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

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Space_Time, Sep 23, 2019.

  1. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,421
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's more:

     
  2. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,421
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's more:

     
  3. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    18,135
    Likes Received:
    13,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She got her fifteen minutes, already.

    Otherwise...

     
  4. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Whatever the photo says, and if it is proven not to be doctored, any speculation of any sort is just that. SPECULATION!

    Do we not ALL understand what is happening on the Internet nowadays with some very effective means for manipulating digital-photos.

    Or are we simply evolving from the dark-ages when ONLY a negative could identify the positive-veracity of a photo.

    I'll go for the latter (in the US) - lap it up ... !
     
  5. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know that the subject and this thread are pretty much dead now but I just had a realization. Greta Thunberg's "How Dare You!" tantrum is disgusting and I feel ill every time I watch it but there was something familiar about it and I just this second realized what it is. This (three years ago) must be Greta Thunberg's inspiration:

     
  6. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,421
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's more:

     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She is young. Naivete goes with the territory.
     
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Twitter is for twits! Which is why Donald Dork employs it is so often.

    It shows well the current mentality in the US by which thought is conveyed in short, one-liner sentences. As on this forum.

    The public has long since lost the notion of public-debate being just that - a "DEBATE" - that is,
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  9. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,421
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's more:

     
  10. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Brazilian president is NO ONE to be calling someone else a brat. He should look in a mirror!

    Deforestation IS happening in Brazil, and it is not to plant crops. It is to find mineral-wealth ... !
     
  11. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The world does not run on idealism and wishful thinking.
     
    Badaboom likes this.
  12. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, it runs on what? Without a need for better, mankind has no future. And, we know that's true because WE ARE the future of times past.

    You may be satisfied with it, but as an economist, I am decidedly not. We can and should do better in terms of Income Fairness.

    It took Rome fie centuries to close-the-books. I figure we'll do it in half that time if we are not careful.

    And for the very same reason. Too much wealth going to the top. When the Germans arrived, they literally waltzed into Rome.

    The Romans (spoiled rotten) hadn't either the means or the will to defend it ...

    NB: History repeats itself. Always differently ...
     
  13. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The world runs on reality and cynicism. It cannot operate in terms of what individuals believe should be the case, only in what is the case.

    There are times and situations when failure is the only available option. In the real world there are problems for which there are no solutions. Not simply no easy solutions, but rather no solutions whatsoever.

    Species come. Species go. The human race is no different. Eventually it will come to an end, just as countless species before it have done. It is the natural order of things. The only one and true difference, is the human species is the only species that has dedicated its entirely existence to the sole purpose of ending its own existence.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2019
    Badaboom likes this.
  14. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Inaccurate statement: Homo sapiens, alone among creatures, evolved a conscious "thinking" mind (cerebral cortex), allowing action beyond instinct. The possibility to master the universe is there.

    No, humans built the great cathedrals in the middle ages because they have a vision of immortality ("God").

    And they can build the GLOBAL infrastructure required to transition from filthy fossil to clean green - called the 3rd industrial revolution by Jeremy Rifkin in his new book "The Green New Deal".
     
  15. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jeremy Rifkin (in his new book: "The Green New Deal) speaks of the likelihood of $100 trillion in stranded fossil industry assets by 2028, when technological advances will mean base load green energy becomes cheaper than base load fossil.

    I note you regard the climate change/CO2 issue as nonsense (despite a scientific consensus to the contrary); whereas I would be happy to proceed - asap - AS IF IT WERE TRUE; if only because of the environmental contamination problems you correctly outline above.

    So the real objections of Conservatives arise ie how do we pay for the new green infrastructure, how do we deal with fossil industry job losses during the transition, and how do we compensate for the stranded fossil industry assets without bankrupting the global financial system.

    Poor Greta's problem is she doesn't have any advisers telling her how these problems can be solved, *without creating winners and losers".

    Hence we have the reactionary Canadian oil-worker rally noted above.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2019
  16. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,418
    Likes Received:
    51,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Facts are not established by votes, that is hand-waving, claims are measured against the natural world to see if they hold water or not. The constant appeal to "consensus" rather than testing against the natural world kind of gives away the game.
    The real objections of Constitutional Conservatives is the attempt to force the theories of a crazed apocalyptic cult on us via the power of government.
    If it's better than existing energy sources, it will prove itself, just as fracking did.
    That's the beauty of the Free Market, these are private assets, if they guessed wrong, or someone comes along with a more efficient way to produce energy, then these "stranded" assets go to auction and are worth whatever the highest bidder will pay for them.
    The financial system will be benefiting from the more efficent energy production means that replaced the less efficient one.
    Poor Greta's problem is that the adults around her are exploiting her.

