'How dare you': Greta Thunberg tears into world leaders over inaction at U.N. climate summit

You really haven’t read any of the actual IPCC reports have you?

Bottom line - it does not matter what anyone outside of the IPCC Says or claims or rabbits on about because it is those reports that are what the governments of the world are using.


If you are really concerned about this READ THE REPORTS,! They even come with a little simplified summary

 

No you didn’t

You rejected evidence

That is not the same thing

And your “links” have been to AstroTurf sites of TWONKs like Bolt who are known for being “pay for view”

Hardly a valid refutation

 

So to you anyone outside the IPPC and their official dogma is not to be taken seriously. Cant get more close minded than that. Thanks for confirmation of my assessment of you.

 

but wait you will

 

Yes I reject your false evidence of thousands of contributors. Here's yet another example of this fallacy.


"Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:

"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."

In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.

I would classify my paper in Cook et al's category (7): Explicit rejection with quantification. My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.

With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2"

 

I have provided lists and links and you have

One or two blog entries disputing one paper (out of many papers looking at the subject ) discussing consensus of scientists

How has scientific consensus got anything to do with the IPCC reports?

BTW if you continue to quote without linking to original site I will report you for copyright violation

 

And I have shown how your consensus of scientists propaganda is debunked .
Myth busted.

 

You are talking consensus I am talking total number of scientists involved

And it is thousands of scientists world wide directly involved and tens of thousands in allied fields

Furthermore

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...g-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics

 

Great post - and explains exactly why it's not happening. They don't actually want any of it. They want neither the dramatic lowering of their lifestyle, nor the forfeit of all that yummy travel. And god knows .. there's no way on this still green earth that any of these 'climate warriors' could ever tolerate anything remotely resembling the totalitarianism they think they want. They can't bear to be told what to do when it's all just games on the innernet .. can you imagine what would happen if it was real? Implosion.

 

I'm not talking about her mode of transport. I'm talking about her targetting of Govt and Business. I've never once heard her target the middle class and above folk who are actually forcing the hand of Govt and Business (via their profligate consumerism). She's literally blaming the gate for the horse having bolted, instead of the person who left the gate open. It's either deliberate .. in which case she's a total fake and there's some other agenda behind it all, or she's very very stupid.

 

Myth busted.
Game over.
Get over it.

 

Are you stooping to name-calling? Just because I do not agree with you does not mean I'm being "deliberately fraudulent". The Left's various tactics to slander those that think differently from them, rather than engaging in reasoned debate doesn't reflect particularly well on you.

No one gives a damn what anyone "believes" what is important is how well your claims fit with empirical evidence. It doesn't matter if you say it, I say it, or a Scientist says it, even if you put it bold, without supporting testable, falsifiable repeatable data, it's just a lot of mouthing off. The claims I made about CO^2 are testable, repeatable, observable and completely supported.

Shorthand? Shorthand for what? Shorthand for a false claim that supports an agenda that is a pack of lies? Do you know that there are folks that actually want to punish those that simply state the truth about Carbon Dioxide?

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL SHOULD BE A CRIME
https://theoutline.com/post/2202/climate-change-denial-should-be-a-crime?zd=1&zi=vlm4xyyq

In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence—and hold those who do the denying accountable.

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL CAN AND WILL LEAVE PEOPLE DEAD.

Yes. They want to actually criminalize political disagreements and the plain stating of testable, repeatable, observable facts and the refusal to bow to "facts" that are unsupported, false and even inaccurate.​

And you would take it on yourself to impune me for simply stating the facts accurately?

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/
​

Murder charges, for not believing an untested theory. For not blindly accepting a theory that is producing inaccurate predictions. I don't know that it has EVER satisfied a prediction that couldn't be more simply explained. For not accepting that something will occur that has NEVER occurred, not once, not a single time, in 4.5 Billion years. You have fellow travelers that want that to be a CAPITAL CRIME. And you lecture me and charge ME with being "deliberately fraudulent?" How Dare You! (To take up the Left's latest mantra for those that see the world differently than they do.)

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/de...warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/
Yes, this professor argues that if after trial they do not repent of their blasphemy against climate change that they should be put to death.
​

Those are not just "other" pollutants, unlike CO^2 they are ACTUAL pollutants with ACTUAL death counts. Hell yes that should be our focus, but instead, we have this apocalyptic death cult demanding loyalty oaths, and working to get the power of government behind their demands.

