The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

https://news.yahoo.com/w-antarcticas...074017219.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/76345...-action-summit

"My message is that we'll be watching you.

"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

"You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

"So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.

"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.

"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.

"There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

"You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

"We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

"Thank you."

[Emphasis is mine]

[redneck]

Originally Posted by slowmover

You mean, Greta and her George Soros handler.

.

Soros along with her other handlers and groomers.

https://www.europereloaded.com/georg...reta-thunberg/

Video at link.


>

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Insult is the weapon of those who have nothing better.
If you do have something better, like factual information, you don't need insult.

Originally Posted by some posts immediately after that

{insult after insult}

Ah well, less to read then.

As for pedophrasty:
Nobody dragged Greta in. She chose to speak out by herself. If this was supposed to be criticism on her right to speak out, I definitely can do without it.

[redpoint5]

Even old nuclear tech is even safer than any other power generation method. There have been less deaths from nuke than wind turbines, for instance, and wind generation accounts for a much smaller percentage of power generation as nuclear...

I've heard some commentary about how it's wrong to push Greta into the public view, but I don't agree with that. She seems mature enough to generally know what she's doing, and she's clearly a bright kid. She has chosen to accept a public presence, as evidenced by her initial protesting in front of a government building. It's not so much that she's been a puppet of a political agenda, but instead the result of her own efforts and motivations.

The problem I have with Greta's rhetoric is it contains no facts or proposed solutions. Her speeches rants are a war cry, not a call to rational action. They are in the same vein as the other screams kids are making as they skip school, even if formulated much more eloquently.

I look forward to hearing from Greta when her message contains a formulation of the problem, or a proposed solution. She'll get there, because she's a smart kid.

[oil pan 4]

That's the climate cults new spokes person?
Bahahahahahahahhahahahahaha!
Yeah the movement is definitely crumbling.
Wow, just wow, all we have to do is sit back and let them do it to them selves.
Turning child exploitation never a good move.
Reeks of seething desperation.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

As for pedophrasty:
Nobody dragged Greta in. She chose to speak out by herself. If....

An accusation of pedophrasty shows the depth you have allowed AGW deniers to drag into the sewers, this 700+ page AGW thread. Your inability to be outraged by the treatment of Greta Thunberg in this thread is what Greta slams. Your use of the word, "If", already shows your directed intensity. People will think (truthfully) that this is an auto forum, the auto being a major contribution to AGW. Controllers of all auto forums do, what you do.
Greta Thunberg is growing into her strength, supported by adult controlled & suppressed young people. AGW deniers haven't seen nuthin' yet! Young people are casting off their adult controllers & will claim their rightful roles to direct their countries into a sustainable future, not leprous societies, where the rich observe the pollution-murder of the poor & middle classes.
The rich believe themselves, immune. But collapsing societies include everyone.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

Nice spin! You know that's not what she said. Now I know you.

Thanks. Notice I put it in single quotes because it was a paraphrase.

As for the selective pedophrasty, consider Soph. She's two years younger than Greta, and she is suppressed rather than extolled.

Scott Adams did a thoughtful piece on Greta Thunberg. He starts with a defense of autism (20% of Dilbert readers are on the spectrum). He explains that autists are great (I agree), for one thing it's hard for them to lie. Not trusting people is two, but the problem is they can't tell when their being lied to because they have trouble reading other's affect. I can relate.

I'd be less concerned about Soros than Svante Thunberg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6hFPhMCFmQ

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

"The Cambodian genocide (Khmer: ហាយនភាពខ្មែរ or ការប្រល័យពូជសាសន៍ខ្មែរ, French: Génocide cambodgien) was carried out by the Khmer Rouge regime under the leadership of Pol Pot, and it resulted in the deaths of approximately 1.5 to 2 million people from 1975 to 1979, nearly a quarter of Cambodia's 1975 population (c. 7.8 million).[1][2][3] The Khmer Rouge wanted to turn the country into a socialist agrarian republic, founded on the policies of ultra-Maoism.[4][5][6] In 1976, the Khmer Rouge changed the name of the country to Democratic Kampuchea. In order to fulfill their goals, the Khmer Rouge emptied the cities and forced Cambodians to relocate to labor camps in the countryside, where mass executions, forced labor, physical abuse, malnutrition, and disease were prevalent. This resulted in the death of approximately 25 percent of Cambodia's total population."
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
.