    It’s Disgusting What the Climate Panic Brigade Is Doing to Greta Thunberg.

    The Swedish teenager is not some science prodigy who graduated young from an Ivy League school with an advanced agree in physics or anything like that. Rather, the daughter (and granddaughter) of famous actors and opera singers suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and selective mutism. I’m no medical professional, but these things might have been brought on when (according to public sources), starting at the age of eight, Thunberg was subjected to such a barrage of climate panic that she eventually became depressed and lethargic, and also developed an eating disorder.​

    Now Thunberg is paraded around the globe as the voice of sanity on climate change.​

    May God have mercy on them.
     
  17. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which is your opinion, and nothing more. Opinions are at the heart of this forum.

    There are ALWAYS solutions when smart people gather together and negotiate solutions. It usually works well-enough amongst intelligent people of the human species - and the opposite is also true. Amongst the ignorant and uneducated it very rarely works in matters of considerable consequence.

    When that happen in any society, then social-structure goes awry. Nazism was the last on record to have thus started a World War. Communism, the futile rebuttal to Nazism, also went its way for the very same reason. It just didn't work because it proved itself economically unsuitable to human needs.

    Far too dire a prediction. This last edition of the human species has considerable intelligence. It adapts to circumstances, and when it cannot adapt (for a variety of reasons) it just moves on - some of its components simply fade-away into non-existence.

    Indeed, this version of the human-species is much smarter than other past versions, but as a whole our present variety of the human-species is doing as well as can be expected. The arms of nuclear destruction have spread around into far too many countries, but - for the moment - it has not produced any massive destruction since first employed to end WW2.

    And unless there is a physical collisional-calamity arriving from outer-space, our species will be around for millions of years hence. Perhaps largely on other planets, however - which is mankind's next step into the future of the human race ...

    Meaning what? (Perhaps I have been watching too much of the Star-Wars series?)

    Meaning instead of discussing the virtues and calamities of any given culture/politic, the human race simply set outs to elsewhere and refounds itself. Just as the English-variety did in the US two centuries ago. But must still correct its electoral formula - which is formally called "evolution of the species" ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2019
  18. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmm…..that's why I stay away from the CO2 debate, at least until the sea level starts rising in a manner that can only be explained by rising CO2 emissions (compared with previous inter ice age cycles).

    Interestingly, Jeremy Rifkin in his new book "Green New Deal" proposes staying away from the 'big government' debate, by imposing a carbon tax on the big emitters, and increasing it until the "invisible hand" market achieves the desired reduction in CO2 emissions, and returning the proceeds (presumably after the transition costs borne by the fossil industry have been met - Rifkin doesn't make that clear) to consumers to compensate them for higher energy prices during the transition.

    But I'm guessing you will reject that also......

    And Conservatives certainly always appeal to the "how will we pay for it" meme.

    Are you OK with the contamination of underground water by fracking processes that has apparently occurred in several locations?

    Worth the value of the scrap? What about the $trillions tied up in pension funds?

    The weakness of the Free Market, in the absence of public intervention, is it's occasional spectacular failure...most recently in the GFC, following ill-judged financial deregulation.
    And of course if climate change -CO2 IS shown to be real, the Free Market will be totally inadequate to deal with the situation

    In this case you are confusing efficiency with sustainability; filthy fossil is unsustainable, regardless of efficiency.

    because these adults believe climate change related to CO2 emissions is real.

    What if it is real? Are you sure your "big government " anathema is not clouding your judgement?


    Given my reservations about the Free Market ALONE, I would rather get on with the business of transitioning from filthy fossil to clean green, ASAP, with a planned utilisation/development of the necessary resources, not according to an "invisible hand" time table, with no concern for environmental sustainability, but via government making it happen.

    Yes it will be BIG government on a global scale. Sorry.....

    [You might study MMT for an explanation of how we can have the best of both worlds, ie, public sector policy-directed planning, and private sector "invisible hand" efficiency].
     
  19. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113

    What is the sensible approach to climate change?
    1. Ignore/deny/adapt?
    2. Impose a carbon tax on emissions, as fast and as high as is necessary to eliminate emissions. {This is
    Jeremy Rifkin's preferred solution to avoid "big government" debates with Conservatives, also including refunds to consumers during the transition to cover higher energy costs during the transition.
    3. Authorise governments to create deposits in their central banks - using their currency issuing powers - in order to directly manage resources allocation required for an asap transition to a green economy, in a planned, orderly manner? {My preferred option because I don't have "big government" hang-ups).

