Global Student Strike for Climate Change

[ForsbergTheGreat]

3 hours ago, gurn said:

 

 

Oh look, yet another of those posters:

"How can she complain about dirty air  if she is still breathing it? What a hypocrite."

Stuff that wouldn't get past my grade eight debating club.

It's actually a fair argument. Facepalming calling the argument dumb is nothing short of just admitting you don't have an answer.

[Alflives]

3 hours ago, gurn said:

 

 

Oh look, yet another of those posters:

"How can she complain about dirty air  if she is still breathing it? What a hypocrite."

Stuff that wouldn't get past my grade eight debating club.

Debate club! 

Now that’s funny.

[Gurn]

20 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

It's actually a fair argument. Facepalming calling the argument dumb is nothing short of just admitting you don't have an answer.

It isn't even a good argument let alone a fair one. The argument/topic is not binary, it does not fall into an all or nothing category.

Even grade eight students can understand that.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

11 minutes ago, gurn said:

It isn't even a good argument let alone a fair one. The argument/topic is not binary, it does not fall into an all or nothing category.

Even grade eight students can understand that.

it one 100% is.  Just because you try to make it something that doesn't relate to real life topic at hand, in order to make transition the debate, doesn't mean it's not a valid point.  Unfortunately that is grade 8 style debate, most adults can see right through that.  

 

People aren't calling her a hypocrite for wanting change. They are calling her a hypocrite for massively contributing to the carbon footprint.  Honestly ask yourself.  Why aren't people hypocrites for driving cars, for eating out at restaurants, and continuously buying/demand more and more products produced by petroleum?  I'm curious if you can give an actual reason and not another false fallacy.  

 

 

 

[The Lock]

I don't know. I think all of these arguments over what someone is doing while trying to make a difference is kind of silly. They're more distractions that don't really help the task at hand. Instead of actually listening to the message and arguing that, we're suddenly shifting the argument towards how she gets around. It almost feels as silly as arguing over what kind of shoes she's wearing while she gives the speech in my opinion.

 

I get that there are going to be people who don't believe there are issues with climate change, but shifting the argument doesn't really help that case.

[kingofsurrey]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

it one 100% is.  Just because you try to make it something that doesn't relate to real life topic at hand, in order to make transition the debate, doesn't mean it's not a valid point.  Unfortunately that is grade 8 style debate, most adults can see right through that.  

 

People aren't calling her a hypocrite for wanting change. They are calling her a hypocrite for massively contributing to the carbon footprint.  Honestly ask yourself.  Why aren't people hypocrites for driving cars, for eating out at restaurants, and continuously buying/demand more and more products produced by petroleum?  I'm curious if you can give an actual reason and not another false fallacy.  

 

 

 

People are  calling Greta a hero.... and rightfully so.

 

 

From Greta

 

“Change is coming whether you like it or not,” she said.

 

“We’re starting to see through their lies and we will hold [adults] accountable for their actions. We will be a constant reminder that they are failing, and that constant reminder is what we are today, and every Friday, every single day that goes by without sufficient action being taken and when the science is being ignored. Because we are not just some kids skipping school or some adults who are not going to work. We are a wave of change and together we are unstoppable. We will rise to the challenge, hold those responsible for this crisis accountable and we will make world leaders act. We can, and we will.”

Edited October 28, 2019 by kingofsurrey

[inane]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

it one 100% is.  Just because you try to make it something that doesn't relate to real life topic at hand, in order to make transition the debate, doesn't mean it's not a valid point.  Unfortunately that is grade 8 style debate, most adults can see right through that.  

 

People aren't calling her a hypocrite for wanting change. They are calling her a hypocrite for massively contributing to the carbon footprint.  Honestly ask yourself.  Why aren't people hypocrites for driving cars, for eating out at restaurants, and continuously buying/demand more and more products produced by petroleum?  I'm curious if you can give an actual reason and not another false fallacy.  

 

 

 

Who cares though. Does the message somehow become invalid because the messenger isn't living up to the message to your satisfaction? 

 

It's like going to the doctor and having them tell you to stop smoking cause it's killing you but you see them smoke a cigar once and you're all well they are are a hypocrite so I can smoke as much as I want now. 

 

Sure you might feel like you're in the 'right' cause you think he's a hypocrite but you're still dying.

[Ryan Strome]

42 minutes ago, inane said:

Who cares though. Does the message somehow become invalid because the messenger isn't living up to the message to your satisfaction? 

 

It's like going to the doctor and having them tell you to stop smoking cause it's killing you but you see them smoke a cigar once and you're all well they are are a hypocrite so I can smoke as much as I want now. 

