these two plots of fossil fuel consumption and levels of CO₂ and methane (CH₄) on about the same scale, since 1800. One ends in 2017 and the other 2020 but note the inflection point around 1960 on both of them.
https://i.imgur.com/hLv0w4L.png
https://i.imgur.com/V71X5Tw.png
Awful coincidence - after hundreds of thousands of years of random up and down - to see an abrupt massive increase in greenhouse gases following the same curve as human caused emissions. Don't you think?
A lot has changed since those textbooks of yours were written. We're in uncharted waters here, already 25% higher than the highest value on that first graph (which occurred a little over 300,000 years ago) and still on a ballistic climb.
Advances in computer technology, and therefore our ability to model climate, plus changing conditions, are why the science has "changed". Not a lack of precision, not politics or corporate interests. It's the situation itself and our forecasting capability that's been changing.
Ok. Here's a article from a few years ago stating how and why climate models and data are over exaggerated.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2920311/Is-climate-change-really-dangerous-Predictions-greatly-exaggerated-claims-study.html
I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just showing that there are other perspectives. I think it's very interesting that you dismiss those text books because science has changed its opinions although they undoubtedly assumed they were correct when it was published, given the data at hand. Did it ever occurr to you that in 25 years, they might look back at these claims and realize "a lot has changed" since these findings came to be? It seems a little disingenuous to assume that facts are only facts when you agree with them.
The climate model in that article is laughably oversimplified. It completely factors out the greenhouse effect by only looking at sunlight absorbed and energy radiated away by the Earth. Under their model the planet Venus would be a lovely tropical vacation spot. Alright, so a tropical vacation spot with crushing air pressure, but the temperature would be nice. All that complicated stuff the authors bemoan in climatologists' models are actually necessary to get a reasonably accurate result!
If we drastically cut down emissions and much of the worst case scenario is thus avoided, the science will not have changed nor will current warnings be overblown. They will simply have been heeded. Yes, if a situation changes the predictions of science will change also. Would you not expect them to? Facts are facts when they're supported by empirical evidence, not because I (or anyone else) decrees it, my likes and dislikes are irrelevant.
Here's what it says about this on NASA's website:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Yes, our influence is quite noticeable, such as air pollution and plastic pollution. I agree that these are urgent matters to tackle. But talking about that we (little humans) are in power of changing climate is ridiculous. We cannot change climate. There are forces way stronger than us that control it. And the major force is the thing you can see it everyday. It's the Sun. It controls the climate on Earth. Period.
shareUh ... have you ever heard the term terraforming? Surprisingly specific plans have been offered up for creating a breathable atmosphere on Mars. Basically they boil down to deliberate emissions - "pollution" if you will - not only of CO₂, but N₂ and O₂ as well. The concept is simplicity itself: (x tons of emissions per year) * (y years) = Total Mass of Atmosphere. The higher x is, the fewer years y must be in order to generate the desired gas envelope. It could take anywhere from decades to centuries depending on how extensive your air-making infrastructure is.
Altering a planet's atmosphere is not magic, and it's certainly not beyond our capability. That's the whole point. You can measure the elevated CO₂ levels literally anywhere on Earth. In the very room you're sitting right now there is more carbon dioxide than there would've been just 15 years ago. With the right lab equipment you could have made a measurement then and one now, compared them and verified this for yourself. How much the composition of our atmosphere has changed is a known quantity. And not only does the extra CO₂ correspond closely in mass with the total we have dumped into the air through our burning of fossil fuels, it also suffices to explain the warming trend of recent years. In fact it leaves a sharply limited amount of wiggle room for other causes. Solar output certainly hasn't changed to a degree that would have a perceptible impact.
I would direct your attention to the planet Venus, if you really think the sun is the only important factor in determining climate. Instead of being slightly warmer than the Earth as you might expect from its orbital distance it has an average surface temperature of 872°F (467°C). And why is it so scorching hot that a piece of lead would literally melt on the surface? The greenhouse effect. Read up on it if you're not familiar with the conditions there. Not a fun place.
Climate simulations may be a complex field of study - but the basic idea of the greenhouse effect is centuries old thermodynamics. Renaissance Era knowledge. Not radical or cutting edge in any way and extremely well understood. The same physics that underlies basic technology like refrigerators, or heating and air conditioning systems, also tells us that human activity is the primary cause of current global warming.