Separated from their communities, families, culture and religion, they bond with one another on this "holy crusade" that gives their life meaning. The human drive for meaning, and it's a powerful one, as well as a puzzling one, that really has no evolutionary purpose, yet it's powerful. And these folks, separated from all the things that have historically given our lives purpose, pursue the "Climate Agenda" with the zeal of the newly converted.

Terms are merely symbols that convey meaning. Used inaccurately and they tell lies. I used it accurately, which you admit, after lodging the charge that I was being "deliberately fraudulent" when I was responding to your claim that the US and China were the grossest air polluters in the world. A completely false claim, neither are the worst and the US and China are on completely different ends of the spectrum, with China being one of the dirtiest and the US one of the very cleanest. I supported my claims with evidence, which you don't address.

Planning isn't doing. All these guys have been "planning" reductions since Kyoto, which we didn't sign, yet we were the only ones that actually made significant improvements. Meanwhile, VW actually engineered their engines to detect when smog control measurement equipment was attached and immediately changed the engine tune so they would "pass" CA and US smog control checks for PARTICULATES, which actually kill people and harm their health, only to have the tune immediately revert to one they knew would not pass, once the smog measurement equipment was removed. Yes, you have bragged on what they are "planning" to do, a few times now. Did they also announce their plans of fraud to evade smog checks? Oddly enough, you have bragged on them a few times now, while continuing to be frowning faced toward the US, which actually has greatly cleaned up our air. We have more work to do on old mines, radioactive waste that leaking out of old rusted WWII metal containers and contaminating ground water, and we have more work to do on agricultural run off, we have politically connected folks that get away with hand slaps after being caught dumping, a large number of things not getting done while everyone wants to be known for their sexy work on Carbon Dioxide, which isn't even a pollutant.

No. You are lodging false charges again. Support your charge that I have been "misleading" on CO2 emissions data. I have been crystal clear. You seem to like bold type. Do you really need me to go all caps and in bold to get you to grasp that CO2 is not a pollutant and I'm not concerned with emitting it?

I'm good with you simply telling the truth and vowing not to claim the right to compel belief or punish others for thinking differently than you. And I would appreciate an end to the false charges.

I love the way that Warren and Bernie, two self-righteous fools on "New Green Deal" spout off these same platitudes while they lead all the other candidates in private jet travel, and Bernie has burned more private jet miles than the rest of the field COMBINED.

You want to personally divest from fossil fuels, who is stopping you? Go for it!

Just a taste of commonly used items that are made from fossil fuels. And by folks that swear that everyone else should swear it off.





Do you know how many folks live in cities in areas that are UNINHABITABLE without fossil fuels? Just for pushing in HVAC, water, removing and treating sewage and picking up the trash.

Prior to urbanization, a family required at very minimum, 40 acres and mule to live by subsistence and that required good luck and labor from sun up to sun down, most days of the week. Knowing that, pay close attention as you drive through the city and realize just what it takes to make a civilization such as ours work, especially in severe weather areas like Denver, Las Vegas and a vast percentage of the areas where folks currently live.

Enough with all the yabbering and the "plans." Go live your life the way you think we should all live it, and we'll watch how it works out for you, and emulate it if we want to.

 

You can claim win all you want but that does not make it so

 

I am not bothering with the rest of that bullshit post because I want address this

The scientists believe because they DO have the evidence

It is all there in the IPCC reports and I am dying to see one, just one denialists address the science written in those reports

 

No win just fact. I showed you how and why your thousands of scientists claim was wrong but you are a true believer and emotionally invested in all things AGW and I was under no illusion I could ever persuade you with truth, logic and facts.
Before you counter with my being a denier you should know I actually want to accept the AGW hypothesis because I do indeed believe man is fooking up the planet in numerous ways and AGW would fit right into that mindset but try as I might I just dont see compelling evidence. What I do see repeatedly is mass hysteria fueled by manipulation of facts and figures coupled with outright lies and deceit and behind all that I see a political agenda.
Not too long ago salt was the life blood of the world that was arguably the most important element to man around the world for hundreds if not thousands of years. Over the centuries attempts successful and otherwise were made by kings queens despots and governments to control salt knowing to control salt was to control the people. I see the same mentality now with fossil fuels in particular and energy in general. Control those you control the people who rely on it for their very lives.
History repeats itself.

