Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The question itself reveals your own lack of both knowledge and humility in the face of nature and science. The idea that climate is static and that people can come to believe that temperature is be controlled through taxation policy reveals a sinister level of arrogance among the people pushing this agenda who have no understanding of climate cycles or what controls them and are using a cover story called "the united science" as the vehicle for their own authoritarian desire to exert control over other people lives.

Who is talking about taxation?

Do you think the IPCC have a sinister level of arrogance and have no understanding of climate cycles and what controls them?

Timistry

This thread amazed me. People dig holes in her logic, her education and her state of being while ignoring that her speeches are based on facts that are not open for debate. People say that climate climate change is a myth but the evidence is concrete. I'd like to hear where people think they come from

Pa ElGrande

Timistry wrote: »

This thread amazed me. People dig holes in her logic, her education and her state of being while ignoring that her speeches are based on facts that are not open for debate. People say that climate climate change is a myth but the evidence is concrete. I'd like to hear where people think they come from

Isn't it pathetic that the climate change movement has now come down to a 17 year old who admits that she knows nothing about climate science? When she attended an American congressional hearing and they asked her to describe why she was worried, she couldn’t. The faces of the climate movement are Greta, a 17-year old school drop out who knows nothing and virtue signalling actors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Emma Thompson. This is supposed to be a genuine crisis – yet these are the people fronting it. You have a credibility problem when you are relying on Greta as a means to deflect criticism from yourself and the movement..

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

That's just fobbing off the question. If we're talking about human civilization based contributions to climate change, then I am talking about emissions and temperature changes that are driven by human activity.

Neither you nor the IPCC can quantify temperature changes caused by human civilisation. Outside localised urban heat islands (1% of the planet) there is no measurable warming that can be attributed to human activity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_pEjJ5F0gw

The raw measured data from Ireland over the past two decades does not support your claims of human induced temperature rises. You are making extraordinary claims and you need to supply extraordinary scientific evidence not psychological projections.

KyussB

Sidestepping my disagreement of what the scientific consensus is, there: So you are saying that if human activity could be linked to a temperature rise of e.g. 1.5°C by 2100, you would consider that unacceptable?

2°C? 4°C? 5°C?

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Who is talking about taxation?

Do you think the IPCC have a sinister level of arrogance and have no understanding of climate cycles and what controls them?

Isn't it great not having money worries such that you don't care about about your energy bills all the while living in part of the Northern hemisphere that is cold and damp for much of the year. If I was as rich as you then I would care why I'm paying carbon tax on top of VAT (a tax on a tax) and where I'm going to get the money from to pay for a rising cost of living.

The bottom line is climate change is not about controlling the weather, it’s about controlling us. If you read the intergovernmental committees brief you would know that the bureaucrats are limited to only reporting on human caused climate change, other sources are not to be considered and without knowing that they have a bias and cannot be climate experts and further this inability to quantify human activities contribution to temperature reduces them to depending on unsupported models that project their fears.

Part of that strategy was to start propagandising children, which they began in the 1990s to the point where it is now second nature for people who grew up under that system to think we are destroying the planet. This is psychological warfare. They want it to be on everybody’s mind and you can see this every time there is a forest fire it is attributed across much of the media to climate change but without any supporting evidence.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Sidestepping my disagreement of what the scientific consensus is, there: So you are saying that if human activity could be linked to a temperature rise of e.g. 1.5°C by 2100, you would consider that unacceptable?

2°C? 4°C? 5°C?

I'm saying you lack the knowledge and humility to understand science and nature and are simply projecting a fear based narrative.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Sidestepping my disagreement of what the scientific consensus is, there: So you are saying that if human activity could be linked to a temperature rise of e.g. 1.5°C by 2100, you would consider that unacceptable?

2°C? 4°C? 5°C?

I'm saying you lack the knowledge and humility to understand science and nature and are simply projecting a fear based narrative.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I'm saying you lack the knowledge and humility to understand science and nature and are simply projecting a fear based narrative.

It's a pretty simple question - if human activity could be linked to a temperature rise of e.g. 1.5°C by 2100, would you consider that unacceptable? 2°C? 4°C? 5°C?

