Jump to content

Climate Change?


Recommended Posts


Greta Thunberg's U.N. speech prompted ugly insults — proving her critics can't fault her actual message


On Monday, climate activist Greta Thunberg delivered a blistering address to the United Nations, accusing the adults in the room (aka assembled world leaders) of endangering her future by refusing to act quickly on emissions. The 16-year-old’s remarks invited a rapturous response, as politicians praised her unflinching dedication to the cause. “Recognizing that her generation will bear the brunt of climate change, she’s unafraid to push for real action,” tweeted President Barack Obama.

Of course, Thunberg also attracted a few detractors from the conservative media crowd.

“I can’t tell if Greta needs a spanking or a psychological intervention,” tweeted Breitbart contributor John Nolte, to widespread revulsion. Not to be outdone, conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza shared a meme comparing Thunberg to Nazi propaganda.

The most prominent figure in the conservative outrage echo chamber also weighed in: “A very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future,” President Trump mockingly tweeted. Thunberg promptly added that description to her Twitter bio.

In an essay for The Atlantic titled “Why Greta Makes Adults Uncomfortable,” writer Robinson Meyer argued that “Thunberg epitomizes, in a person, the unique moral position of being a teenager. She can see the world through an ‘adult’ moral lens, and so she knows that the world is a heartbreakingly flawed place. But unlike an actual adult, she bears almost no conscious blame for this dismal state.”

In other words, her perspective rattles pundits who are used to engaging with other jaded, cynical political figures, as opposed to teenagers armed with both facts and an unimpeachable moral standing.

Nowhere was this more dynamic more evident Monday than at Fox News. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most sustained Thunberg attacks on television came from the network’s guests and anchors, who spewed criticism of the teen activist throughout the day.

"I can't wait for Stephen King's sequel, Children of the Climate," remarked anchor Laura Ingraham, comparing Thunberg’s appearance at the U.N. to a scene from the King-inspired horror movie Children of the Corn. Her comments earned her a sharp rebuke from her own brother, Curtis Ingraham, who wrote on Twitter, “Clearly my sister’s paycheck is more important than the world her three adopted kids will inherit.”

Earlier in the day, a guest on Fox & Friends named Marc Morano accused Thunberg of “causing and instilling fear in millions of kids around the world, and actually [having them believe] that government can legislate our climate.” Morano described this hypothetical fear as a so-called “Greta effect,” claiming it is keeping kids from attending school due to anxiety.

Perhaps the most odious comments of the day came from Daily Wire contributor Michael Knowles, appearing on Fox News' The Story opposite progressive podcaster Chris Hahn.

"The climate hysteria movement is not about science," Knowles said. "If it were about science, it would be led by scientists, rather than by politicians and a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left."

Hahn rebuked him, saying, "You're attacking a child. You're a grown man." But Knowles doubled down: "She is mentally ill. She has autism. She has obsessive-compulsive disorder. She has selective mutism. She had depression."

Later that night, Fox News apologized for Knowles’ comments, calling them “disgraceful” and saying there were “no plans” for Knowles appear on the network again. "We apologize to Greta Thunberg and to our viewers,” said a Fox News spokesperson in a statement.

Thunberg appears to make these high-profile voices uncomfortable because she’s not playing politics — she’s simply pleading for her own future with passionate intensity. There’s not much to malign about a teenager concerned for her quality of life. So rather than engage with her arguments directly, her adult detractors try instead to undercut her authority and downplay her intelligence by bringing up her Asperger’s diagnosis and implying that she’s a partisan pawn. The act is not very convincing.

It’s also not fooling anyone — Thunberg included. “When haters go after your looks and differences, it means they have nowhere left to go,” she wrote on Twitter. “And then you know you’re winning!”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure a young girl (or a bunch of them) yelling at the clouds is going to change much....


Greta Thunberg's UN speech falls on deaf ears as world's largest emitters dodge sweeping climate commitments

'Altogether, the top three emitters account for nearly half of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the World Resources Institute'

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please prove to me beyond a doubt that any of this melting ice is caused by HUMAN created CO2 in the atmosphere.


There is science on both sides proving it s and proving its not.  There is doubt.

Is the world getting warmer.  Maybe but not by much.  Has the world been warmer before YES.  Has the planet be covered with ice and permafrost from the equator to the poles. YES.

Cycles happen and will continue to happen whether you add the human to the equation or not.

Prove to me that humans caused the glacier to disappear.  you can't


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think anyone is a climate denier on this forum. I am pretty sure there are a lot of Climate TAX deniers though.

Its not the Climate Changing argument that causes resistance, for me it’s the implementation of the remedy. People are fed up with being taxed to death. If money really is the issue and direly needed, it’s time to take the resources they already have and re-allocate them where needed. Billions spent over seas gets ZERO return for Canadians, ESPECIALLY since Canada is a NET zero problem. I think a lot of the resistance would disappear when and if we finally see Government (s) going after China and India with a sustainable plan to actually change something other than our dwindling bank accounts.

