In reply to the question in the thread title "Are our grandchildren being manipulated?" they certainly are, by educators, parents and the media.
Our little Swedish friend comes from a privileged family (mother opera singer, father actor) and has been described as mentally unstable, precocious and hysterical.
She chose to travel to the US in a 60 foot yacht worth 4 million pounds.
Who are her parents, just in case you didn't guess they are also environmental activists, I wonder where our young friend got her idea's from?
"Who are Greta Thunbergs parents?
While Greta Thunberg has become a global figure, spearheading the campaign on climate change, but her parents have not embraced the limelight.
Greta's mum is opera singer Malena Ernman and her father is actor Svante Thunberg.
The couple had Greta on January 3, 2003, in Stockholm.
They have a second daughter, Beata, who is a 14-year-old singer
Greta's familys life is recounted in the book Scenes From The Heart, published in August 2018, which was largely written by her mother.
It details her life with her husband Svante and her two daughters Greta and Beata.
Both parents are committed to the environmental cause and the book also talks about the environmental crisis and sustainability.
Malena is an opera singer who also represented Sweden at the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest."
I certainly don't hold myself out as authority on climate change or global warming. I appreciate that the climate is warming and that according to some it is all caused by mankind.
I have also read about the climate changes over thousands of years on Earth, from increased temperatures to ice ages.
I wonder what those people were doing thousands of years ago to make the temperature go up or to create ice ages. After all, if we are all responsible for what is supposedly happening today, then the general population of thousands of years ago must have been responsible for what happened then.
dogbox said
04:29 PM Oct 10, 2019
DMaxer wrote:
I certainly don't hold myself out as authority on climate change or global warming. I appreciate that the climate is warming and that according to some it is all caused by mankind.
I have also read about the climate changes over thousands of years on Earth, from increased temperatures to ice ages.
I wonder what those people were doing thousands of years ago to make the temperature go up or to create ice ages. After all, if we are all responsible for what is supposedly happening today, then the general population of thousands of years ago must have been responsible for what happened then.
I read somewhere that one volcanic eruption can cause more damage to the environment than all of mankind. was a program on the tele referring to volcanic activity and earth quakes causing tsunami that could cause real damage bigger than the one we seen all the pictures of in japan and Indonesia
aussie_paul said
06:45 PM Oct 10, 2019
The natural events of volcanos, earthquakes etc are/have been/will continue to happen regularly regardless of humans being on earth. So that argument does not hold up.
Aussie Paul.
Valkie said
07:16 PM Oct 10, 2019
Call me a climate sceptic, but.
No climate warriors or scientist can explain to me why our planet has gone through several ice ages and subsequent heating cycles.
If they are all knowing, all supremely capable and know all there is to know about climate, why can they not explain this one simple question?
You ask them another question, if they can predict the future of climate so accurately, why can't they tell me tomorrow's weather accurately?
They always get angry over this question, generally stating that climate is not weather.
They then go on to explain that the weather has too many variables to allow accurate weather prediction.
But, I say, does the climate also have far too many variables to allow accurate prediction.
They then generally shake their heads or scream at me in apoplectic rage.
I put this to any person who can answer me.
Why did our planet go through several ice ages and subsequent heat cycles?
Secondly, our planet revolves around our sun.
This causes heating (summer) and cooling (winter) dependent on it's relative position to good old sol.
WE revolve around the galactic centre point every 200 million years.
Who is to say that climate is not affected by it's position in the galactic cycles?
Our scientists are making decisions and projections based on a tiny percentage of our planets existence.
It woukd be like basing your projections of the future based on 3 seconds of your life.
Don't get me wrong, we should not be polluting our planet.
That is simply stupid and in the long term, terminal.
But this climate catastrophe mentality is doing our youth no good.
They are stressing out far too much for a young child.
I'll bet as children, you never worried about dying because of some idiot telling you the world will end.
These climate warriors are using children as cannon fodder.
And it's wrong.
WE haves much larger problem looming
One which no one will even mention.
The world is overpopulated and it's getting worse.
3rd world countries have overpopulated their lands to the extent that if we stop feeding them, they will simply die in the millions.
If you knew there was no future for your children, woukd you keep popping them out?
But these third world countries breed unabated, holding their hands out and demanding food and help.
This must be stopped.
Or 7 billion will become 14 billion, then 28 billion
Then our country will be nothing but a food producer for third world countries that contribute nothing but more and more human waste.