If you have the view that human activity isn't a measurable cause, then you've nothing to worry about from answering that, right?

gozunda

Timistry wrote: »

This thread amazed me. People dig holes in her logic, her education and her state of being while ignoring that her speeches are based on facts that are not open for debate. People say that climate climate change is a myth but the evidence is concrete. I'd like to hear where people think they come from

Is that like the speech where she blamed all the adults in the room for ruining her childhood or wtte whilst having a tantrum? To be fair a lot of her speeches have been discussed and found seriously wanting with regard to the facts. And most posters Imho here have not said 'climate change is a myth". Though it has been pointed out many times that alarmism does more harm than good. Of course some do not agree. But hey that's were we're at.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

It's a pretty simple question - if human activity could be linked to a temperature rise of e.g. 1.5°C by 2100, would you consider that unacceptable? 2°C? 4°C? 5°C?

If you have the view that human activity isn't a measurable cause, then you've nothing to worry about from answering that, right?

Is your boards.ie username KyussB? An affirmative answer can be given since it is a simple question. You have not asked a simple question but a hypothetical one with the inbuilt assumption that considers any human induced temperature rise as unacceptable, therefore your question cannot be truthfully answered since neither of us can compute the net benefits of such a temperature rise and whether these benefits outweigh any negative consequences so we cannot say this is unacceptable.

KyussB

Yea, my username is KyussB.

My question doesn't assume that such a temperature rise is unacceptable: I'm asking if you think that e.g. a temperature rise of 5°C by 2100, if human activity can be linked to it, would be unacceptable?

Lets go for a stupid figure that not even the IPCC predicts, just to actually find how high we have to go, to get a number from you: If human activity could be linked to a temperature rise of 38°C - beyond which we can't really inhabit the planet anymore as we can't regulate our body temperature much past that heat... - would you view that as unacceptable?

We can work down backwards from there, then.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

.
Lets go for a stupid figure that not even the IPCC predicts, just to actually find how high we have to go, to get a number from you: If human activity could be linked to a temperature rise of 38°C - beyond which we can't really inhabit the planet anymore as we can't regulate our body temperature much past that heat... - would you view that as unacceptable?

If you believe the theory of evolution and that humans adapt to their environment why would such a temperature rise be unacceptable when it happens over millennia giving our descendants bodies time to adapt and if our species dies off why would that matter after all we are not the first inhabitants of this planet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9b9aoINXzk

KyussB

So that's basically saying that a human-driven temperature rise that leads to our own extinction, does not qualify as unacceptable, to you.

The closest we've got in the whole thread, to anyone critical of greta, telling us what their view of the acceptable limit on human-driven climate change is - is a statement that eventual human extinction is ok.

Anyone among the group of posters, critical of greta, want to raise the bar a bit there - perhaps a limit they'd prefer, that doesn't include human extinction?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

So that's basically saying that a human-driven temperature rise that leads to our own extinction, does not qualify as unacceptable, to you.

The closest we've got in the whole thread, to anyone critical of greta, telling us what their view of the acceptable limit on human-driven climate change is - is a statement that eventual human extinction is ok.

Anyone among the group of posters, critical of greta, want to raise the bar a bit there - perhaps a limit they'd prefer, that doesn't include human extinction?

I have not said any of that.

For your information the opinion shared by several scientists is the extinction of this planet and the current human species is inevitable. If you believe that man has been created "in the image" of the Creator, you may have another opinion on the matter.


It is you that picks arbitrary temperature values as being unacceptable while lacking the knowledge and humility to support a conclusion as to why any of those numbers are unacceptable. It is you along with climate extremists using scientifically unsupported fear based narratives to promote your own preconceived notions of how humans should behave by a doctrine that even you don't necessarily ascribe to.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Isn't it great not having money worries such that you don't care about about your energy bills all the while living in part of the Northern hemisphere that is cold and damp for much of the year. If I was as rich as you then I would care why I'm paying carbon tax on top of VAT (a tax on a tax) and where I'm going to get the money from to pay for a rising cost of living.