Since 1970 the number of fish in the ocean has dropped by half.
And 40% of all insect species are in decline
No, what maters is data and science. Climate change did not come from religion. It's certainly true that the ecosystem is under assault from many different sources and it all plays a part. You won't get any argument from me there. So what? If you believe global warming is not real, you are wrong. Should I patronize you and pretend there's a chance it's all some big alarmist thing with no reality behind it?
share"If you believe global warming is not real, you are wrong."
Well, there it is. There's the dogmatic mentality that pervades all your discussions on your favourite topic, Chris. It's the latent evangelist in you, and in all your fellow "Climate Activists".
People have compared you guys to religious nuts, and I think there's an element of truth in that. You are fervently devoted to "spreading the word", "saving the world", and "denouncing the unbelievers". You have all "heard the Voice", and been inspired with "missionary zeal" to "make disciples" of all the world.
Maybe this "Climate Change" guff is the new religion in a world that has pretty much abandoned religion, and "Climate Activists" are the new Crusaders, fulfilling their egotistical need to make everybody else think the same way they think, the better to alleviate their personal insecurity about their lives.
People like you seem to think everything is a matter of opinion, that one point of view is no better or more correct than another. Clearly you've never taken a science class in your life. Unlike some subjects, there is generally a right and a wrong answer. You get a green check or a red x. That's how it is.
All the data and research point in one direction. Therefore we know the truth. I'm sorry if you can't accept that, but by comparing that stance to some kind of religious dogma you only display your own ignorance.
O no, no, not at all, Chris. By comparing that stance to some kind of religious dogma I display your ignorance. You just don't get it. And I don't think it's a matter of opinion at all. "People like me" think that many things are a matter of fact. For example, it's a fact, (and not just my opinion), that "people like you" display all the features of religious fanatics who can't relax unless they're preaching fire and brimstone in someone's ear.
As a matter of fact, (and not opinion), your viciousness in broadcasting your message is significant. It's significant because it tells people something iffy about you. You don't just want people to learn about something new, and take steps to fix it. You want the personal satisfaction of venting your spleen and ranting at unbelievers, cursing them, naming and shaming, and feeling the self-righteous self-satisfaction that you probably can't get otherwise in everyday life. This volatile personality thing is a common trait among "you people". I've never yet heard a "climate activist" talk about their pet topic without hostile antagonism creeping into their speech. It's universal. You cannot talk about it in a calm, polite way. You always turn belligerent. Your discussions quickly become quarrels. Your speeches, if you give them, become embarrassing exhibitions of amateur theatre.
To "people like you", this overwhelming "major worldwide catastrophe" story is a god-send. You won't hear anything negative about it because if you have to admit it's nonsense you'll have to find some other vehicle for your misanthropy.
Which one of us sounds like a ranting idiot again? I forget. 😀
shareYes, I expected you'd have no answer to that, Chris. It hit a nerve.
shareNo, it struck me as the same kind of mad ravings we hear every day in the US from our so-called President. None of your words really rate a response. I'd expect a better constructed argument from a first year undergrad. Hell, I'd expect middle schoolers to do better than that. Argue the science, not the people. Lay out a case for what you think is wrong with it - or don't waste my time.
shareSo, it still didn't get through to you, Chris? Don't you understand what I did? I'm not interested in "arguing the science". Because the science isn't really the issue. The issue is whether everybody has to down tools, join up with "The Cause", and put on their crusader caps to go to war, merely because an unqualified little girl made a spectacle of herself on TV and tugged at a few peoples' heartstrings.
It sounds to me like you, and others like you, wouldn't have given a toss about "Climate Activity" before that over-emotional child performed her stunt in front of the adults. That caught your imagination. It impressed you because it was just a little kid screaming at adults. And now it's stirred you up to "carry her message" to all the doubters and sceptics, no matter what it takes.
See, I won't address the "science", because the "science" isn't the issue. The issue is human nature and the way people can be drawn into a "Cause" and become fanatical devotees of that Cause. It's a much more interesting subject than the cycles of Nature.
If you feel it's "raving" to discuss the foibles of human nature, you're missing out on some interesting discussions.
Btw, don't compare me to other people whom you obviously despise. It doesn't support your argument one bit.
