• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russian climate activist inspired by Thunberg is jailed

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
1,563
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A climate activist have been arrested in Russia, even after follow Russia's very restrictive and undemocratic rules for demonstrations.

Russian climate activist inspired by Thunberg is jailed | World news | The Guardian

There also activists in many parts of the world risk getting killed for standing up for the environment and their local communities.

Environmental activist murders double in 15 years | Environment | The Guardian

Things are of course a lot better in our democratic Western societies, but even here are people getting massive amount of abuse and death threats, for simply voicing their opinion that the world's leading scientists should be listen to.

Young female climate activists face hateful abuse online. This is how they cope.
 
Well, they shouldnt follow Greta anyway since she says the wrong things.

roGwwuz.jpg
 
Bergslagstroll said:
A climate activist have been arrested in Russia, even after follow Russia's very restrictive and undemocratic rules for demonstrations.

Russian climate activist inspired by Thunberg is jailed | World news | The Guardian

There also activists in many parts of the world risk getting killed for standing up for the environment and their local communities.

Environmental activist murders double in 15 years | Environment | The Guardian

Things are of course a lot better in our democratic Western societies, but even here are people getting massive amount of abuse and death threats, for simply voicing their opinion that the world's leading scientists should be listen to.

Young female climate activists face hateful abuse online. This is how they cope.
Click to expand...

Makes you glad you're American.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
A climate activist have been arrested in Russia, even after follow Russia's very restrictive and undemocratic rules for demonstrations.

Russian climate activist inspired by Thunberg is jailed | World news | The Guardian

There also activists in many parts of the world risk getting killed for standing up for the environment and their local communities.

Environmental activist murders double in 15 years | Environment | The Guardian

Things are of course a lot better in our democratic Western societies, but even here are people getting massive amount of abuse and death threats, for simply voicing their opinion that the world's leading scientists should be listen to.

Young female climate activists face hateful abuse online. This is how they cope.
Click to expand...

Clearly not enough leftist (and they are always leftists) eco-fanatics are being knocked off, or we wouldn't have insipid threads like this one. As the dangerously stupid are being killed off it improves the overall intelligence of the entire species. They need to step up their efforts to knock off more of these eco-freaks to do humanity an invaluable service. Start with the grade schools where these eco-freaks like to indoctrinate children like Greta and then parade their abused brainwashed children for the world to see. These child abusers need a permanent dirt nap.
 
Glitch said:
Clearly not enough leftist (and they are always leftists) eco-fanatics are being knocked off, or we wouldn't have insipid threads like this one. As the dangerously stupid are being killed off it improves the overall intelligence of the entire species. They need to step up their efforts to knock off more of these eco-freaks to do humanity an invaluable service. Start with the grade schools where these eco-freaks like to indoctrinate children like Greta and then parade their abused brainwashed children for the world to see. These child abusers need a permanent dirt nap.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Glitch said:
Clearly not enough leftist (and they are always leftists) eco-fanatics are being knocked off, or we wouldn't have insipid threads like this one. As the dangerously stupid are being killed off it improves the overall intelligence of the entire species. They need to step up their efforts to knock off more of these eco-freaks to do humanity an invaluable service. Start with the grade schools where these eco-freaks like to indoctrinate children like Greta and then parade their abused brainwashed children for the world to see. These child abusers need a permanent dirt nap.
Click to expand...

You think you’ve seen it all, you think you’ve seen every stupidity, every bottom of a barrel, every statement devoid of intelligence, humanity and a shred of self respect by those who say it.

And then you read this.

And your faith in the human race is instantly destroyed.

God we are ****ed as a species.
 
Jetboogieman said:
You think you’ve seen it all, you think you’ve seen every stupidity, every bottom of a barrel, every statement devoid of intelligence, humanity and a shred of self respect by those who say it.

And then you read this.

And your faith in the human race is instantly destroyed.

God we are ****ed as a species.
Click to expand...

I know right? Jesus H. Christ. It isn't the climate change that we should be worried about, it's those people we should worry about.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
A climate activist have been arrested in Russia, even after follow Russia's very restrictive and undemocratic rules for demonstrations.

Russian climate activist inspired by Thunberg is jailed | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...
Makes one wish there was some happy medium between jailing them and prostituting them on magazine covers, etc.

While suppressing propaganda might practically be the lesser of the two evils, I can't sanction the unlawful jailing of peaceful demonstrators on principle. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Pres. Putin will be laughing it up ten years from now while the West is in the thrall of hysterical, unreasonable, and totally unrestrained children. Even so, I still believe freedom of speech is a right worth defending.
 