 Personally I will NEVER willingly agree to more taxation, any taxation... and will place my one and only X accordingly.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2019 at 1:53 PM, boestar said:

There is science on both sides proving it s and proving its not.  There is doubt.


I can't offer you proof of anything that you couldn't easily find yourself, but I can tell you the only message from real science is that we have caused the problem this time. There is pseudo-science claiming otherwise, but I challenge you to find any legitimate, peer-reviewed climate science paper saying anything else. 

The huge money at stake in the fossil fuel industry has been behind awesome amounts of misinformation which has convinced you there is genuine doubt... but there isn't.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome back Mitch. Trust all is well with you and yours. 

Interesting article on "real science". (my pov is that something is happening and there is no reason not to attempt to  reduce our impact , my science says it can not hurt to do so and might indeed help , I will likely not be around to see the results one way or another ) increasing taxes, however, will do nothing unless 100% of the money is used to fund innovations that will reduce our footprint on the world rather than being used to buy votes or carbon credits.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mitch Cronin said:

I can't offer you proof of anything that you couldn't easily find yourself, but I can tell you the only message from real science is that we have caused the problem this time. There is pseudo-science claiming otherwise, but I challenge you to find any legitimate, peer-reviewed climate science paper saying anything else. 

The huge money at stake in the fossil fuel industry has been behind awesome amounts of misinformation which has convinced you there is genuine doubt... but there isn't.

Welcome back Mitch!

The science is out there.  Some just need to acknowledge it.





Edited by deicer
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If You Can’t Sell Your Hysteria To Adults, Try Kids

The entire American left — the mainstream media, the environmentalist movement and Democratic politicians in particular — are celebrating the involvement of teenagers and even younger children in protesting the world’s “inaction” with regard to global warming.

And not just the American left, of course. The left throughout the world is celebrating. A 16-year-old Swedish girl whose contempt for adults is breathtaking is an international hero. Congressional Democrats invited her to testify in Congress, and the United Nations has likewise invited her.

The mayor and city council of New York City further politicized their city’s public schools by allowing students to skip school to actively participate in a global warming protest.

The message of young climate change activists is: “You adults aren’t doing your job. As a result, we have no future.” As a sympathetic reporter — are there any non-sympathetic reporters? — for the Los Angeles Times put it, “(T)eens are still waiting for a sign that their elders get it.”

The Times’ coverage is typical. It reported: “Underneath the activism lies a simple truth: Young people are incredibly scared about climate change. They see it as a profound injustice and an existential threat to their generation and those that will follow. …

They do worry, and they worry kind of a lot,’ said Maria Ojala, an environmental psychologist at Orebro University in Sweden. …

“Arielle Martinez Cohen” — an 18-year-old Los Angeles activist with the youth climate group Zero Hour — “remembers reading a report from an Australian think tank that warned the human species could face extinction by 2050 if society doesn’t get its act together.

“‘I almost imagine, like, an apocalypse-type thing happening,’ Arielle said.

“Many young people say they can’t fathom bringing kids of their own into the world. …

“‘It’s not ethical. It’s literally a burning house,’ Lana said.

“‘That’s something that’s not realistic,’ agreed her twin sister, Yena.

“And how can they even think about college or contemplate their careers when faced with so much uncertainty?

“‘It’s something I feel every single day,’ Yena said. ‘I work really hard at school and I do all these things, and I’m like, “What am I working for? Do I have a future?”‘”

It is critical to remember that hysterias — such as Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, “endemic and systemic racism in America,” the heterosexual AIDS “crisis” in America and the “rape culture” on American college campuses — are to the left what oxygen is to biological life. No oxygen, no life; no hysteria, no left.

Apparently, however, the left-wing hysteria about global warming leading to the virtual extinction of life on Earth has not moved enough adults. Many adults who do not deny that the Earth is getting warmer — such as Danish writer and environmentalist thinker Bjorn Lomborg — do deny that the threat is “existential” and do believe that the left’s solutions, such as the Green New Deal, will damage the world far more than will carbon emissions. Proof that the left is hysterical is its unwillingness to promote nuclear power — a completely clean, non-fossil fuel-based source of power. It provides France with 70 percent of its energy. Anyone who really believes life on Earth is endangered would grasp at the nuclear power lifeboat. That they do not proves what many of us have believed from the beginning: The “existential threat” scenario is another left-wing falsehood used to whip up hysteria that will lead to the left’s control of the economy and society.

And that takes us back to the children: If you can’t sell your hysteria to adults, try kids. And that is what the left has done. After all, no one is as malleable or as easily indoctrinated as children.

Consider this: If the left didn’t tell them the world is going to end, they wouldn’t worry about it. They’d be enjoying their young lives, maybe even learning to appreciate that they live in the freest country at the most prosperous time in human history. Instead, thanks to leftists (who are children in adult bodies), they live in their grip of “existential eco-anxiety.”