 

It's constantly addressed in here and you instantly deny it calling sources fraudulent and big oil shills.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with peace:

 

About as much as Barrack Obama had to do with peace.

 

Again you have done no such thing

You have a couple of cherry picked articles from blogs - most of which are simply copying each other that dispute ONE paper on the consensus that has little to do with the number of contributors to the IPCC.

I have to ask

Do you know what the term consensus means?

 

So if not to me, to whom were you directing your lecture that "CO2 is not a pollutant"?

Am I not entitled to assume the remark was directed at me, in an attempt to muddy the debate for others who might be following; ie being deliberately fraudulent?

Of course I will accept disagreement, when it is based on something I have said.

Addressed above: you can leave "the Left" out of it.

See...now you have gone of the rails completely. You well know I have been at pains to avoid the CO2 issue, I have always directed my attention to issue of pollutants from burning fossil fuels that are injurious to long term health.

Oh dear....comprehension...."CO2 pollution"; every chemistry-aware person knows CO2 is not a pollutant, but in the AGW-CO2 climate debate, everyone accepts the term is equivalent to "harmful levels of CO2" ie in 'short-hand' terms, "pollution", whether they accept the reality of AGW-CO2 or not.

No, addressed above. .

Addressed above. It seems you have never understood I have deliberately avoided the AGW/CO2/climate change debate, because I don't know enough about it. I am concerned the real pollutants from burning fossil fuels that destroy long term health.

Gee, I agree that's a bit extreme of Joanne, I will admit...

You still talking to me, or some else?​

No... though your mainstream classical economics is certainly due for tossing into the dustbin of history.

Again you are confused because it seems after all you thought I regarded CO2 as a pollutant, which I don't ( and which I have stated a million times in this thread; I'll bet you cannot find one example where I have said CO2 is a pollutant.

Come to think of it I was responding to someone who wanted to know the actual figures for 'CO2 pollution' (short hand for the dangerous GHG that is CO2 t least to those who believe, get it?)
1. China 2 US 3 India

Now as for actual pollutants which it now seems we are both concerned about, of course the US is cleaner than China, which is still like London in the 19th century; and China is deploying green energy faster than anyone else in an attempt to become as clean (in terms of real pollutants) as the 1st world now is.

But even so CA (but not Trump!) and the EU know ICE vehicles will have to be abandoned, because of the long term injurious effects on health in high density traffic urban areas, from burning fossil fuels.

And CA wants more stringent regulations on harmful vehicle emissions (other than CO2 emissions) than Trump….

btw, look at Tesla's share price jump.. an indication of things to come...

Well I hope you are clear on my position now. ie dunno about CO2 and GW, but I do know we have to stop burning fossil fuels in ICE vehicles in high density built-up areas...and meanwhile cost of energy from solar/wind backed by pumped hydro is already near that of coal, and falling.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09...r-than-coal-nuclear-malcolm-turnbull/11495558

OK, but I claim innocence....

Self-righteous? But come to think of it, something we haven't discussed yet: what about the *apparent* increase in severity and frequency in weather related disasters resulting in more loss of life and damage to property all around the world - real or not? Certainly those who are actually affected are concerned

(Btw, speaking of Bernie, what happened in Iowa last night????)

Note: re Sanders' GND: no-one need pay more or go without during the transition from fossil to green (have I mentioned MMT?) though we may have to divert some resources from the junk advertising , junk production, and the resulting sickness and prison industries, and all the associated transport industries , thereby releasing the equivalent in $trillions of resources right there.

And those items you mentioned can be replaced with alternative non fossil based products, over time.

As soon as home batteries become economic (affordable), I'll be part of it in my own home as well. ​

 

Global warming is beneficial. And there is nothing politically possible to significantly reduce human CO2 emissions. That's all you have to know.

 

Are they policy makers for the global community? No?

Then they are peripheral noise no more

 

And your proof of this..........no wait! Don’t tell me! It some out of date textbook paywalled so no one else can check on what you are claiming

 

Some people have to much time on their hands.

 

I like Greta.