Actually, science is the only issue if you're going to challenge the validity of climate change. I'm not surprised you want to stay away from it though. Considering it wouldn't back you up. All the other crap you're talking is just to trigger people here and I'm not willing to take the bait anymore. Cya. 🐉
shareYes, it can be painful for people to examine their motives for enthusiastically embracing a "Cause". It sometimes says something about them that they didn't really want to know...
sharePopcorny said: "Maybe this "Climate Change" guff is the new religion in a world that has pretty much abandoned religion..."
--------
"Climate Change," "Global Warming," "Global Cooling," etc., is a cult! 😉
I have a question. Why is there a concern about Global Warming? From what I understand with global warming there will be more food. Higher temperatures means more crops. Crops that can be grown even further North. It would be a lottery ticket for those who live in the North! Unfortunately the current picture is different. Regions from the North still can't grow much. It's a fact that Global Warming is not happening. Their winters are actually worsening. Strating in October and finishing late April. What kind of Global Warming is it? What are the dangers of it. I still don't see it :)
shareDo you know how many mass extinction events this Earth has undergone since it was born? Many. If you look at core samples taken from the Antarctic, it shows the level of heat ups and cool downs and how long they lasted. We've had many of these....just not 24 hour news agencies and chicken littles to crow from the highest branch about it. But we've had many. Reefs have died and been reborn. Same with other plants and animals.
shareSo mass extinctions are no big deal because hey, ѕhit happens?
The ice cores are exactly where they got the data that shows we have surpassed the highest CO₂ concentration of the past 800,000 years, and are still climbing on a ballistic curve. Hundreds of thousands of years of random fluctuation and suddenly a huge spike in the last 150. Following the same curve as human greenhouse gas emissions.
If something isn't done quickly we're on target for a repeat of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Not doomsday per se, but read up on the PETM and try to imagine the loss of nearly every coastal city, the spread of tropical climate almost (but not quite) pole to pole, and the tremendous geopolitical chaos all this would cause.
You're glossing over a very important point by getting too philosophical about mass extinctions. Life is wiped out periodically and new species evolve in their place. Yeah. But how long does evolution take? The Earth is a pretty barren and desolate place for several million years after a large scale extinction event. On the human timescale that's practically forever, our entire recorded history is only 5,000 years and one million years is two hundred times longer than that.
Well, when it does happen. We won't be here to see it happen.
shareIt's already started. We are seeing it happen; many historical mass extinctions, like the Permian (and unlike the K-T) didn't happen all at once but took many years.
And wouldn't it just be easier to stop belching greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Are filthy rich oil billionaires making even more money worth the price the world has to pay?
Lol, there’s no way in hell that this isn’t a copy and paste. Dude, you’re on fucking MovieChat. Calm down and watch Lorenzo’s Oil.
shareShe's sixteen. While she isn't fully mature and will have a lot of learning and growing to do, let's not say "kids" like she's seven and can't understand abstract concepts yet.
shareOk, but do we allow 16 year olds to do any of the things I mentioned? There's a reason.
shareDrive? Yes. Have sex? Yes.
We let them work, we teach them math and advanced science and things like that. We recognise that their brains are able to grasp a lot of things.
We also used to let people sixteen-years-old do a lot of those things because we used to have a shorter childhood expectation.
Depending on the kid, sixteen could be plenty old.
It's old enough to grasp what's going on with the planet and talk about it.
No, we don't trust 16 year olds to have good judgement about sex, that's why we have laws against them having sex with adults, because we understand they lack proper judgement. And we have many restrictions on 16 year olds driving, fyi. They don't get the same freedom as adults in that regard..... because they have proven to lack proper judgement.
shareHere's a huge map that says the vast majority of the world trusts sixteen year olds to have good judgement about sex (or don't care):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#/media/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg
We have restrictions on new drivers driving, regardless of age.
Sixteen year olds are dumb in many ways, but that doesn't preclude them gathering knowledge or the wisdom to employ it in certain cases.
The main point is this: is Thunberg right or not? If she's right, who says what she says is irrelevant. It is the truth that is important, not who speaks.