The bottom line is climate change is not about controlling the weather, it’s about controlling us. If you read the intergovernmental committees brief you would know that the bureaucrats are limited to only reporting on human caused climate change, other sources are not to be considered and without knowing that they have a bias and cannot be climate experts and further this inability to quantify human activities contribution to temperature reduces them to depending on unsupported models that project their fears.

Part of that strategy was to start propagandising children, which they began in the 1990s to the point where it is now second nature for people who grew up under that system to think we are destroying the planet. This is psychological warfare. They want it to be on everybody’s mind and you can see this every time there is a forest fire it is attributed across much of the media to climate change but without any supporting evidence.

You're literally talking about some C-Movie plot while Australia is dealing with severe impact of forest fires which climate scientists have categorically stated are linked with the changing climate and that human behaviours have a role in this.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I'm saying you lack the knowledge and humility to understand science and nature and are simply projecting a fear based narrative.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

You're literally talking about some C-Movie plot while Australia is dealing with severe impact of forest fires which climate scientists have categorically stated are linked with the changing climate and that human behaviours have a role in this.

They produced no evidence for that and it's raining now so the fires are being put out. I suppose you are going to tell me the same climate scientists predicted the rain and the sharknados.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

They produced no evidence for that and it's raining now so the fires are being put out. I suppose you are going to tell me the same climate scientists predicted the rain and the sharknados.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Jo Nova

Joanne Nova is an Australian writer, blogger, and speaker. Born Joanne Codling, she adopted the stage name "Nova" in 1998 when she was preparing to host a children's television program.[2][3] She is prominent for promoting climate change denial.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

You're embarrassing yourself.

Jo Nova

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4-CMSu4yoE

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

...
Anyone among the group of posters, critical of greta, want to raise the bar a bit there - perhaps a limit they'd prefer, that doesn't include human extinction?

Again is it too difficult to comprehend that someone being a fan of gretas particular style of alarmism or otherwise does not equate with the facts on climate change?

And again whatever limit you 'prefer' is irrelevant to the discussion as this is not some bizarre form of pissing competition.

I'm more interested as to why you do not accept the IPCCs latest guidance on this and secondly - why greenhouse gas emission management systems are according to you "fraudulent account tricks'. None of your comments on these issues make any sense whatsoever.

Graces7

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

They produced no evidence for that and it's raining now so the fires are being put out. I suppose you are going to tell me the same climate scientists predicted the rain and the sharknados.

ONE of the fires is being put out. Inaccuracy weakens your "argument."

Pa ElGrande

Graces7 wrote: »

ONE of the fires is being put out. Inaccuracy weakens your "argument."

'Much-Needed' Rain Extinguishes a Third of Australia Fires in a Day

ForestFire

Graces7 wrote: »

ONE of the fires is being put out. Inaccuracy weakens your "argument."

I've been saying this for a long time on this thread.....

Inaccuracy from all alarmists, the media and public representatives weakens the argument.... Unfortunately.....

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I have not said any of that.
...

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

If you believe the theory of evolution and that humans adapt to their environment why would such a temperature rise be unacceptable when it happens over millennia giving our descendants bodies time to adapt and if our species dies off why would that matter after all we are not the first inhabitants of this planet?

You did - you stated that human extinction would not be an unacceptable result, of human driven climate change.

Not only that, but that gets thanked/supported by gozunda and the aptly named fr_dougal.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Again is it too difficult to comprehend that someone being a fan of gretas particular style of alarmism or otherwise does not equate with the facts on climate change?

And again whatever limit you 'prefer' is irrelevant to the discussion as this is not some bizarre form of pissing competition.

I'm more interested as to why you do not accept the IPCCs latest guidance on this and secondly - why greenhouse gas emission management systems are according to you "fraudulent account tricks'. None of your comments on these issues make any sense whatsoever.

It's notable that not a single person on the side of the debate critical of Greta, will even express that human extinction as a result of human-driven climate change, would be 'unacceptable'.

Do you meet that incredibly low bar, of thinking that a human-driven temperature change that leads to human extinction, is unacceptable?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

You did - you stated that human extinction would not be an unacceptable result, of human driven climate change.

If stopping human caused climate exchange is the goal then getting rid of humans solves the perceived problem does it not? In that context I asked you why human extinction would be an unacceptable result? That is the goal of the dark green Malthusian end of the spectrum are they wrong?