 

Sure you might feel like you're in the 'right' cause you think he's a hypocrite but you're still dying.

While you make a good example I can understand FTG question here. Sure we can all accept climate change but when Gore, Suzuki, and titanic boy make their arguments it's hard to take it serious because they don't. 

 

 

[kingofsurrey]

32 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

While you make a good example I can understand FTG question here. Sure we can all accept climate change but when Gore, Suzuki, and titanic boy make their arguments it's hard to take it serious because they don't. 

 

 

Many people in  Bangladesh are taking climate change pretty serious.....

 

[Toews]

1 hour ago, inane said:

Who cares though. Does the message somehow become invalid because the messenger isn't living up to the message to your satisfaction? 

 

It's like going to the doctor and having them tell you to stop smoking cause it's killing you but you see them smoke a cigar once and you're all well they are are a hypocrite so I can smoke as much as I want now. 

 

Sure you might feel like you're in the 'right' cause you think he's a hypocrite but you're still dying.

There was a time when lead was used just about everywhere. Similar arguments were made by those who had a vested interest in continuing its use. This episode is a personal favourite of mine.

 

[Ryan Strome]

33 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Many people in  Bangladesh are taking climate change pretty serious.....

 

I think many around the world do, that being said some just talk the talk that's why I will listen to people like May and Layton(RIP) instead because they walk the walk. 

Edited October 28, 2019 by Ryan Strome

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, inane said:

Who cares though. Does the message somehow become invalid because the messenger isn't living up to the message to your satisfaction? 

 

It's like going to the doctor and having them tell you to stop smoking cause it's killing you but you see them smoke a cigar once and you're all well they are are a hypocrite so I can smoke as much as I want now. 

 

Sure you might feel like you're in the 'right' cause you think he's a hypocrite but you're still dying.

Except in this case, your doctor is a 16 year old girl with zero climatology background spreading a message that not all actual climatologists agree on.  Not all scientist agree that we are in a climate emergency, most agree climate change is happening and man made but not at the point of no return.  If we were, we'd be pushing a lot more extreme measures than simply attacking Alberta oil.

 

When the message is turn or burn and you are seen not following your own advice, you taint the severity of the warning you are declaring.  It's become very cult like and media with much of the public has sucked it up.  IF you want a more resembling example it would be a like priest telling his congregation that god demands all of the followers donate 10% of their salaries or they're going to hell, but then you see the priest income taxes and not only is he not donating anything and he's spending the congregation donations of material items for his personal life.  

 

 

That's why I ask Gurn for the example, why aren't people hypocrites for not giving up their petroleums products.  We all know the answer, and it's because the majority of people need those items (such as a car and computers) in order to provide for their family household.  They can't afford to stop supporting oil for their own lively hoods depend on it.

 

The hypocritical part is these same people wont give up oil because of the slight effects it will have on their own lives, but they are ok with telling the families in Alberta who's income is directly involved in oil, that production needs to stop.  

[*Buzzsaw*]

Climate change really isn't happening... we can ignore it... 

 

As 180,000 people are evacuated in S Cali and 1 million are without power.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50196185

[*Buzzsaw*]

8 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Except in this case, your doctor is a 16 year old girl with zero climatology background spreading a message that not all actual climatologists agree on.  Not all scientist agree that we are in a climate emergency, most agree climate change is happening and man made but not at the point of no return.  If we were, we'd be pushing a lot more extreme measures than simply attacking Alberta oil.

 

When the message is turn or burn and you are seen not following your own advice, you taint the severity of the warning you are declaring.  It's become very cult like and media with much of the public has sucked it up.  IF you want a more resembling example it would be a like priest telling his congregation that god demands all of the followers donate 10% of their salaries or they're going to hell, but then you see the priest income taxes and not only is he not donating anything and he's spending the congregation donations of material items for his personal life.  

 

 

That's why I ask Gurn for the example, why aren't people hypocrites for not giving up their petroleums products.  We all know the answer, and it's because the majority of people need those items (such as a car and computers) in order to provide for their family household.  They can't afford to stop supporting oil for their own lively hoods depend on it.

 

The hypocritical part is these same people wont give up oil because of the slight effects it will have on their own lives, but they are ok with telling the families in Alberta who's income is directly involved in oil, that production needs to stop.  

You're so full of false information its coming out all your orifices.

 

The only Climate Scientists who don't agree Climate Change is happening and its a result of human activity are hacks who are paid by Climate deniers.