I highly doubt you'd be ok with your 16 year old daughter being seduced by a grown man, despite some backwater countries being ok with it. No need to be disingenuous rather than be wrong. Essentially, I'm pointing out that the truth is rarely black and white, but rather peppered with nuance. This is something that a child her age absolutely lacks the experience to understand. So who speaks the "truth" (which is never an absolute) absolutely has a bearing on the merit of the statements.
shareI doubt I would be okay with a child of mine dating somebody too far outside their age bracket, but, as you say, a lot of that depends on nuance and circumstance.
My point about truth is that true statements do not matter where they come from. If you think Thunberg is wrong, argue the logic, not the speaker. It is, at the least, ad hominem.
I believe that teenagers can understand nuance and often do. Your point is taken: they lack experience (mostly) and rarely are gifted with the wisdom necessary to par themselves with adults, but you are attempting to discredit her based on her identity, not her argument. I guess I'm just sick of people doing that these days; the argument is often, "I'm a woman/black/whatever so you have to listen to me," or, "Don't listen to him, he's a white male," and I think that's a bad way to argue points and get at the truth (which, while I agree is rarely absolute, I think sometimes is quite absolute).
My 16 year old neice and nephew are smart kids who do very well in school. They're also hormonal, unwise, and need guidance. I trust them to go to school, drive short distances, and have non-sexual relationships, but that's depending on how well they behave. They're book smart, but too immature for the real world. They take what their teachers say as truth without question. In time, they'll look back and see the failures of what their teachers and other authority figures say. For now, I wouldn't put much stock in their thinking. That will change with age.
shareI have never been arguing that teenagers weren't, generally, dumb, but rather that they are growing into intelligence and that, regardless of the general level of teenage "wisdom", you cannot base an argument on an attack against the identity of the person making the argument. It is poor debating.
Plus, there are always outliers. Alexander the Great was leading armies at age sixteen.
There are outliers, but unfortunately, that's not what we saw with this display. A girl got emotional, accused others of ruining her childhood, and said that life was unfair.
Sounds like a typical 16 year old to me. There was no solution to a problem, no leadership, and nothing philosophically interesting or new in her speech. Just a girl having a tantrum while adults clap.
So, a few things:
First, I'm mostly arguing that attacking Thunberg because she's a kid isn't fair. Only her arguments are fair game. It's also a bit myopic to debate climate issues based on the fact that Thunberg is a teenager - she isn't one of the scientists. That's my main point, and mainly what I was reacting to.
I agree, I think it's unlikely Greta is an outlier along the lines of Alexander the Great or Mozart. But just because she isn't exceptional or isn't supremely exceptional doesn't mean that she has nothing relevant to say or nothing to contribute.
A teenager can get things right, can think rationally and well, and can act justly on those concerns. That's general, not specific to Thunberg.
As far as Thunberg's speech goes...
I watched it long after everybody else did, it seems. Because of the hype around it, I was expecting to feel convicted or appalled. I wasn't really either. I was also expecting her to be a lot more emotionally unbalanced than she was. I flatly disagree with the evaluation that she "got emotional" or had a temper-tantrum or anything else people have said along those lines. Unless I've watched a different speech. (If you have a link to a tantrum, I'll gladly watch it).
She does not offer solutions, true, but she speaks for people who are begging for solutions from people who should make them. Her best point is where she talks about the science being there for thirty years. Numbers do change and exactly what's going on is debatable, but the fact that we are pumping the environment full of toxins at faster and faster rates is not, and world leaders aren't doing a good job here.
I'm not on 100% "team Greta". I don't think of her as the Meshiach. She made some good points, she repeats the phrase "how dare you" too often, she doesn't have a solution (but doesn't really have to) and I generally feel like saving the earth is a good thing and so I generally support anything that will get more people on board with actions and solutions.
Oh? We watched the same speech. Basically, from what I read, you agree with the empty speech and think its fine. I don't. It's hype. I've seen the same type of performed many times for many "causes" to save the world. Why the media decided this was important is beyond me. In the end, it was just a dog and pony show that took advantage of a little girl.
shareWell, then, yeah, I'm seeing it differently.
I don't think it's an empty speech, because its goal is to raise awareness and spur action. It has 100% done the former. The latter remains to be seen.
I applaud activism under certain, laudable auspices. A cleaner Earth being desirable for all, I applaud this activism. I am also heartened by the notion that there are youth out there who care and who will take a stand for something other than cell phones. Greta Thunberg isn't clamouring for identity politics. She's not complaining because she was offended by somebody who wasn't woke enough. She's battling for a cause which I can't see any problem with. Cleaner Earth? Yes. Definitely. I want that. Who wouldn't?