Jetboogieman said:
You think you’ve seen it all, you think you’ve seen every stupidity, every bottom of a barrel, every statement devoid of intelligence, humanity and a shred of self respect by those who say it.

And then you read this.

And your faith in the human race is instantly destroyed.

God we are ****ed as a species.
Click to expand...

Don't think a guy who rained down sulfur and brimstone is that worried about global warming.
 
Jetboogieman said:
You think you’ve seen it all, you think you’ve seen every stupidity, every bottom of a barrel, every statement devoid of intelligence, humanity and a shred of self respect by those who say it.

And then you read this.

And your faith in the human race is instantly destroyed.

God we are ****ed as a species.
Click to expand...

Those people are only a small minority. That you have a large majority that need to stand up for a civil debate.

Also most posters like that are most of the time bark and no bite. While you also have a few that are willing to go from words to action. There those people can be inspired and get their sick world view confirmed by those spreading violent and hateful rhetoric. For example Anders Behring Breivik that murdered over 70 people most of them kids in Norway.

Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia

So I think social media platform and other forums should take away post that encourage violence.
 
AProudLefty said:
Makes you glad you're American.
Click to expand...

Yes and it shows that it's important for western leaders to defend democracy and set positive example. Sadly you have politician like the American president that for example call the media enemy of people.
 
COTO said:
Makes one wish there was some happy medium between jailing them and prostituting them on magazine covers, etc.

While suppressing propaganda might practically be the lesser of the two evils, I can't sanction the unlawful jailing of peaceful demonstrators on principle. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Pres. Putin will be laughing it up ten years from now while the West is in the thrall of hysterical, unreasonable, and totally unrestrained children. Even so, I still believe freedom of speech is a right worth defending.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with you then it comes to Greta Thunberg, the global climate movement and manmade global warming. That Greta Thunberg and the global climate movement only demand that we should listen to the world's leading scientists there the evidence is so overwhelming that even federal agencies under Donald urgent have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

While I think it's good that we both together can stand up for free speech.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
I totally disagree with you then it comes to Greta Thunberg, the global climate movement and manmade global warming. That Greta Thunberg and the global climate movement only demand that we should listen to the world's leading scientists there the evidence is so overwhelming that even federal agencies under Donald urgent have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.
Click to expand...
The appeal I respect comes from a mature, knowledgeable individual. It's delivered with tact, patience, and humility. It plainly and knowledgeably affirms the risks and sacrifices it demands, without downplaying them. It makes no exceptions based on political convenience. It eschews drama and celebrity. Most importantly, it's delivered by an individual or group whose own lives exemplify the conduct being recommended, which they demonstrate voluntarily and without compulsion, even if only to convince others of their sincerity.

Ms. Thunberg and the campaign engineered behind her is absolutely none of these things.

As for the COP, the IPCC, and the pro-consensus scientists, they lack three things from my perspective as a control theorist: i) a compelling and defensible model proving the AGW hypothesis; ii) personal conduct that demonstrates the sincerity of their warnings; and iii) a forthright acknowledgement of the immense human costs of what they're demanding, to prove they truly understand what they're asking and still believe it to be the lesser evil.

Without these three things, I remain unconvinced. This isn't going to change until these burdens are met.

I realize such skepticism is frustrating for them and for many who believe in them, but dressing up their message with fire, bells, and whistles (a la Greta Thunberg preaching damnation for unbelievers from the UN pulpit) isn't going to move me. It might well work overall, especially with kids whipped into a para-religious crusade that gives them a sense of meaning and importance. But I want no part of it.
 
COTO said:
The appeal I respect comes from a mature, knowledgeable individual. It's delivered with tact, patience, and humility. It plainly and knowledgeably affirms the risks and sacrifices it demands, without downplaying them. It makes no exceptions based on political convenience. It eschews drama and celebrity. Most importantly, it's delivered by an individual or group whose own lives exemplify the conduct being recommended, which they demonstrate voluntarily and without compulsion, even if only to convince others of their sincerity.

Ms. Thunberg and the campaign engineered behind her is absolutely none of these things.

As for the COP, the IPCC, and the pro-consensus scientists, they lack three things from my perspective as a control theorist: i) a compelling and defensible model proving the AGW hypothesis; ii) personal conduct that demonstrates the sincerity of their warnings; and iii) a forthright acknowledgement of the immense human costs of what they're demanding, to prove they truly understand what they're asking and still believe it to be the lesser evil.

Without these three things, I remain unconvinced. This isn't going to change until these burdens are met.

I realize such skepticism is frustrating for them and for many who believe in them, but dressing up their message with fire, bells, and whistles (a la Greta Thunberg preaching damnation for unbelievers from the UN pulpit) isn't going to move me. It might well work overall, especially with kids whipped into a para-religious crusade that gives them a sense of meaning and importance. But I want no part of it.
Click to expand...