This is but one more way in which the left abuses children (along with telling them they are neither boys nor girls but whatever they later choose to be; teaching them contempt for their country; and depriving them of the greatest source of morality, meaning, community and happiness — any of the Judeo-Christian religions).

It’s depressing, and it’s frightening.

The scariest movies are those featuring brainwashed children. This horror show is happening in real life.



Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re selling to kids, no problem with that but I do have a problem with those who promote a cause yet can only do so because they have the $$$$ and  use the resources / energy etc. from oil to do so.  In other words , do not walk the walk, just talk the talk.  Yachts, aircraft etc etc etc. Their carbon foot print is mega millions higher than mine.  When I see them give up their carbon intensive life styles , then they will have joined the rest of us who they expect to sacrifice to help the world.  In the meantime, maybe they will strike a cord but sadly they are strumming off beat compared to the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Marshall said:

Their carbon foot print is mega millions higher than mine.  When I see them give up their carbon intensive life styles , then they will have joined the rest of us who they expect to sacrifice to help the world. 

This will be the prevailing attitude the very instant concrete action on climate change is initiated in any meaningful way.... to date, we haven't done that. 

Here we have 65 pages of forum bandwidth and yet, just like our politicians, we have completely and utterly failed to address the real issue.... this is exactly why all of this has, and will come to nothing. IMO, this is simple arithmetic, we are projected to be 79 megatons of carbon short of Paris Accord targets and it seems few politicians and even fewer voters have any sense of the magnitude of effort it will take to shed it. The carbon tax actually needs to be at about $300/ton yet about 75% of Canadians (now) don't like it at $20. 

So, assuming you are willing to take the pain that goes along with lowering our global footprint from 1.7% to about 1% of total emissions where do you see that 79 megatons coming from and is a .7% drop in yearly global output sufficient to make it all worthwhile? Think big now because shutting down our entire agricultural sector (at about 60MT) is not enough to get us there. Like any worthwhile endeavour, this needs to hurt a bit (actually a lot); nothing in my experience suggests to me that Canadians have the heart for such a huge effort to obtain a .7% reduction in global emissions. The first question is do you really want what you seem to be asking for and are you willing to pay the price? 

A simple yes/no is all that's required here. If yes, tell me what you are willing to give up..... because that is what it all boils down to. All the New Years resolutions turned gym attendance is gone, and I mean GONE by mid February (at my gym anyway). In the grand scheme of things, how do you expect people who are unwilling to maintain a simple calorie deficit and do some exercise to absorb real pain for the sake .7%?

As a PS, JT knows all this and that's why he now wants to plant trees. He also knows that our landmass scrubs 20% more carbon than we produce and we have already (vastly) exceeded our new commitment to "NET ZERO". As time marches on, you can expect to see a shift toward net zero rhetoric and all the liberal base will say amen. 



Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it takes is a shift in thinking and belief.

What did I give up?


When I replaced my HVAC system I paid more for a more efficient system that uses way less gas and electricity.

When I renovated my house, I paid more for better doors and windows.

When I replaced my car, I paid more for a more fuel efficient model.

When I replace electronics, I pay more for the ones that use less.

What we have to do now is to change the antiquated system of sucking as much profit out of old inefficient designs and move forward.  Having had the ability to travel the world, it is amazing to see really how far behind North America is in bringing in more efficient everything.  

Then again, selling old crap is more profitable and that's what it's about, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is for certain.  We, the human race, are very poor custodians of planet earth.  CArbon is not the only issue either.  Other forms of pollution which still go unaddressed are a problem as well.  We still put far more garbage in the ground that we should.  Who ever would have thought that there would be trade in garbage? even that is going as people now realize they are just being paid to take on someone elses problem.

until we, ALL OF US, start to actually give a crap about the planet nothing of consequence will ever get done to fix it and so long as we keep increasing the population the issue will only get worse.

No one ever seems to mention the huge population growth over the last century each one of which expells CO2 in large quantities.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, boestar said:

until we, ALL OF US, start to actually give a crap about the planet nothing of consequence will ever get done to fix it

Good point and it's another piece of the puzzle that gets forgotten.

People who live in abject poverty don't care about conservation, preservation or the environment in general.... that includes many (dare I say most) in the third world where some of the worst problems are. By that I mean that 90% of the plastic in our oceans comes from only 10 rivers in Asia and Africa. Some make the argument (and there is some validity to it) that the quickest way to make the worst offenders care is to raise them out of poverty. 

This is why I am of the opinion that if you want measurable results, we need to send our money offshore. Our .7% target is way beyond rational when viewed through the lens of cost/benefit. Imagine if we adopted a river and installed an incinerator that burned plastic and generated much needed power.....POOF, instant 10% reduction in global plastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...