 

Have a read of what the facts are courtesy of NASA:

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

 

Unless you are one of those who believe NASA faked the moon landing. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by *Buzzsaw*

[ForsbergTheGreat]

14 minutes ago, *Buzzsaw* said:

You're so full of false information its coming out all your orifices.

 

The only Climate Scientists who don't agree Climate Change is happening and its a result of human activity are hacks who are paid by Climate deniers.

Before you want to start claiming I’m full of false information you might want to learn how to read, before you get all triggered. 

 

[UnkNuk]

46 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Except in this case, your doctor is a 16 year old girl with zero climatology background spreading a message that not all actual climatologists agree on.  Not all scientist agree that we are in a climate emergency, most agree climate change is happening and man made but not at the point of no return.  If we were, we'd be pushing a lot more extreme measures than simply attacking Alberta oil.

 

 

I think this is a valid question that needs discussing.

 

It seems to me that the large majority of climate scientists agree the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that increase in temperature with the production of greenhouse gases.

 

But it's not clear to me whether climate scientists are also as heavily agreed on the severity of the consequences of increased temperatures and how soon those consequences might come home to roost.

 

Or are they?

[*Buzzsaw*]

11 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

I think this is a valid question that needs discussing.

 

It seems to me that the large majority of climate scientists agree the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that increase in temperature with the production of greenhouse gases.

 

But it's not clear to me whether climate scientists are also as heavily agreed on the severity of the consequences of increased temperatures and how soon those consequences might come home to roost.

 

Or are they?

You obviously have not bothered to do any reading.

 

4th Report of US Scientists cumulative studies on the effects of Climate Change.... and this is only effects on the US... many other parts of the world will see far more severe effects:

 

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

 

Very clearly shows the effects of climate change will be severe and life altering.

Edited October 28, 2019 by *Buzzsaw*

[*Buzzsaw*]

Oh yeah, and here's that bastion of Left Wing environmentalism... the US Army... here's their report on the likely effects of Climate Change.

 

https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery

 

Start reading on Page 4... or if you want to cut to the chase, go to Page 14 for the conclusion.

[UnkNuk]

6 minutes ago, *Buzzsaw* said:

Oh yeah, and here's that bastion of Left Wing environmentalism... the US Army... here's their report on the likely effects of Climate Change.

 

https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery

 

Start reading on Page 4... or if you want to cut to the chase, go to Page 14 for the conclusion.

Thanks for the links, Buzzsaw.  

 

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly.

 

I agree that the majority of climate scientists agree that there will be some dire consequences due to global warming.

 

But is there a robust consensus among climate scientists about how bad it will get and how quickly it will get bad?

 

The reason I ask is that I've heard talks that suggest that we could be doomed in ten years time.  I've heard others say that we should strive to attain certain levels of carbon emissions by 2050 to escape trouble.  I've heard other reports that are concerned about what might happen by the end of the century.

 

So which is it?

 

 

[*Buzzsaw*]

2 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

Thanks for the links, Buzzsaw.  

 

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly.

 

I agree that the majority of climate scientists agree that there will be some dire consequences due to global warming.

 

But is there a robust consensus among climate scientists about how bad it will get and how quickly it will get bad?

 

The reason I ask is that I've heard talks that suggest that we could be doomed in ten years time.  I've heard others say that we should strive to attain certain levels of carbon emissions by 2050 to escape trouble.  I've heard other reports that are concerned about what might happen by the end of the century.

 

So which is it?

 

 

You are not reading the links... IT'S HAPPENING NOW.

 

From the US Army Report:

 

Persistently recurring conditions such as flooding, drought, and higher temperatures increase the strain on fragile states and vulnerable populations by dampening economic activity and burdening public health through loss of agriculture and electricity production, the change in known infectious disease patterns and the rise of new ones, and increases in respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. This could result in increased intra- and inter-state migration, and generate other negative effects on human security. For example, from 2006-2011, a severe multi-year drought affected Syria and contributed to massive agriculture failures and population displacements. Large movements of rural dwellers to city centers coincided with the presence of large numbers of Iraqi refugees in Syrian cities, effectively overwhelming institutional capacity to respond constructively to the changing service demands. These kinds of impacts in regions around the world could necessitate greater DoD involvement in the provision of humanitarian assistance and other aid.

 

Yep.... that's what it said... the Climate Change caused drought conditions in Syria were a large part of the conflict which destroyed Syria... and caused more than 4 million refugees to head for Europe... remember all those scenes of refugees trying to cross borders... and kids dying on beaches????