Who knows why the media decide anything's important? It's incredibly complex, and it has to do with tipping points and sparks starting fires. It's not predictable or completely up to chance.
Why grouse about more ecologically-oriented action and people (like Thunberg) trying to bring that about?
The seasons of nature are not an abstract concept. I'm sure she understands why Summer is hot and Winter is cold. And I'm sure she thinks she fully understands the complexity of earth's natural cycles.
What she doesn't understand is the abstract concept of Truth. She thinks it's a state of certainty in the mind about a topic she feels passionately about. That is, if she believes a thing, it must be true.
That's a natural frailty of immature minds.
That's closer to a good argument than, "We shouldn't let her speak because she's sixteen!"
shareCan you link to her talking about the concept of Truth...? I'm not sure where you're getting this.
Believing a thing without convicting evidence is a logical fallacy engaged in by people of lower intelligence, but it's not exclusive to immaturity (and most people have some blind spots here).
On the other hand, if you have been presented with information and are convinced of its veracity, you can hardly blame somebody for acting on that information. In fact, to receive information and do nothing about it is foolishness-in-action. Which, she does actually bring up in her speech, pointing out that scientific information has been available and nothing is being done.
No, she doesn't talk about the concept of Truth. But she demonstrates with every speech she makes that she believes her truth is Truth. The tactless belligerence she displays whenever she talks about her topic is typical of people who have come to believe an idea implicitly, and are so utterly convinced of it that they regard it as some kind of Universal Truth. And being a Universal Truth, she believes that it is her holy duty to preach it, no matter how much she may have to offend her audience.
History is full of individuals who have been presented with information, and been utterly convinced of its authenticity. What happens then is that those individuals begin to see themselves as bearers of the Truth, and honor-bound to pass that truth on to others. In this role they become passionate to the point of fanaticism, and their methods become bizarre. The old biblical prophets sat around in rags and rubbed dirt on their faces. Nowadays, it seems, they go on television and give vignette performances of someone "spontaneously" weeping to get their message across.
See, this is what's all wrong about Greta Thunberg; she really should have stayed in school. It's obvious now that she didn't do the "Climate Believers" any favours by her UN act. The only people who have enthusiastically responded to that spectacle are those who want to see females involved in anything. The formula ticked all the boxes. She's a female, a child, a foreigner, she "suffers" from a mental disorder, and she's a TV personality. Instant hit. And the television brainwashed masses, who slavishly watch phoney circuses like "X Has Talent", were pushovers.
So, Truth is not one of her favourite things. Nobody who respects the truth would go on TV and "act a part". If she was genuine, she would have simply stated her personal convictions in a quiet sincere way. No synthetic tears to move her audience. No hamming it up. But no "Climate Activist" seems to be capable of that.
Are you not convinced of the truth that she is faking? You are convinced of the truth that she is wrong. You seem convinced that there is no truth in her arguments - no point in continuing them - which means you are convicted that there is either no point or no need to make efforts towards cleaning up the environment.
When people are convinced of something, they act.
When you make a statement like, "History is full of individuals who have been presented with information, and been utterly convinced of its authenticity," and go on to ridicule them, you are writing off literally everybody. How else should you be convinced of something? With no information?
No, you've got it wrong. To begin with, in some cases one doesn't need convincing. One may draw a conclusion about a person or thing within seconds of encountering them. For a mature, experienced person, it is sometimes possible to make an instant judgement. When you're old enough, you've seen everything at least once...
Those individuals I mentioned were those who were utterly convinced of the authenticity of a thing, but which didn't necessarily prove to be true. I don't ridicule them, because mostly their belief and subsequent reactions were honestly arrived at.
But people like that child, with her theatrical acting and fake tears, cannot claim to be honest when she was so obviously acting. Everybody knew it, even though some refused to acknowledge it.
You know, sometimes, having made a judgement, it's appropriate to do absolutely nothing.
Aren't you basically saying that, with experience, you can process information faster?
I think we're pretty much in agreement here. If you have a certain set of information in front of you and you are convinced by it, it might turn out to be wrong later on, but you have arrived there honestly and it is (from that perspective) reasonable and logical to operate under those assumptions. This is what we're both saying, yes?