Iva Biggen said
09:58 AM Oct 11, 2019
What a great post..
Excellent job Valkie
Santa said
10:44 AM Oct 11, 2019
Without climate change, Trump and refugee's what would be left for the media to bang on about.
"Fear is the enemy of logic.
People who make a living off other peoples fortunes or misfortunes are parasites. Frank Sinatra"
Plain Truth said
12:28 PM Oct 11, 2019
If you want to understand climate cycles,look up," Milankovitch Cycles".
Valkie said
12:42 PM Oct 11, 2019
Iva Biggen wrote:
What a great post..
Excellent job Valkie
Thanks
I just get a little fed up with the one sided arguments constantly put forward.
I consider myself a bit of a greeny (with common sense)
I recycle, waste little, don't use either fertilizer or poisions and do what I can to make as little impact on the environment as I can.
We should definitely be looking at ways to reduce or stop pollution, its like S#%ting in your own bed.
But this constant fear mongering is terrifying children for no real reason, they cant change anything at their age.
My youngest granddaughter said to me the other day (she is 6) Are we all gonna die grandad?
I explained to her that these people were telling fibs and that they are just trying to scare her, like scary movies.
I told her to just ignore it and enjoy being a child.
Life is tough, and as we grow problems, worries and life in general weighs us down every day.
Why not leave the children alone to enjoy being children before the real world intrudes and destroys the joys of childhood.
Its like telling kids that Santa doesn't exist from the start, and that magic and fairies are all lies.
let them be, they will come down to earth far, far too soon anyway.
dogbox said
04:01 PM Oct 11, 2019
aussie_paul wrote:
The natural events of volcanos, earthquakes etc are/have been/will continue to happen regularly regardless of humans being on earth. So that argument does not hold up.
Aussie Paul.
not an argument just repeating what I seen/heard on tv.
dogbox said
04:10 PM Oct 11, 2019
Valkie wrote:
Iva Biggen wrote:
What a great post..
Excellent job Valkie
Thanks
I just get a little fed up with the one sided arguments constantly put forward.
I consider myself a bit of a greeny (with common sense)
I recycle, waste little, don't use either fertilizer or poisions and do what I can to make as little impact on the environment as I can.
We should definitely be looking at ways to reduce or stop pollution, its like S#%ting in your own bed.
But this constant fear mongering is terrifying children for no real reason, they cant change anything at their age.
My youngest granddaughter said to me the other day (she is 6) Are we all gonna die grandad?
I explained to her that these people were telling fibs and that they are just trying to scare her, like scary movies.
I told her to just ignore it and enjoy being a child.
Life is tough, and as we grow problems, worries and life in general weighs us down every day.
Why not leave the children alone to enjoy being children before the real world intrudes and destroys the joys of childhood.
Its like telling kids that Santa doesn't exist from the start, and that magic and fairies are all lies.
let them be, they will come down to earth far, far too soon anyway.
your 6 year old granddaughter is being influenced by what she is seeing and hearing
previous post in reference to under developed countries and over population if they keep multiplying they will have no option but to move to greener pastures
RJ65 said
03:44 PM Jan 14, 2020
Children have been manipulated since the dawn of time. Often for less than ethical reasons. Part of the problem is that some people believe that kids should be taught what to think rather than how to think.
Life certainly contains its fair share of hard knocks. [And often an excess of misery for some]. We can be honest with them without being frightening. Ever generation has its challenges. Some of these were caused by mistakes by previous generations. We ought to be honest about that.
There is nothing wrong with fiction, and fantasy and escapism. It is best that we separate these things from reality. You can still get kids to enjoy Santa even if you sell him as fiction. Most kids are smarter than we realise, and "get along" with their parents talking about Santa because they want to please them, and because it is a time of excitement and gifts and family interaction.
My two cents is never to tell kids something that you claim is true but cannot demonstrate as true. No exceptions. Blurring the division between reality and fiction is really a form of mild child abuse, IMHO. Such things will not serve them well later in life. Too many people running around in the world saying "my religion or my politics or my philosophy or my opinion is best. Some things may remain mysteries, and that is fine. A bad answer [not demonstrated or warranted by good evidence and logic] is worse than no answer at all. When you get down to it, the universe, the world, is not as certain as we may often think.
dorian said
06:54 AM Jan 15, 2020
aussie_paul wrote:
The natural events of volcanos, earthquakes etc are/have been/will continue to happen regularly regardless of humans being on earth. So that argument does not hold up.