    BTW, an observation on your political "sensible centre":

    Heard an analyst today reporting on opinions from working class Britons re J.C's election loss:
    Labour voters in Birmingham - pro Brexit but also pro socialist-policies as espoused by J.C. - simply did not believe those policies would have been implemented by British Labour, with those (former) labour voters asking (you guessed it) "How would we pay for it". Even JC didn't have a sensible answer to that, when asked by a BBC reporter before the election. Just shows what happens when the Left attempt to play by the rules of orthodox neoliberal economists (see below).

    IOW, these Left voters have completely imbibed the Thatcher doctrine of "other people's money".

    Likewise the "sensible centre" contains many who are ambivalent about paying higher taxes.

    So the Left (with nice policies like single payer healthcare, free tertiary education, public infrastructure upgrades, and full employment policies) remains unelectable, in an "invisible hand" free market economy in which money is created only through the agency of private banks.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2019
  20. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,421
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's more:

     
  21. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,418
    Likes Received:
    51,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well then, you shouldn't be here. Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years and is currently rising at half the rate as the 20,000 year rate.

    If our interglacial holds, and heaven help us if it doesn't, the oceans should continue rising for another 3500 years or so, followed by a 100,000 year glacial advance. During the last glacial advance, Chicago was under a MILE of ice. Do you have any idea how we will preserve our population through that?
    Top Down Regulations by unelected bureaucrats are NOT the "invisible hand the market" it is a small cabal of unelected tyrants imposing their view and will on the majority in violation of the oath they swore to the Constitution in order to be in the regulatory office they occupy.
    Unless YOU want to bear the costs yourself, yes, you will have to engage in a discussion with the folks you want to pay for it. Read the preamble of the Constitution and begin to become wise, it says WE THE PEOPLE not we the bureaucrats. If you cannot carry the day through persuasion, then take a hike. Coercion is not a tool you can arrogate to overcome the free will of others. If you would rather live under a dictatorship, and one that needs to implement a LOT of environmental policies, move to China.
    No. I want the same virtue signalling clowns that want to control our population through carbon starvation to either get their asses back to work on REAL pollution issues, like contaminants in our oceans, soils, rivers and ground water or I want their virtue signalling asses thrown right the hell out and replaced by folks dedicated to following the will of our elected representatives and working on the behalf of the American People rather than this ridiculous agenda they prefer. If they want to engage in an independent frolic, they are free to do so, ON THEIR OWN DOLLAR.
    What about them? Freely managed money always has the choice of the most risk free investment in the world, US notes, but they have a very small return, so they also have the same choice to risk their investments while seeking higher returns. The risk is that they will lose principle, and if they do, then they do. Beneficiaries of pension funds have a duty to exert control and direction over those that manage their funds. If they are unable to do so, they should be also accumulating some funds they have complete control over, like IRA's which they are free to do so, if they choose to.
    CO2 is most certainly real, carbon is the backbone of every life form and every molecule in every living thing was once a molecule of CO2.

    We are currently in an ice-age, in a interglacial, thank goodness, but in no sense are we in Greenhouse Earth conditions, nor are we expected to in the near term, measuring in geologic time of hundreds of thousands of years. That is why the current period is called INTERglacial and not POSTglacial. The next major event, will not be Greenhouse Conditions, it will be Icehouse conditions.

    Greenhouse conditions are just stunning in how much life thrives on earth. Study the Eocene to see how life thrived in the last true greenhouse conditions.

    Icehouse conditions are always maked by mass extinctions, carbon is how earth stores life between Greenhouse cycles, with earth's natural processes converting carbon, first to CO2 and then into living things.
    First it's not "filthy". Cars are so clean now that if they were operated in the heavily smogged cities of the late 70's and early 80's that no longer exist, for many chemicals, the exhaust of the cars would be cleaner than what the car was taking in.

    Secondly, we are the ONLY nation that has met goals of the Climate Agreements that we refused to sign, all the virtue signalling signers are dirtier today than they were then, and our improvement is due to our amazing innovations in fracking and Natural Gas.

    I am also a strong supporter of Water and Hydro Electric projects. We should have a massive canal from the Snake River to Las Vegas, generating an abundance of affordable hydro-electric even as the desert is turned into fertile farmland. This water flowing into the Hoover Dam system will make sure that Southern California has abundant water and electricity, but the de-growthers hate all this, they want to control the American People through scarcity, abundance completely works against them.

