The house is on fire.

[DaveP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7dVF9xylaw

Greta Thunberg addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Hello America, this is what is happening outside your box.

Outside your current political fog.

The young people around the world (the generation to be most affected) are taking matters into their own hands because of the failure of adult politics.

I feel ashamed. :-[

DaveP

 

[fazer]

I was on a sailboat in January 2 years in a row.  Had 4 100w panels with inverter and batteries.  Also a wind gen.  We still cooked with propane and ran the frig and lights and charged cellphones .  There was an hvac but used shore power when needed.  It was not needed in January.  The key to using solar is reducing your footprint. 

Lots of high top vans in Colorado with solar panels and propane for off the grid burning man type camping  and such.  I want one but my wife doesn’t like the idea and wants a hotel room or big motorhome.  I’m not into 8 mpg to get some where.  Might as well just drive the Honda and a motel at the end. 

The key is have less power hungry devices in your life.  Explain that to my wife.  Well we know who wears the pants in this family.

 

[DaveP]

Scott,
Because of the increase in the world's population, we are facing a crisis  that is bigger than the economic collapse of the early 1930's.

There are many similarities, there were the deniers who advocated "a laissez faire" attitude and people like Maynard Keynes who did the math and came up with the formulae of how an economy works.  Very few believed the science until Roosevelt took it on board with the "New Deal".  The rest is history.

The same problems of understanding and denial exist today in perfect symmetry.  This is my main reason for not endorsing Trump although I support the democracy that voted for him.  Everything else about him is just moving deckchairs on the Titanic.  So to echo another President,"It's the Climate Stupid".

DaveP

 

[ruffrecords]

I think it is obscene that children should be used in this way.

Cheers

Ian

 

[DaveP]

I think it is obscene that children should be used in this way.

No-one's using her Ian, she is leading the way entirely by herself.  She is likely to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for actions.

What is obscene to me is seeing an Oranutang trying to fight off a JCB destroying its home  (attached)

DaveP

 

[cyrano]

Energy isn't the biggest problem. Population is. Closely followed by our "need" to travel. And plastics. There's even micro-plastics in the air we breathe.

Energy is a technical problem. Easily solved with a technical solution. Getting plastics from our environment and limiting population growth is a political problem. Yet, some nations are leading the way. Morocco made all use of plastic bags illegal. Some other nations followed and now the EU has declared all one-time-use plastics to be phased out by 2020.

I'm very glad these kids are around. They are the future, if there is one.

 

[DaveP]

You Americans have one thing right there, I think you still use brown paper bags for your groceries, I wish Europe did as they are recyclable.

DaveP

 

[cyrano]

You Americans have one thing right there, I think you still use brown paper bags for your groceries, I wish Europe did as they are recyclable.

DaveP

I use a shopping basket...

I have two of them, admittedly, one is plastic...

Besides, most supermarkets over here no longer have plastic bags, unless you pay for them. Brown paper bags are free. ALDI and LIDL are exceptions, but even these make you pay for plastic bags.

 

[[silent:arts]]

Besides, most supermarkets over here no longer have plastic bags, unless you pay for them. Brown paper bags are free. ALDI and LIDL are exceptions, but even these make you pay for plastic bags.

Only because free plastic bags are not allowed anymore in the EU 

 

[Gold]

You Americans have one thing right there, I think you still use brown paper bags for your groceries,

We get plastic bags here.  I reuse them as dog poop bags or trash bags. They might be charging for them soon.

 

[s2udio]

I think it is obscene that children should be used in this way.

Cheers

Ian

Absolutely Ian, and quite disgusting, IMHO.
Psyhcological emotional brainwashing of kids and putting fear into them because of unproven unsubstansiated claims,
By globalist backed political activists and manipulated cultists,
Have any of you actualy read, and digested the "between the lines" one world government document on,
Destruction of democracy, The 2021, now 2030 agenda.
Chilling revalations on world depopulation and control of property rights.
These are no more or less activist "cults", spewing lies, paid for by the UN and IPCC, at the core ensuring economic and
Control benefits, for rich and powerful people and corperations.
If this carries on, you the "citizen" will have your democratic rights completely destroyed.
Cui bono, not YOU the citizen thats for sure.