It's all about the frequency and intensity, both of which are increasing. Also, I believe there is evidence to support the claim that fracking is responsible for earthquakes or tremors.
Edit:
I confess that I can't find a convincing rebuttal of this collection of statistics and historical records:
It sure does look like the IPCC are cherry-picking their data sets.
-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 15th of January 2020 08:16:42 AM
Greystone said
12:04 PM Jan 15, 2020
If you believe that, then you should look at this too.
https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/
dorian said
12:47 PM Jan 15, 2020
Greystone wrote:
If you believe that, then you should look at this too. https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/
I'm a climate change believer, and that's simply because I choose to be guided by the overwhelming majority of scientists. I have done nothing in the area of climate research, so I have no valid opinion, just like 99.99999% of the population. However, I would like to see each of Heller's arguments addressed and properly rebutted. To me, the tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com web site is just a nasty piece of ad hominem vitriol which doesn't deserve my attention. Attack the argument, not the man.
(That said, I confess that I have a very personal hatred for anti-vaxers, so maybe I'm not as principled as I like to think I am.)
-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 15th of January 2020 12:48:43 PM
RJ65 said
11:01 AM Jan 16, 2020
You nailed it Dorian! Attack the argument, not the person! A person might sincerely believe something on the basis of what they have been taught, or to put it even more bluntly, brainwashed to believe. In the end it is about logic, and evidence and keeping oneself properly informed. I am sure that the anti-vaccination crowd would be far less enthusiastic about their mistaken ideas if they took their time and read a little history. For example, how plagues and pandemics wiped out millions of people before the days of modern medicine.
The other point is the nature of belief itself. [I prefer the word "acceptance" to belief. I accept something only when there is good epistemic reason to do so. Science attempts to bring a warranted acceptance based on procedures and methods designed to eliminate bias [even unconscious bias] and other types of error. Of course, by definition, a scientific question must be a falsifiable one. So there is always room to doubt a scientific finding, and rightly so. If we only had to do one experiment for each question, one day there would be no more experiment, and indeed, science. This does not happen, because there is more to learn. An experiment only tests against the data available at the time. Therefore science has to be an iterative process. We have to update what we think is probably true in the light of further evidence.
Most people are uncomfortable with that uncertainty, and try and impose certainty on an uncertain universe. So, in the anti-vaxx example, people correctly point out that there is risk with vaccinations. But the relative risk is small, compared to the likely consequences of not being vaccinated.
Similar mistakes in logic happen in climate denial. Yes, climate models can be wrong, indeed they often are, but over time, they get better. But like in the anti-vaxx situation, the consequences of being wrong by demanding absolute certainty are far more serious than accepting the human caused climate change is almost certainly real and we should accept the situation, and take steps to reduce our abuse of the atmosphere-or die. Even if climate scientists were mistaken about the effects [or at least their magnitude] what is lost? Not much actually. Done sensibly, their should be net benefits. Why buy coal or oil or gas, if we can get our energy free and renewable from nature? One basically has to pay for solar panels and batteries once [or at least after many years has past], and the energy comes to you. Instead, we have habituated ourselves into filling up fuel tanks, buying more gas or coal, and degrading the environment while doing so.
Ok, I'll admit to a steam train fetish! But the odd vintage train is not going to pollute the world. A world of steam trains did that.
The other aspect of this is vested interests. Why do people believe a billionaire coal baron is going to have their interests at heart than a penniless "greenie?" Like people voting for Clive Palmer. For jobs? Demand and use of cola is FALLING, world wide, as is price. It is also getting more automated. So support Clive because jobs? [Not that he pays his workers anyway, and used the threat of non-payment of worker entitlements as a lever to force people to vote for him.
And the mass media. A large chunk of it is spreading faux news. If these people really had a logic and evidence based argument against Greta Thunberg surely it would be best to use that? But no, they call her a hysterical little girl instead. Or a manipulated idiot. Predatory, nasty, and desperate. Also hysterical.
The levels of debate in this country are appalling low. Small wonder our policies and politicians are so ineffective, or indeed toxic and not acting in our interests.
Greystone said
11:16 AM Jan 16, 2020
Most, if not all climate change myths rebuttals, including those peddled by the likes of Tony Heller, are on this website. No need to repeat their findings.
https://skepticalscience.com/
dorian said
02:47 PM Jan 16, 2020
I've seen that list of rebuttals, but I'd still like the IPCC to explain why they apparently cherry-pick their graphs. I think Heller has a good point when he says that the IPCC should choose the same start date for all their graphs instead of varying the start dates to suit their arguments. At the very least they should explain why they do this. Perhaps some natural phenomena have a lag factor?