I don't think she was acting as I believe you to mean it (a lie). I do believe she was delivering a speech, and that is, to some extent, not "true", I also think she was attempting to get across the imperative necessity (from her perspective) of the content of the speech.
Consider Martin Luther King Jr.'s most famous oration. He is obviously doing a performance. He punches phrases and puts out a certain style which is hardly the off-the-cuff, unpracticed speech of an extemporaneous speaker. But I do not doubt his belief or conviction in what he says, nor does it prevent me from appreciating the message of the speech.
I believe Greta believes in her cause. After that, it is all just an evaluation of the cause and the points made or not made. I don't think her speech was perfect (written or delivered). But I think she thinks its important and any performance is not gotten by way of lying, but of an attempt to get her point over.
That's true. Sometimes you get information and need to act and other times you don't need to do anything. And what of that?
Yes, it is reasonable to take action of your own accord, on something which you believe is true and valid. It is not reasonable to try to coerce others into taking similar action because of your personal belief, and it is certainly not reasonable to defame and denounce others who do not believe what you believe.
I'm sure we can agree on that.
MLK, who was a practised orator, used an inspirational style of speaking, focusing on well-chosen emphases, pregnant pauses, and emotional declarations of his personal beliefs. He did not at any time imply that his audience was "evil". His punchy style was just that, a style. A black man's potent style of speech.
He never stooped to emotional blackmail, utilising gimmicks like "little girl's tears" to win points. If he had done that, his audience would rightly have concluded that it was "all about him". And that's another sign that the little girl's speech was just acting - it sounded like it was "all about her". As her actor parents probably coached her to do, she put herself into the part. "I shouldn't be here!" "I should be at school!", "You have stolen my dreams!" etc etc etc, all while glancing down at the screenplay for her cues. As quickly as the tears and petulant grimaces appeared, they vanished when she got her applause.
The bottom line, for me, is this. IF this story is all true, and IF the world is in critical danger, I would think the people who want people to know about it would select someone more credible than a 16 year-old movie star wanna-be, who obviously lacks the emotional self-discipline to refrain from insolently hurling insults at a room full of distinguished adults. That's the behaviour of a spoiled brat who's been given too much indulgence and too much attention.
And if they didn't select her, and her involvement is entirely her own doing, then somebody should quietly take her aside and tell her some down-to-earth truths. Truths about diplomacy, courtesy to others, personal restraint, personal insight, and personal integrity. I think the surreptitious enjoyment of her moment of fame is confusing those truths in her mind.
I think if you really believe something it is acceptable to try to sway others to your side. That's like saying that if you believe there's a corrupt politician, you shouldn't try to get people to vote for the other guy because that would influence them. Influencing people is much of communication. Now, if you mean coerce dishonestly (lie to them, cheat them), that's different. But if you're fighting for a cause, I say go ahead and try to sway with argument. Penn Jillette said he didn't mind being proselytized because it meant the person really cared about him.
So, on that last point: don't demean and defame, yes, we agree 100%. Should Thunberg have called her audience out during her speech? I don't know. I'm reminded of the Bible story where Nathan confronts David and David is convicted on that reproach. It could be an effective tactic. Maybe not. I feel about this the way I do about calling somebody bad names in the newspaper. If it's not true, it's libel. If it is true, it's fair.
I'm not convinced the tears are gimmicks. If you've ever given a charged speech, you'll know that the shaky, nervous energy delivering the speech can become a cracking voice, sped-up speech, or tears, or anything (although a skilled orator can eliminate traces of nerves). That energy can just as quickly dissipate into laughter or a smile once the adrenaline rush is over. I imagine these types of reactions are more difficult to gauge or control in an autistic teenager.
Now, was she coached? I'm certain. Was she "acting"? I don't know. If she was, it was to get over her speech, which I don't fault her for. Again: if you care about something, you want to try to forward that cause.
You emphasize "if" very strongly. Do you not think we should be cleaning up the earth?
If she was selected, she was well-selected: she is popular and drawing a tonne of attention to the movement. Lots of people are getting into the climate change thing because of this. That's what they're looking for.
Mature adults use rational debate and polite persuasion to sway others. They're careful to avoid overt emotion because they know it may undermine them and their message. Intelligent people, no matter how passionate they are about their stand, will take care to show respect for the people they're trying to sway. If they don't, they'll lose the audience and the argument. As grown-ups they've learned that.