    We should also be workking with Thorium Nuclear Reactors that don't melt down, produce lots of electricity and don't generate impossible to deal with nuclear waste, but, when we built our nuclear industries, we were also in a nuke race with Russia and it was set up to provide the Defense industry with an abundance of material for nuclear weapons. Now all that waste is in rotting rusting metal drums leaching in to ground water and our worthless piece of crap bureaucrats want to jet around the globe on juckets virtue signalling on CO2 rather than cleaning up the last mess the government help make. If I had my way, Trump would be able to mass fire all of them, and replace them with folks dedicated to following the will of Congress and the Executive and working on the behalf of the American People.
    So what? If they all believe in the Easter Bunny, am I compelled to do so as well? Facts aren't established by votes, they are established by how closely they correspond with the natural world and produce accurate predictions.
    Oh sure, you sound like one of those "arc of history" folks that believes that "history" is forever flowing toward your beliefs and goals. There is no "arc of history", and there is no Global constituency that is going to elect a bunch of global bureaucrats to micromanage our lives.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2019
  22. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He's prompted more than just a few remarks regarding his inbred narcissism. Here's just latest from his favorite newspaper, the NYT quoting a psychiatrist:
    Opinion - Is Trump a Pathological Narcissist? - excerpt:
    This guy is dangerous not only to himself (and who would give-a-damn) but also to anybody who crossed his path the wrong way. (Which evidently Biden-the-son did.)

    It's best that we be rid of him and frankly achieving such at the ballot-box would serve America very well indeed ...

     
  23. therooster

    therooster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    13,004
    Likes Received:
    5,494
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indoctrinated little brat . As american as jane fonda or bill ayers.
     
  24. Space_Time

    Space_Time Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12,421
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's more:

     
  25. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So I will need to observe some other development in the climate (other than sea level rise), that even I (not to mention YOU.....) will finally have us on board with the majority of scientists. What say, eg, if the max. temps in Death Valley start regularly hitting 60+ degree C? (Current recorded max c.56C. ) Would that convince you? Problem, by then it would be too late for our civilisation....

    [It's interesting that climate "science" seems to be more in the realm of a "social science" than true science, such as physics and chemistry. Macroeconomics suffers from the same condition).

    You mean top down regulations like FDR's New Deal, as a corrective response to the unregulated "invisible hand", free market disaster of the Great Depression? Oh...FDR was elected; OK.

    This is actually the crux of the issue, though few on the Right, and even fewer on the Left will admit it.

    Now, the GND is based on FDR's New Deal of the 30's. But a growing macroeconomic heterodoxy known as MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) explains how specific infrastructure can be funded by direct deposit creation in central banks by currency issuing governments, so long as the needed resources are available. (At present, neoliberal orthodoxy confines the creation of money, and the determination of its 'value', to the private sector via the agency of private banks, when they write loans for credit worthy customers operating in our "invisible hand", free market economies. But there also sensibly needs to be a role for public sector money creation outside the private sector, allowing for planned social policy implementation that is not at the mercy of unstable private sector business cycles.

    But fracking is associated with under-ground water contamination, is it not?

    Nevertheless, people ARE pressing ahead with replacing fossil-powered plants with green, and Rifkin's prediction that building baseload green will be cheaper than building baseload coal by 2028, is causing sleepless nights among a growing cohort of fossil industry managers. .

    [
    That sentence was entirely superfluous, since I began with "if CO2 is" (responsible for AGW ie man made...

    I'm not in a position to dispute ANY of that (nor do I want to attempt to do so).

    [
    In Europe, diesel cars will be phased out, so that VW is planning to exit the internal combustion engine altogether within the decade or so. Why? Because extraction and burning fossil IS filthy, regardless of CO2 emissions. Micro particulates, and other carcinogens, and poisonous gases cannot be dealt with easily or cheaply.

    Yes, enough states and corporations in the US went it alone, without the government signing the international accords, to meet those Climate Agreements so far.

    But I still don't understand how you can support fracking, given the underground water contamination issues.

    I also support such large visionary schemes - funded as outlined above -
    - and indeed (thinking even bigger) the earth could no doubt support an even larger population in universal sustainable prosperity, given unlimited 'free' green energy from sun/wind and maybe nuclear fusion technology in the future , and a total move away from the "invisible hand", junk-consumer -dependent , landfill -waste-producing state of our current macroeconomic orthodoxy …

    Yes......but apart from the fact the CO2/climate change debate seems to be "hotting- up" (excuse the pun), as more people seem to be personally negatively affected - more often - by extreme weather events, why would you want work with Thorium (fission) reactors, if they are way more expensive than solar-pumped hydro?

    Addressed above: there was some evident panic in Sydney last week, as the sun was hidden by smoke haze over the city that lasted days on end, as a result of bushfires burning in what are normally damp forests along the east coast of Australia, now in drought.

    [
    No abolition of slavery? No movement toward establishment of international law (though tentative thus far)?
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2019

Share This Page