Post by Crash Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony Post by Rich80105 Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Gretas already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Gretas already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "
So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Post by Crash
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
I posted extracts from that article further back in the thread :
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria Universitys Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarcticas ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the worlds
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way were going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarcticas ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105 Post by Tony
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?