The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by redneck

This woman is not only her coach-handler-groomer, she also travels along with and is seen at all of her appearances. And if that wasn’t enough, she was raised by parents who are left wing ANTIFA tee shirt wearing environmentalist activists.

Her thoughts were implanted and shaped from a early age.

Greta is a product of “her” environment...

And not the environment itself...
>

It makes sense that a minor would be accompanied by an adult, and no surprise that the person share similar motivations as Greta.

We're all products of our environments, so pointing that out is not controversial in the least. Parents raise children the way they know how to raise them, which is informed by the environments they developed under (going all the way back to the beginning).

There's an argument to be made about not raising our children with extremist views, or causing undue anxiety, but that's a subjective topic.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Here's a comment I made on another forum which tends to agree with sendler's comment above (quoting is broken on this thread):

I'm slightly inclined toward liberty, but protection of the commons (environment) is among the few legitimate roles of federal government. The only thing is, without a collaborative and binding agreement that clearly defines the problem, the reasonable goals needed to avoid the problem for each country, and a method of enforcement, the whole thing is useless other than claiming some sort of moral superiority. If the US drastically reduced fossil fuel consumption, the price of oil would fall at the expense of our economy. Then the temptation to exploit those low prices by other countries would be too great, and their consumption would increase as well as their economy (fossil fuel consumption and economy are linked).

The problem is much worse than getting people to drive EVs (transportation is 19% of energy use). It's much worse than getting even 1 or 2 big countries to take action that would both reduce fossil fuel consumption and slow economic output. It takes collaboration between allies and enemies alike in all the largest countries agreeing and adhering to clearly defined goals with the threat of violence to enforce those agreements. Anything less is ineffective.

I expect the left to give lip service to the issue, and the right to deny/avoid/downplay the issue altogether. It's political suicide to actually implement effective policy.

I just read 'Confronting Collapse,' by Michael C. Ruppert.He came up with a list of 25-items which might be part of a template for an economic transition into a post-Peak-Oil universe.While I don't agree with everything he advocates,he's a guy that can think,and he's worked very hard to put his materials together.
He hangs out with the Post Carbon Institute folks and top analysts.
He takes climate change seriously.
Some mention-worthy quanta from the book:
*As of 2009,taxpayers spent over $10-trillion on the Global Economic Crisis bailout.That would have paid for 10-terra-watts of installed wind capacity.
*Between 2009,and 2030,the oil industry expects to spend $10-trillion on drilling rigs,offshore drilling rigs,drilling,completions,refineries,storage,pipel ines,etc..That's another 10-terra-watts worth of capacity equivalency.
*We've spent over a $trillion on the Department of Homeland Security since it was created to protect us,in part, from Middle Eastern people who hate us and want to kill us,and would probably stop if we quit going to their part of the world to get the oil which helps us create 25% of he world's pollution.That could have gone for another terra-watt.
We're spending 3/4's of a $trillion each year on the military.
And will now be sending troops to our client state since 1945,Saudi Arabia,to protect our access to their oil.
Every year we could be enlarging our renewable energy capacity and electric car fleet and never miss the money for what we waste protecting access to foreign oil.
What's now going out our tailpipes could be new tires,plastics,paint,fabrics,pharmaceuticals,etc..
Remember,we've got a Pacific Ocean to fill up with plastic trash, if I'm ever going to have a chance to drive to Hawaii.
At the rate that we could actually spend alternate energy into the economy,we could incrementally back away from fossil/oil,at a rate which wouldn't shock the economy.
Nobody misses livery stables,stage coaches, the Pony Express,or the ice salesman.
We're expanding the grid anyway.We'll have cars of one kind or another.Thermodynamicly,ICE cars cannot possibly compete with EVs,as far as energy efficiency goes.You'll never see an engine with a BSFC of 0.15-pounds per brake-horsepower/hour.People who build engines can build motors and batteries.We'll still have a market for planetary transmissions.Tires.Heat-exchangers of sorts.Nothing inside the car changes.
It doesn't matter what other countries do when you're detached from foreign petroleum.It would improve the economy,not hurt it.
Fewer folded flags.Zero ozone action days.Healthier lungs.
It would be very smart capitalism.

[redpoint5]

I tend to agree with everything above except:

"*We've spent over a $trillion on the Department of Homeland Security since it was created to protect us,in part, from Middle Eastern people who hate us and want to kill us,and would probably stop if we quit going to their part of the world to get the oil which helps us create 25% of he world's pollution.That could have gone for another terra-watt."

Certain arab groups and people have bad cultural values. They aren't fighting to keep us out; they are fighting to eradicate non-Muslims. Heck, they fight amongst themselves for the opportunity to kill Israelis. There is no peace when the cultural is martyrdom mixed with political instability.

I'm still for the elimination of homeland security (that's what the military is for). The military can probably shrink too. Don't remember the last time we were in jeopardy of being attacked and losing that encounter.

