The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I tend to agree with everything above except:

They aren't fighting to keep us out; they are fighting to eradicate non-Muslims Wahabists.

According to the news China is genociding the Uyghurs. Half-caucasian Muslims. No trade deal for the Chinazis.

Don't know about Luisa-Marie Neubauer, but the interview with Greta and her father was interesting. She was mother-henning him, adjusting his microphone and feeding him statistics. It's an interesting dynamic.

Messy, us? We like to believe we are doing well. Whether future history books agree remains to be seen.

I as well. There are slackers for sure, but all that solar power, EVs and climate research didn't come out of nowhere.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I missed the 'violence' part of the discussion.Where did that come in?

It's not necessarily a conscience or overt objective, but rather a consequence of causing division among people. You'll have to go back to my "us" vs "them" comment to follow along the thought train that leads to violence.

We tend to think violence erupts up out of nowhere, or very suddenly, when the reality is that we get there step by step, either as a consequence of planned action (WWII Nazis), or as a consequence of our inability to understand that division/disgust (pre Nazis) is the road toward violence.

Nazis didn't kill people, they killed "infestations". There's a process to converting people like me and you into infestations.

I'm not saying people like Soph and Greta are motivated toward violence; only that it's a possible outcome from having a character of division. As Peterson would say, lets not take the first step in the first place, even if it might not end up with people at eachothers throats.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

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.

If she's not nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize there's something horribly wrong with humankind.She's a study in economy,content,continuity,coherence,conviction,an d summation.I must admit that I resonated with her emotional delivery.I feel better about being on the planet,knowing she's out there.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

... just to be "clear" I endorse Greta Thunberg and her message.

If you sent this thread to Ms. Thunberg, she would cancel your endorsement of her. She has raised a vital, rallying cry to her peers, & struck & is striking ringing,dissonant chords of anger against us oldies.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

[IMG]https

Unfortunately AOC hasn't studied climate science nearly as much and doesn't have nearly as many of the worlds top climate experts and now more recently, social scientists, on speed dial, as Greta.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It's not necessarily a conscience or overt objective, but rather a consequence of causing division among people. You'll have to go back to my "us" vs "them" comment to follow along the thought train that leads to violence.

We tend to think violence erupts up out of nowhere, or very suddenly, when the reality is that we get there step by step, either as a consequence of planned action (WWII Nazis), or as a consequence of our inability to understand that division/disgust (pre Nazis) is the road toward violence.

Nazis didn't kill people, they killed "infestations". There's a process to converting people like me and you into infestations.

I'm not saying people like Soph and Greta are motivated toward violence; only that it's a possible outcome from having a character of division. As Peterson would say, lets not take the first step in the first place, even if it might not end up with people at eachothers throats.

'Next door neighbors loaned me a book by Jimmy Carter.In the back of the book was a copy of the CAMP DAVID ACCORDS of 1978
Here are some of the talking points:
Framework for peace
Meetings
Agreements
Invitation to adherence
Peaceful settlement of conflict
Coexistence
Cooperation
Initiative
Proposals by leaders
This generation & future generations to be spared trajedies
Negotiations
Provisions & principles
Respect
Rights
Reconciliation
Promoting economic development
Maintain stability
Assuring security
Monitoring
Objectives
Procedure
Representatives-delegations-inhabitants
Resolution
Orderly transfer-transition
Timetable
Arrangements
Responsibilities
Withdrawal
Joint participation
Final status
Committees
Resolve
Solution
Legitimate right
Just requirements
Participation in determinations
Joint agreement
Vote by elected representatives
Joint participation
Establishment of agreed procedures
Implementation
Peaceful settlement of disputes
Good faith negotiating
Obligations
Full recognition and normalization of relations
Protection under due process of law
Exploration of economic development potentials/possibilities as a common goal
Mutual settlement of all claims financial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a bad starting place.No violence.
My take on climate change is,that it's really not about the science at all,but rather the implications to investments should we act on the issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruppert says it takes 30-years to transition to a new energy paradigm,and that's basically what the scientists are talking about.I don't see any structural nor technological impasse.

[freebeard]

Shrieking for Vengeance: The #ClimateStrike
The Rageaholic — 224K subscribers
The road to "The Right Side of History" is paved with propaganda

You'd have to go find it, no link because RazörFist doesn't self-police his language but it does have the picture of G. Thunberg and both her parents in Antifa tee-shirts.

She a smart girl, hopefully she'll get up to speed on the science.

Unfortunately AOC hasn't studied climate science nearly as much and doesn't have nearly as many of the worlds top climate experts and now more recently, social scientists, on speed dial, as Greta.

Unfortuneately for AOC, she totally lost her self-confidence when Saikat Chakrabarti was demoted to her reelection campaign.

Jimmy Carter is our next to the last good president.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by litesong

If you sent this thread to Ms. Thunberg, she would cancel your endorsement of her. She has raised a vital, rallying cry to her peers, & struck & is striking ringing,dissonant chords of anger against us oldies.

I don't know what to make of that but it won't bother me. If you doubt clear: bye.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redneck

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

When did they first meet or first make contact?
.
I have personal handlers and groomers. Buckminster Fuller, Donella Meadows, Herman Daly, Tom Murphy, David MacKay, Richard Heinberg, Nate Hagens, Daniel Christian Wahl, George Monbiot, Jason Hickel, a dozen more that I can't name off of the top of my head without looking through my books.
.
Great people stand on the shoulders of giants.

[redpoint5]

Regarding an article sender linked to pages back, which I haven't gotten through yet, a main theme to the article was divesting from petroleum stocks. That struck me as odd, because a company isn't harmed by plummeting stocks; the investors are. The company already profited from the 1-time cash infusion from selling stocks. Once that's done, the risk is borne by the investors.