In reply to the question in the thread title "Are our grandchildren being manipulated?" they certainly are, by educators, parents and the media.
Our little Swedish friend comes from a privileged family (mother opera singer, father actor) and has been described as mentally unstable, precocious and hysterical.
She chose to travel to the US in a 60 foot yacht worth 4 million pounds.
Who are her parents, just in case you didn't guess they are also environmental activists, I wonder where our young friend got her idea's from?
"Who are Greta Thunbergs parents?
While Greta Thunberg has become a global figure, spearheading the campaign on climate change, but her parents have not embraced the limelight.
Greta's mum is opera singer Malena Ernman and her father is actor Svante Thunberg.
The couple had Greta on January 3, 2003, in Stockholm.
They have a second daughter, Beata, who is a 14-year-old singer
Greta's familys life is recounted in the book Scenes From The Heart, published in August 2018, which was largely written by her mother.
It details her life with her husband Svante and her two daughters Greta and Beata.
Both parents are committed to the environmental cause and the book also talks about the environmental crisis and sustainability.
Malena is an opera singer who also represented Sweden at the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest."
I certainly don't hold myself out as authority on climate change or global warming. I appreciate that the climate is warming and that according to some it is all caused by mankind.
I have also read about the climate changes over thousands of years on Earth, from increased temperatures to ice ages.
I wonder what those people were doing thousands of years ago to make the temperature go up or to create ice ages. After all, if we are all responsible for what is supposedly happening today, then the general population of thousands of years ago must have been responsible for what happened then.
I read somewhere that one volcanic eruption can cause more damage to the environment than all of mankind. was a program on the tele referring to volcanic activity and earth quakes causing tsunami that could cause real damage bigger than the one we seen all the pictures of in japan and Indonesia
The natural events of volcanos, earthquakes etc are/have been/will continue to happen regularly regardless of humans being on earth. So that argument does not hold up.
Aussie Paul.
What a great post..
Excellent job Valkie
Without climate change, Trump and refugee's what would be left for the media to bang on about.
"Fear is the enemy of logic.
People who make a living off other peoples fortunes or misfortunes are parasites. Frank Sinatra"
If you want to understand climate cycles,look up," Milankovitch Cycles".
Thanks
I just get a little fed up with the one sided arguments constantly put forward.
I consider myself a bit of a greeny (with common sense)
I recycle, waste little, don't use either fertilizer or poisions and do what I can to make as little impact on the environment as I can.
We should definitely be looking at ways to reduce or stop pollution, its like S#%ting in your own bed.
But this constant fear mongering is terrifying children for no real reason, they cant change anything at their age.
My youngest granddaughter said to me the other day (she is 6) Are we all gonna die grandad?
I explained to her that these people were telling fibs and that they are just trying to scare her, like scary movies.
I told her to just ignore it and enjoy being a child.
Life is tough, and as we grow problems, worries and life in general weighs us down every day.
Why not leave the children alone to enjoy being children before the real world intrudes and destroys the joys of childhood.
Its like telling kids that Santa doesn't exist from the start, and that magic and fairies are all lies.
let them be, they will come down to earth far, far too soon anyway.
not an argument just repeating what I seen/heard on tv.
your 6 year old granddaughter is being influenced by what she is seeing and hearing
previous post in reference to under developed countries and over population if they keep multiplying they will have no option but to move to greener pastures
Life certainly contains its fair share of hard knocks. [And often an excess of misery for some]. We can be honest with them without being frightening. Ever generation has its challenges. Some of these were caused by mistakes by previous generations. We ought to be honest about that.
There is nothing wrong with fiction, and fantasy and escapism. It is best that we separate these things from reality. You can still get kids to enjoy Santa even if you sell him as fiction. Most kids are smarter than we realise, and "get along" with their parents talking about Santa because they want to please them, and because it is a time of excitement and gifts and family interaction.
My two cents is never to tell kids something that you claim is true but cannot demonstrate as true. No exceptions. Blurring the division between reality and fiction is really a form of mild child abuse, IMHO. Such things will not serve them well later in life. Too many people running around in the world saying "my religion or my politics or my philosophy or my opinion is best. Some things may remain mysteries, and that is fine. A bad answer [not demonstrated or warranted by good evidence and logic] is worse than no answer at all. When you get down to it, the universe, the world, is not as certain as we may often think.
