The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redneck]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Did she not leapfrog all that by going to the U.N.?

No. It’s a legitimate question. Today she’ll be in Canada leading a school strike.
Next stop, Mexico. Then South America.

Ignoring the elephants (China & India) in the room does not make them go away.

These young women are speaking truth to power, truth to authority, truth to the establishment, and the way you tough guys quickly devolved it to personal attacks tells me:

You are scared of them.

The neo-con talking points are providing this narrative.


Is this what Breibart says about it?

The climate alarmists needed a new spokesperson. Someone beyond reproach.

They found one, Greta. She fit the criteria.

Child-Female-Handicaped

The perfect trifecta.



As far as being scared ?

Not scared. Angry...

Angry that a child is being exploited by adults with a agenda.



Is this what Breibart says about it?

I don’t know.

You should go there and report back...




>

[oil pan 4]

I expect all the virtue signalers to block me when I call them out on their BS. Figure blocking me is easier than trying to explain, justify or make excuses for their own inactions to themselves and everyone else.
It's called living in denial.

[redpoint5]

Yeah, but then what's the point of talking? There's no reason to saying anything if everyone left listening agrees and has no differing view.

2 of the reasons of discussing something is to learn, and to persuade.

[oil pan 4]

I learned. I started reading ipcc reports because I'm just a stoopid denier.
Then asked the legitimate question of why they think the world is ending based on these reports.
It's like the ipcc and the cult are speaking different languages.
My conclusion is ipcc says "A", the cultists read it or I'm starting to think they just hit "control F" to find what they want to see, so they end up reading "B" then go around telling people "C".
But "A" and "C" have nothing to do with each other.
I'm still reading the latest 1,170 page report.
It's going to take a while.
Actually I'll skip to the last 20 or 30 pages to see if that's where it says the world is ending. But I do plan on reading it all.
Notice how they haven't had any responses directory quoting segments of the report. They will take like 1 or 2 sentences way out of context, quote those and try to blow them out of proportion for all their worth.

I think the cult has over played their hand, everyone knows it and they are going for broke.
Now I'm convinced if people read the ipcc reports them selves that is the worst thing that could happen, then it over for the cult.

[litesong]

litesong wrote:
Greta is getting things going.... even on an vehicle website. Way to go, Greta!
///////
redpoint5 wrote:
I'll give a "thanks" for the most on-topic post you've made, and the utter lack of ad-hominems.
/////
litesong wrote:
In my unadulterated enthusiasm for Greta, I did NOT add my contempt for AGW deniers. I did NOT want to harmonize with her, detracting from her clangorous criticism of us old farts.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It's called living in denial.

.....as opposed to societies dying.... in AGW denial?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Hagens gets beat up for saying this but his first masters was finance and he was VP at Lehman and at Solomon before opening his own firm in the 90's so I think he probably knows what he is talking about. Divesting from fossil fuels just lets someone else buy more of the stock back at a cheaper price, probably already rich board members, to make even more money on the dividends. Most of the big majors are fully funded and can do any future development without outside private investors bidding up the stock price.
.
To make fossil fuel companies quit producing, the demand has to end.

Lehman Brothers went belly up in November,2008.They,and I believe,Nate Hagans would be characterized at 'freshwater' economists.They're the laissez-faire,free-market liberalists who nearly melted down the entire global economy in 2008,costing US taxpayers $10-trillion as of 2009.Their 'Efficient Financial Markets Hypothesis' was predicated upon conditions which never existed in the real world,and are structurally impossible to exist.The very theory behind it revealed the inherent paradox,and oxymoronish nature of it's very premise.
I don't believe Nate Hagans knows anything but free market liberalism,which,as far as I'm concerned makes him an enemy of mankind.There's a lot of things he knows nothing about ,which makes him very dangerous.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

Need some help.

I’m having a hard time finding when Greta is scheduled to go to the #1
CO2 and pollution generating country in the world, China...

If and when Greta goes to China, I’m sure Xi will welcome her with open arms and will televise her visit to his fellow countryman as she lectures and admonishes him, the government, and the Chinese people for being the worst polluters in the world with no end in sight.

Oh, and while your at it.

I need the dates for the #2 polluting country India as well...

Thanks...







>

Please bear in mind,that under UN,IPCC framework protocols,both China and India,as defined as 'undeveloped' nations,are exempt from certain emissions restrictions,until they attain industrial parity.They are fully authorized to build and operate the coal-fired power plants.
In the meantime,they've already exceeded the Paris Agreement,left us in the dust,with respect to alternate energy,electric car adoption,etc..The United States is the backwards nation now.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

To the casual observer they appear to be the spokes people behind the more sensational fact less hyperbole going around.
For example around september 14 AOC said "Miami will be gone in a few years" has no basis reality.
I say let her talk she drives more reasonable believers away than any denier could ever could.

My experts are the ones in the ipcc who say they world isn't going to end in 12 years.

Consider a 185-mph,CAT-5, with a 23-foot surge,coming ashore,on top of a King Tide,and then stalling there for 36-hours,with 63-inches of rain,like Harvey.That would constitute the end of Miami.And it's currently not beyond the realm of reality,considering the last two years.
In this context,or caveat,A.O.C.is speaking very reasonably.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by ME_Andy

I'm not a AOC fan or a Greta fan, at all.

What motivates me is that Austin, Texas used to average 14 days over 100*F per year. This was a long-term average going back to the 1800s. This year, we're at 56 so far. Last year, it was 51 days over 100. It's going to be a desert at this rate.

Or the humidity will continue to climb,there will be no overnight cooling,and the heat index will be so high during the day,that being outside will be death sentence,as in El Salvador today.