Our allies should be based on shared values, not shared business interests. Treat women as second class citizens, and we're not prepared to treat you as adults. Western value is predicated upon recognizing the sovereignty of the individual. That's common ground in which to establish allied partnerships.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The similarity I see between Greta and Soph (besides the Autism/Intelligence) is that both present an us vs them message, one which will ultimately be ineffective because people already identifying as "us" are in agreement, while those in the "them" camp will be turned off by the condemning tone of speech. It doesn't move the average in any direction, but extends the extremes.

The whole appeal of Scott Adams and the like is they spend the time to explain their line of reasoning starting at the beginning. It respects the audience by assuming nothing about whether they agree/disagree, but instead give them the opportunity to follow along and decide for themselves if the journey is convincing.

This approach to discussion requires maturity, which requires practice and time.

Certainly you understand that humans are moved by emotion not intellect.It's firemen and kittens.Car chases and explosions.Guys with bad hair wrecking their countries.You can't go with 'dog bites man',it's got to be 'man bites dog!'
And anything beyond sound bites,and people's attention span is lost,and their eyes glaze over.
The people who wear the big pants have had since 1957 to do something.How may generations have to go by before the grownups take action?
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists are the only 'scientists' outside the scientific consensus on climate change.They're outnumbered 97-to-3.It's just like Gore said: 'It's hard to get a man to understand something,when the condition of their employment is that they not understand it.'
How much time do we need? We've had a free ride for 62-years!

[redpoint5]

Finding common ground is the only non-violent method of collaborating on a solution. Emotional appeals are only effective at moving people towards the extremes; the pathway to violence.

If we're agreeing the either of these 2 individuals methods, then we're also accepting the tilt towards violence.

As far as the masses are concerned; we collectively get what we collectively choose/allow to happen.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I tend to agree with everything above except:

"*We've spent over a $trillion on the Department of Homeland Security since it was created to protect us,in part, from Middle Eastern people who hate us and want to kill us,and would probably stop if we quit going to their part of the world to get the oil which helps us create 25% of he world's pollution.That could have gone for another terra-watt."

Certain arab groups and people have bad cultural values. They aren't fighting to keep us out; they are fighting to eradicate non-Muslims. Heck, they fight amongst themselves for the opportunity to kill Israelis. There is no peace when the cultural is martyrdom mixed with political instability.

I'm still for the elimination of homeland security (that's what the military is for). The military can probably shrink too. Don't remember the last time we were in jeopardy of being attacked and losing that encounter.

Sure,they've been cutting each others heads off for thousands of years.They're a communist culture.Any man if free to travel anywhere he wants to go,and water his camel,himself,and eat off the land.If he abuses his privilege,he's a dead Arab.
In 1993,when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time,our 'enemy' told us that we had defiled Mecca and Medina,the holiest of the holies, with our filthy American military alcoholic/pornographic culture.
The only reason we're interested in that part of the world is because of their petroleum.Saudi Arabia became America's defacto 51st state in 1945,when FDR told King Ibn Saud exactly that.
If you'll read the history of the region you'll understand the reason for their hatred of Israel.The United States was prospecting for oil over there before Arabia or Israel ever existed.All they had to do was read the Bible to know it was there.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

Good.

I hope they share their unfettered raw data for all to study.

However, 352 days is not very much time to come to any sort of definitive conclusion.





>

I believe that presently,any researcher submitting a paper for publication in the top,peer-reviewed journals,as NATURE or SCIENCE,as a condition of publication,must make available their data.The more eyes on it the better.
This team is from 17-nations.No one has done this sort of thing before.They'll have perfect calibrations for all remote-sensing satellites.
Perhaps there'll be follow-on expeditions.The 352-days may just be a function of how far they can stretch their research funds.It's a long time to be away from home.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Finding common ground is the only non-violent method of collaborating on a solution. Emotional appeals are only effective at moving people towards the extremes; the pathway to violence.

If we're agreeing the either of these 2 individuals methods, then we're also accepting the tilt towards violence.

As far as the masses are concerned; we collectively get what we collectively choose/allow to happen.

The only way that's gonna happen is for everyone to look at the science.Just like the young woman said.I missed the 'violence' part of the discussion.Where did that come in?

[litesong]

Mt Blanc glacier collapse possible:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49820542
//////
Then, there is the great increase of Arctic perma-frost slides:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-po...ost-landslides

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by litesong

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.

Maybe I don't understand what's happening here or maybe I'm misunderstood, but just to be clear I endorse Greta Thunberg and her message.

I think many feel nausea at Greta's message as it is clear what it stands for. The young inherit the earth, and what an inheritance we leave for them; runaway global warming, pollution from the highest mountain tops to the deepest parts of the ocean, etc. That message is not welcome. Messy, us? We like to believe we are doing well. Whether future history books agree remains to be seen.