That child not only showed blatant disrespect for everyone in the room, she also revealed a rather unpleasant personal contempt. The silly, "How dare you" remark was just embarrassing. An obvious scripted line, not spontaneous, an empty rhetorical question not expecting an answer. Spoken for theatrical effect. An honest person would be too embarrassed to use the line.
"..story where Nathan confronts David and David is convicted on that reproach."
I don't understand what you meant there.
Badmouthing people, even justifiably, is not prudent or necessary. Because if a bad name is deserved, everybody already knows it is.
Those "tears" were like the rehearsal of a bad actor, playing them on-and-off for effect. I'd ask you to watch the speech again and note her face when she looks down at her script. That's not relieved tension after applause, that's checking to see what her next line and next facial expression will be. In those brief moments she turns it off, then turns it on again. She's actually quite disciplined in that. No autistic element there.
"Do you not think we should be cleaning up the earth?"
Logical fallacy. We're arguing about Thunberg's legitimacy, not my opinion about the state of the earth.
True, many people are into the climate change thing because of that speech. But I'd guess that a lot of people are sceptics now who weren't before.
(Cont).
(Cont.)
And it doesn't matter if some people are thoroughly convinced and totally committed now. Because the end result of the Thunberg pantomime will be precisely zero. Nothing that anyone does will make the slightest difference, and not a thing will be achieved, and the inspired enthusiasm will go the way of all artificially-created "commitments to a cause". They go out of fashion. This one in particular will fade faster than usual, because people, (even people who are credulous enough to believe that the "spectacles" that they see on television are genuine and spontaneous), nevertheless still possess the natural ability to read body language.
The best way to make a solid argument is intellect and reason, I agree. But appeals to emotion have proven very effective. Demonstrating care with both is a solid way to present. But, yes, I basically agree.
Mature adults know how to behave with politesse and decorum, definitely. This can be taught to most youth and children as well (with few exceptions). However, mature adult people know when somebody has misbehaved and needs reprimanding, even to the point of insult. Example: "At long last, sir, have you no decency?" spoken to Senator Joe McCarthy. I do not say that Thunberg's audience deserved their drubbing or that she was the one to give it (necessarily). I merely state that it is possible to be a mature adult and give someone a well-aimed drubbing.
I don't really care for the "how dare you", either. I don't think it was an amazingly well-written speech, and I don't think those tactics were the best. Overall, though, I think the speech was effective and accomplished what it wanted, so I can't fault it entirely.
I don't think she was badmouthing. That implies gossip. I think the idea was to hold leaders accountable for leading, in this case, towards a cleaner future.
I rewatched the speech. She just looks like she's reading a speech to me. She doesn't look like she's altering her emotional state between bursts. She looks like an inexperienced speaker getting her next line, which does rattle the psyche somewhat.
Regarding my question: I wasn't asking about your stance on the earth to defend Thunberg. I wasn't using this as an argument. I was curious and wanted to know your position on the subject.
I don't think her speech or attitude were spontaneous nor were they were lies or disingenuous.
The extent of Thunberg remains to be seen. I would be surprised if it maintained its scope for long. But perhaps it will spark something, for Thunberg if no one else. If she continues to strive for a better planet...well, that's at least one.
When I use the term "badmouthing", I meant it as "insulting". We seem to have different definitions for some words. :)
I know you weren't using that question as a specific argument. It's just that I have encountered people in debates sometimes who attempt to win or end arguments by introducing fallacious diversions. This one sounded like one that's commonly known as "Arguing By Emotive Language". You weren't deliberately doing that, as you say, but whenever I spot anything that resembles a fallacy, I pounce on it.
Anyway, Ace, I reckon we've given Greta Thunberg and her speech a fairly even-handed review, wouldn't you agree? I'll sign out, now.
Thank you for clarifying on badmouthing; I had misinterpreted it.
I definitely appreciate where you're coming from with fallacies. Too many people make arguments that ignore the premise or attempt to circumnavigate the argument entirely (with fallacies). That was kinda what inspired me to start commenting on this thread to begin with - the notion that we could dismiss Thunberg because she was a teenager, not because she was making bad points.