Strict Marxist Communism has often started with mass murder and ended in a string of inefficiency and corruption.
.
Democratic Socialism is not this and is already in place in different degrees throughout Europe. I am hopeful that the term "Democratic Socialism" can retain the current check on personal power through voting. "DEMOCRATIC"... Retain the efficiency and innovation of private ownership and a market. But begin to add in appropriate pricing signals to the market to reflect the cost/ value of inputs such as non-renewable resources that are being reduced from future (300,000,000 years) reuse by "entropy" ( a rough application of the concept can be stretched to include strategic elements, ie. Phosphorous, which is now mined from deposits at a certain, but diminishing ore grade, which will eventually become increasingly remote as the concentrated deposits on land are depleted and we are forced to try to get it back from river deltas and oceans after is passes through our food and biological systems). So again, improve the pricing signals for the sources. And phase in pricing signals for the costs of processing the wastes (ie. the other half of a Carbon tax)which are also currently missing. Ecosocial Economists have been telling us this since the 1970's (1800's?) but it is not expedient to right now to growth (then). And we find ourselves in converging crises. Complacency now, then panic.
.
The SOCIALISM aspect would refer not to public ownership of everything and its attendant inefficiency, but to additional pro-social levers on the market to make the distribution of social surplus more equitable since right now the owners of production have all of the power to keep a vastly disproportionate amount of the profits (The average CEO of a corporation earns 380 times that of the AVERAGE employee. 1% of Americans take home 24% of the annual earnings and have acquired 40% of the wealth. And the numbers are obviously much more skewed on a world basis). Progressive taxation would provide essentially de facto maximum and minimum incomes with a job guarantee and collective labor bargaining, basic water, food, housing, health care, education, ect. For up to two children per female. Or whatever average the tecnocratic inputs to the decision making process that we already use for many other market decisions comes up with for a sustainable, steady state economy where the goal is to get to a place where nothing is used faster than it can be reused or renewed.

*Europe use the terms 'Social Liberalism,' and 'Social Democracy.'
*In the USA they call it 'Liberalism.'
During the United States' 'Golden Age',we had Marx & Engels' Communist,progressive income taxes,and publicly-owned infrastructure services,and Adam Smith's 'Big Government.'
The United States is the wealthiest nation,yet most unequal.
There's a smattering of social democratic N.European nations with the highest standards of living in the world.
Historically,the only enterprises which are best served by free market capitalism are agriculture and retailing.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I look forward to hearing from Greta when her message contains a formulation of the problem, or a proposed solution. She'll get there, because she's a smart kid.

She has said all along that she will defer to the scientists and encourages (demands) that the world leaders prioritize their suggestions.
.
It is interesting for me to watch her progression of personal understanding in such a short time to now include a realization that a techno-salvation will not be forthcoming and the solution to the several approaching bottlenecks will include a planned degrowth to a new steady state socio-economic system.
.
Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.
.
Shame on "fairy tails of money and eternal growth"

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I forgot to include the link to the excellent interview by the Stalin history expert to remind us of how many died under his hand.
.
https://youtu.be/jhi2icRXbHo
.
A complication in any major political economic shift away from a Laissez Faire free market system is trying to get a world level recognition of the need and world level coordinated transition so that there is no opportunity for any one country to offer multinational corporations a reduced tax rate spurring a race to the bottom which breaks the deal and allows the corporations to continue abusing labor and pillaging natural resources from the cheapest markets that are desperate and struggling to get enough money just to feed their populations. Which is the situation we have now.

Don't confuse economic models with statecraft.Stalin didn't do anything that wasn't in Machiavelli's 'The Prince.'