It's all about the frequency and intensity, both of which are increasing. Also, I believe there is evidence to support the claim that fracking is responsible for earthquakes or tremors.
Edit:
I confess that I can't find a convincing rebuttal of this collection of statistics and historical records:
https://realclimatescience.com/hiding-the-decline-in-extreme-weather/
It sure does look like the IPCC are cherry-picking their data sets.
-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 15th of January 2020 08:16:42 AM
I'm a climate change believer, and that's simply because I choose to be guided by the overwhelming majority of scientists. I have done nothing in the area of climate research, so I have no valid opinion, just like 99.99999% of the population. However, I would like to see each of Heller's arguments addressed and properly rebutted. To me, the tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com web site is just a nasty piece of ad hominem vitriol which doesn't deserve my attention. Attack the argument, not the man.
(That said, I confess that I have a very personal hatred for anti-vaxers, so maybe I'm not as principled as I like to think I am.)
-- Edited by dorian on Wednesday 15th of January 2020 12:48:43 PM
You nailed it Dorian! Attack the argument, not the person! A person might sincerely believe something on the basis of what they have been taught, or to put it even more bluntly, brainwashed to believe. In the end it is about logic, and evidence and keeping oneself properly informed. I am sure that the anti-vaccination crowd would be far less enthusiastic about their mistaken ideas if they took their time and read a little history. For example, how plagues and pandemics wiped out millions of people before the days of modern medicine.
The other point is the nature of belief itself. [I prefer the word "acceptance" to belief. I accept something only when there is good epistemic reason to do so. Science attempts to bring a warranted acceptance based on procedures and methods designed to eliminate bias [even unconscious bias] and other types of error. Of course, by definition, a scientific question must be a falsifiable one. So there is always room to doubt a scientific finding, and rightly so. If we only had to do one experiment for each question, one day there would be no more experiment, and indeed, science. This does not happen, because there is more to learn. An experiment only tests against the data available at the time. Therefore science has to be an iterative process. We have to update what we think is probably true in the light of further evidence.
Most people are uncomfortable with that uncertainty, and try and impose certainty on an uncertain universe. So, in the anti-vaxx example, people correctly point out that there is risk with vaccinations. But the relative risk is small, compared to the likely consequences of not being vaccinated.
Similar mistakes in logic happen in climate denial. Yes, climate models can be wrong, indeed they often are, but over time, they get better. But like in the anti-vaxx situation, the consequences of being wrong by demanding absolute certainty are far more serious than accepting the human caused climate change is almost certainly real and we should accept the situation, and take steps to reduce our abuse of the atmosphere-or die. Even if climate scientists were mistaken about the effects [or at least their magnitude] what is lost? Not much actually. Done sensibly, their should be net benefits. Why buy coal or oil or gas, if we can get our energy free and renewable from nature? One basically has to pay for solar panels and batteries once [or at least after many years has past], and the energy comes to you. Instead, we have habituated ourselves into filling up fuel tanks, buying more gas or coal, and degrading the environment while doing so.
Ok, I'll admit to a steam train fetish! But the odd vintage train is not going to pollute the world. A world of steam trains did that.
The other aspect of this is vested interests. Why do people believe a billionaire coal baron is going to have their interests at heart than a penniless "greenie?" Like people voting for Clive Palmer. For jobs? Demand and use of cola is FALLING, world wide, as is price. It is also getting more automated. So support Clive because jobs? [Not that he pays his workers anyway, and used the threat of non-payment of worker entitlements as a lever to force people to vote for him.
And the mass media. A large chunk of it is spreading faux news. If these people really had a logic and evidence based argument against Greta Thunberg surely it would be best to use that? But no, they call her a hysterical little girl instead. Or a manipulated idiot. Predatory, nasty, and desperate. Also hysterical.
The levels of debate in this country are appalling low. Small wonder our policies and politicians are so ineffective, or indeed toxic and not acting in our interests.
I've seen that list of rebuttals, but I'd still like the IPCC to explain why they apparently cherry-pick their graphs. I think Heller has a good point when he says that the IPCC should choose the same start date for all their graphs instead of varying the start dates to suit their arguments. At the very least they should explain why they do this. Perhaps some natural phenomena have a lag factor?