I've enjoyed debating with you on this, because I feel like we got to a few places that were more in line with critiques of the speech and the performance, not just writing her off out of hand. I still don't fully know where you're coming from, but I have a pretty good picture, which...that's a big point of dialogue. Thanks for sticking it out for awhile to turn these things over with me.
You're welcome. I enjoyed it.
shareAs to the reference to David...
When King David seduced Bathsheba, got her pregnant, and had her husband killed to cover it up, the prophet Nathan approaches David. Nathan tells David a story about a rich man who takes his poor neighbour's sole lamb and kills it for a feast for a friend of the rich man. David says that the rich man should die and pay for the lamb four-times-over, and Nathan then points out that David is, basically, the rich man. Despite being heavily chastised, David doesn't shoot the messenger, recognising the evils he has done.
And then there’s Saint Greta, our perpetual teen of sorrow. I have been comparing her worship to Joan of Arc ever since she was invited to the British Parliament, the birthplace of modern democracy. She was surrounded by buffoons nodding their heads like they were listening to gospel truth.
Kids are wise beyond their years. They haven't been corrupted by our toxic society.
shareAnother way of looking at that would be to say that kids lack experience in the real world. If they were truly wise, we'd let them run for office.
shareWell if that were true shouldn't we be sticking newborns in to politics? To say kids are wise beyond their years is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Do you have any other cliched statements of your ignorance to share?
share"Kids are wise beyond their years. They haven't been corrupted by our toxic society."
Yes they are. By a corrupt propaganda machine called school.
Of course the irony is that only a dumb kid would be stupid enough to believe their hoaxes in the first place.
shareHow is that ironic?
shareIronic because you've got some fools on this site that seem to think she is some wise sage when in fact she is clearly an uneducated idiot and only that type of person could fall for the global warming hoax.
shareI see.
I don't think of climate scientists, anthropologists, nature historians, atmospheric physicians and meteorologists as uneducated idiots, but I can appreciate the point you are making. Having a teenager as the face of the climate change awareness movement was always going to be a double-edged sword. She is both the perfect bait for media coverage and the easiest target for those who believe climate change is a hoax.
If anyone seriously sees her as a wise sage I don't think they are being honest with themselves. I do believe her concern and motivations are genuine, but whether I agree with her or not I fully understand she is a young kid who couldn't possibly have any workable action plans to address the issue. So, no, she's no sage or messiah.
It still doesn't mean we, as adults, can't let her speak without raging at her like uncouth animals. That behaviour is just as immature as any teenager's.
See you are letting the puppet masters behind her win if you don't smack her down as hard as you would any adult. She jumped out of the kiddie pool in the deep end so she should be treated like the adult that she want to pretend to be. To go easy on her simply because she is a kid is wrong and allows the ones behind the publicity stunt to win.
And when anthropologist, nature historians and others that haven't actually looked at the raw temperature data start yapping about how global warming is real, well they are idiots. As much of an idiot as any religious follower that just accepts what's written in their Bible, Torah, Quran or whatever guidebook the have without taking a serious look at what is really proven and what is just being accepted on blind faith. Too many of the people that have jumped on the global warming bandwagon did so without ever bothering to look at the studies carefully to see if they were legitimate or not... and as we now know, the first study that started the hoax was based on falsified data by the charlatan in the UK. Imagine that someone had discovered that Jesus never rose from the dead and his body was just stolen from the tomb, would Christianity make any sense then if people knew about the fraud yet ignored it? That's what has been happening with the global warming hoax. Worse still, when the temps didn't skyrocket as expected they tried to reimagine the hoax as "climate change" as if ignoring the basis of the hoax's origins would magically vanish.
I cannot convince you anything that you don't want to be convinced of, but I do disagree with you on kids. There are some amazing young humans out there who are doing amazing things. What are you doing to make the world a better place?
https://interestingengineering.com/8-inventions-from-teenagers-who-want-to-change-the-world
The age of majority is declared by governments, not individuals. There are a hell of a lot of adults that are just as stupid, if not more so.
Correction, most kids are stupid. A few are very smart and grow up to be amazing people. I'm afraid Greta isn't going to be counted among them.
shareWe should let far left children rule the world. If you disagree, you are a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, transphobe, gayphobe, etcphobe.
The left has lost its collective minds.
Sadly, I'm still a registered DEM.
Oh well, life goes on.