 

[DaveP]

Psyhcological emotional brainwashing of kids and putting fear into them because of unproven unsubstansiated claims,

Please tell us what level of proof would be necessary for you?

As a chemist myself, it was not hard for me to understand the implications of the exponential rise in the CO2 content in the atmosphere.  You seem to think that the world's scientists and media have conspired together to frighten the younger generation, what possible benefit would that be to them?

We usually say follow the money, but big corporations are hardly willing participants in this debate so they can't be the usual suspects.

DaveP

 

[s2udio]

We usually say follow the money, but big corporations are hardly willing participants in this debate so they can't be the usual suspects.

DaveP

Really , these corperate organisations already advise governments and in todays world practicaly run them.
I don't need proof, I already have it, you obviously do need proof good sir, Co2 nonsense !
Do you belive everything these parasitic leeches tell you, or do you fear and belive the nonsense of the mainstreem media.
Its all plain to see, its up to you to do the reasearch and join the dots, no good me  telling you anything, your mind is obviously closed, to any questioning of authority reterick, and lies.
The world is changing fast and it has nothing to do with children crying about "man made" climate change,
Dave you are intelligent ,think ouside the box, you will see the plan for what it is.
Have a good day

 

[Matador]

Please tell us what level of proof would be necessary for you?

This of course is the key question.

John Bryne really nails this (although the quote is in the context of flat earthers, the underlying mechanism rings true):

To understand Flat Earthers, and other people who hold unconventional beliefs, we need to first consider what it means to “believe.” A belief is a cognitive representation of the nature of reality, encompassing our inner experiences, the world around us, and the world beyond. In 1965, Oxford philosophy professor H.H. Price distinguished between “believing in” and “believing that.”1 As summarized by John Byrne, author of the website Skeptical Medicine, “believing that” something is true is a relatively straightforward matter of looking at the evidence. “Seeing is believing” is one kind of “believing that.” In contrast, we “believe in” something when there’s no evidence and the belief isn’t falsifiable. Religious faith is a kind of “believing in.” Both types of believing are normal cognitive capacities, but can run amok when conflated, resulting in beliefs that are poor models of reality.

Followed by Michael Shermer:

A denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing “confirmation bias” – the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.  Science is skepticism and good scientists are skeptical.

Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.

Lastly, this paper in the Journal of health is a good read:

The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none,5 an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.
...
Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way. The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy...While conspiracy theories cannot simply be dismissed because conspiracies do occur, it beggars belief that they can encompass entire scientific communities.
...
The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon.

 

[ruffrecords]

This of course is the key question.

snip
Followed by Michael Shermer:

"A denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing “confirmation bias” – the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.  Science is skepticism and good scientists are skeptical."

And of course denial depends entirely on your position. It seems to me the above statement is particularly true of the IPCC. Not to mention that fact that anyone who wants to obtain a grant to study climate change will not get any money unless their proposed work is likely to support AGW.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Matador]

And of course denial depends entirely on your position. It seems to me the above statement is particularly true of the IPCC. Not to mention that fact that anyone who wants to obtain a grant to study climate change will not get any money unless their proposed work is likely to support AGW.

Can you point me to an example of a grant application that was denied due to its proposed work not supporting AGW?

 

[ruffrecords]

Can you point me to an example of a grant application that was denied due to its proposed work not supporting AGW?

Can you point to one that was?

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

Just victims of Mindf**k 2.0...

https://medium.com/s/douglas-rushkoff/operation-mindfuck-2-0-358f9d237174

Link corrected, I hope.

Shows how braindead censorship really is. Even URL's get filtered. Think of all the nasty stuff one could hide in a URL...

 

[Matador]

Can you point to one that was?

No, I can't: that's what prompted the question in the first place. 

 

[[silent:arts]]

It doesn't matter who is right, or not.

Our children have the right to protect their world,
and us older generation should support them.