ForestFire

KyussB wrote: »

It's notable that not a single person on the side of the debate critical of Greta, will even express that human extinction as a result of human-driven climate change, would be 'unacceptable'.

Seriously, you have made up a scenario that is not backed by any data ,and now assume what everyone thinks about it,.... my some magical means!

Yes human extinction caused by humans, due to any reason, is unacceptable.

Is Taxing the poor and average working people based on Incomplete data with many unknowns, and using this money to fund Teslas and free charging to the privileged few, with no affordable alternatives to the average person acceptable?

Why is every new bus and taxi in our cities not required to be fully electric or hyrogen (central refulling)? But we will tax people to heat their homes and drive there family cars with no alternatives.

I'm all for funding Green incentives, but not rich peoples cars and home renovations.

Do you the 5k grant for EVs will still be available when the average person can afford them? Will there still be a grant for home charging units, when we all need one.?

Not a chance...

If they are charging a carbon tax, it should be used to insulate homes, that need insulation most, starting with the worst homes and possible the poorest people who cannot afford it, or their heating going out the roof and windows etc.

Do you think Teslas sales or home insulations will benifit CO2 reduction more?

Do you think Tesla sales or converting our public transport will benifit CO2 reduction more?

And you might say the grants going to Tesal are insignificant compared to what's needed in homes, but it's the principle that's counts.

Also I am aware of home improvement grants, but in most case you need to pay first and can only claim a portion of it backing, mean the mosted needed cannot afford it anyway.

KyussB

ForestFire wrote: »

Seriously, you have made up a scenario that is not backed by any data ,and now assume what everyone thinks about it,.... my some magical means!

Yes human extinction caused by humans, due to any reason, is unacceptable.
...

Ok finally, someone raises the bar, so we don't have to debate the farcical concept of human extinction further.

At what temperature increase, do you view human-caused climate change as unacceptable? 1.5°C? 5°C? Or even IPCC-unprojected levels of 10°C? 20°C? 30°C?

Just trying to raise the bar further, here.

ForestFire

KyussB wrote: »

Ok finally, someone raises the bar, so we don't have to debate the farcical concept of human extinction further.

At what temperature increase, do you view human-caused climate change as unacceptable? 1.5°C? 5°C? Or even IPCC-unprojected levels of 10°C? 20°C? 30°C?

Just trying to raise the bar further, here.

I do not have the answer to this. But I belive e the scientists believe somewhere between 3 to 5 degrees?

Tell me at what temperature is it a problem?
How much of the current temperature is human related?

Any thoughts of the rest of my post or do I assume "magically" you and every other Greata supporter are in favour of Taxing the poor to benifit the rich?

KyussB

ForestFire wrote: »

I do not have the answer to this. But I belive e the scientists believe somewhere between 3 to 5 degrees?

Tell me at what temperature is it a problem?
How much of the current temperature is human related?

Any thoughts of the rest of my post or do I assume "magically" you and every other Greata supporter are in favour of Taxing the poor to benifit the rich?

Okey, 3 to 5 degrees raises the bar to within IPCC projections - so that helps the debate a lot.

On the other arguments in the previous reply, the idea that fighting climate change = taxing people to death, is a false one. I agree with you that fighting climate change needs to be equitable, and that people who can't afford the measures necessary at an individual level, inevitably need government help - as there is no other way to do it.

I don't believe there are any workable market-based solutions that will resolve climate change issues on time - Sanders in the US, who looks like he's going to be the Democratic presidential candidate there, advocates the kind of policies I think are workable: The Green New Deal, and the Job Guarantee.

Basically, massive government economic retrofitting (i.e. the less well of don't have to self finance climate change mitigating improvements), and an economic protection program going beyond climate change, which helps ensure people are never without a job, which is important while the economy is undergoing a transition away from fossil fuels, as it'll disrupt some major industries.


If you take 3/5 degrees as an unacceptable limit on human contributions to climate change, then it's important to look at how to arrest our emissions on time to avoid hitting those limits - if you look at the economics of this, market-based solutions to climate change are projected to fail to stay within those limits - and government-led solutions like above, are the only way.