• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

So Who Are The Adults Pulling The Strings of the Child Climate Change Protests?

Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
ratiocinator said:
Well of course it is - they can do as they want without having to persuade an electorate, so if they decided to make radical changes, they could just do it. It would be the same for any non-democratic, authoritarian government and any policy. I don't see that that means anybody is recommending authoritarian government.
Click to expand...

Obviously. Ironic thing is that same type of government got China into the mess it is in right now.

When pointing out one system of government is better at fighting climate change that is an endorsement.



What did they actually say?
Click to expand...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
 
Guitar's Cry

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Shad said:
You are the one injecting emotions into this.
Click to expand...

The response was to a question of paranoia, since it stands to reason that there appears to be a fear (worry, concern: pick your synonym) that communism would be a replacement to capitalism if it is shown to be better at negating climate change.
 
Last edited:
Notanumber

Notanumber

A Free Man
Guitar's Cry said:
The response was to a question of paranoia, since it stands to reason that there appears to be a fear (worry, concern: pick your simile) that communism would be a replacement to capitalism if it is shown to be better at negating climate change.
Click to expand...

Is there not a more relevant question of paranoia being instilled into our young people regarding manmade climate change for political gain?

The same tactic has been used before and very effectively.
 
Guitar's Cry

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Notanumber said:
Is there not a more relevant question of paranoia being instilled into our young people regarding manmade climate change for political gain?

The same tactic has been used before and very effectively.
Click to expand...

I am sure it has been used for political gain. Far more worrying are the actual effects our technology has on our personal health and the health of the environment.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Climate change" is real, the research overwhelmingly now indicates that we are in a period of global warming and that most of it is cause by human endeavors of one type or another, with higher levels of CO2 and methane gas being the main culprits. Generally speaking, the naysayers are largely using some politicians for their source, directly or indirectly. For those of us who are actually involved in science, we've seen this many times before and on different topics, and we also rather painfully see how all many people are gullible to these vested interests and not doing the homework from peer-reviewed sources.
 
Notanumber

Notanumber

A Free Man
metis said:
"Climate change" is real, the research overwhelmingly now indicates that we are in a period of global warming and that most of it is cause by human endeavors of one type or another, with higher levels of CO2 and methane gas being the main culprits. Generally speaking, the naysayers are largely using some politicians for their source, directly or indirectly. For those of us who are actually involved in science, we've seen this many times before and on different topics, and we also rather painfully see how all many people are gullible to these vested interests and not doing the homework from peer-reviewed sources.
Click to expand...

If you are right, what is the answer?

Is it just wind and solar?
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Guitar's Cry said:
The response was to a question of paranoia, since it stands to reason that there appears to be a fear (worry, concern: pick your simile) that communism would be a replacement to capitalism if it is shown to be better at negating climate change.
Click to expand...

Again you are injecting the emotion.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Notanumber said:
If you are right, what is the answer?

Is it just wind and solar?
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of whether I'm right or not but whether the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists are right, and I have to strongly lead in the direction that they have concluded as I've been following the studies on this for decades now in "Scientific American" and other science sources.

Besides wind and solar, I also believe we need to invest more in nuclear-- as much as I dislike it. Also energy conservation is very important, as well as "renewables". Even if supposedly the climate scientists were to be wrong on this, these steps simply make sense in other ways as well.
 
Notanumber

Notanumber

A Free Man
metis said:
It's not a matter of whether I'm right or not but whether the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists are right, and I have to strongly lead in the direction that they have concluded as I've been following the studies on this for decades now in "Scientific American" and other science sources.

Besides wind and solar, I also believe we need to invest more in nuclear-- as much as I dislike it. Also energy conservation is very important, as well as "renewables". Even if supposedly the climate scientists were to be wrong on this, these steps simply make sense in other ways as well.
Click to expand...

Nuclear makes much more sense than throwing money at wind and solar farms.

Do you believe that the hockey stick graph is valid?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Notanumber said:
Do you have a link to the one that you claim to be authentic?
Click to expand...


The hockey stick itself is "authentic". It was never refuted. The minor corrections done to it are hardly noticeable. But let me see:

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


2000_year_temperature_comparison.png


Comparisons-of-simulated-and-reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-temperature-changes-v2.jpg


Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

And the hockey stick:

Michael-Manns-graph-of-te-002.jpg



MBH1999_Wahl_2007.gif


https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

The hockey stick is not all that different from other models.

Rats. If you hit the reply button you will be able to see the hockey stick. Or follow the link. Meanwhile I will see if I can find another source.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Notanumber said:
Do you believe that the hockey stick graph is valid?
Click to expand...
I's really a shame you brought that up because even though the graph was calibrated wrong, probably to overdramatize Gore's point, what it did accurately demonstrate is that we are indeed in a period of global warming, and no honest person in science disputes that.

But this is what some people with their agenda often do, namely to look for an error or distortion, and then use that to undermine the entire message-- sorta like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is as dishonest as the day is long, but those who look for "confirmation bias" will be pleased and those not familiar with the science might be gullible enough to believe it. [I'm not referring to you on this, btw]

Reagan was a very much a master at doing things like this, for example, namely to use the exception as if it's the rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top