Then you can listen to the world's leading scientific societies that warns about the urgent need for action on climate change. Like for example these 31 American scientific societies that represent millions of scientists.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

Also deniers have had plenty of opportunity and time to disprove those scientists. Take for example that federal agencies' climate research have been under oversight and scrutiny by the Bush Administration, Trump administration and Republicans in congress that have denied the urgent need for action. There the result is that federal agencies continue to acknowledged the urgent need for action. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
 
Last edited:
People standing up for the environment are also been labeled threat to national security by governments and businesses, that tries to stop their peaceful work for change.

"To be sure, environmentalists face dangers beyond being labelled security threats. From the Amazon rainforest to South African mining communities, activists defending ecosystems and ancestral lands are threatened, attacked and even killed with near-total impunity. But the unjust labelling of environmentalists as dangerous criminals or threats to national security is often more insidious, as it is generally carried out under the aegis of the law."

Targeting environmental activists with counterterrorism measures is an abuse of the law ǀ View | Euronews
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Then you can listen to the world's leading scientific societies that warns about the urgent need for action on climate change. Like for example these 31 American scientific societies that represent millions of scientists.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America
Click to expand...
I belong to numerous technical and academic societies. Their leadership doesn't represent me, and I don't represent them. And I work in a far less contentious, fuzzy field than climatology.

Bergslagstroll said:
Also deniers have had plenty of opportunity and time to disprove those scientists.
Click to expand...
Where does "plenty of opportunity" come from when there's no funding, no tenure, no willing publicists, and vehement discipline-wide opposition to everything you publish?

From the few million the Big Oil corporations shell out in grants in a given year? As opposed to the trillions (yes, literal trillions) in grant monies governments have paid out in the past decade for pro-consensus research?

If I give you $1.6 trillion to build an army, and give @JackHays $20 million, and you two go to war, who do you think is going to win?

Bergslagstroll said:
Take for example that federal agencies' climate research have been under oversight and scrutiny by the Bush Administration, Trump administration and Republicans in congress that have denied the urgent need for action.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that a Republican administration gets into power and within a few years all federal agencies are purged top-to-bottom and replaced with waiting legions of contrarian researchers.

You might have a case if Republicans held the House, Senate, and WH with a healthy majority for... say... three consecutive decades, as well as having the authority to appoint employees to all levels of all institutions (which they don't) and micromanage day-to-day operations at all levels of all institutions (which they don't). As things stand, their influence is a tiny fraction of this. Four years is nothing. Easily 95% of the people working at, e.g., NASA, are the same people working there in 2015, and contrary to what you may believe, the Republicans don't have carte blanche to fill up that 5% with absolutely anyone they want.

So don't come to me with "federal agencies' climate research have been under oversight and scrutiny by [Republican administrations]" and expect me to treat it like a validation of the consensus.
 
COTO said:
I belong to numerous technical and academic societies. Their leadership doesn't represent me, and I don't represent them. And I work in a far less contentious, fuzzy field than climatology.


Where does "plenty of opportunity" come from when there's no funding, no tenure, no willing publicists, and vehement discipline-wide opposition to everything you publish?

From the few million the Big Oil corporations shell out in grants in a given year? As opposed to the trillions (yes, literal trillions) in grant monies governments have paid out in the past decade for pro-consensus research?

If I give you $1.6 trillion to build an army, and give @JackHays $20 million, and you two go to war, who do you think is going to win?


You seem to think that a Republican administration gets into power and within a few years all federal agencies are purged top-to-bottom and replaced with waiting legions of contrarian researchers.

You might have a case if Republicans held the House, Senate, and WH with a healthy majority for... say... three consecutive decades, as well as having the authority to appoint employees to all levels of all institutions (which they don't) and micromanage day-to-day operations at all levels of all institutions (which they don't). As things stand, their influence is a tiny fraction of this. Four years is nothing. Easily 95% of the people working at, e.g., NASA, are the same people working there in 2015, and contrary to what you may believe, the Republicans don't have carte blanche to fill up that 5% with absolutely anyone they want.

So don't come to me with "federal agencies' climate research have been under oversight and scrutiny by [Republican administrations]" and expect me to treat it like a validation of the consensus.
Click to expand...

The reason that federal agencies continue to warn about the urgent need for action on climate change because the evidence is so overwhelming. Something even Trump's pick for NASA have to admit.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero. | Space

Fossil fuel companies have also and continue to spend enormous amount on delaying the transition away from fossil fuels.

Oil And Gas Giants Spend Millions Lobbying To Block Climate Change Policies [Infographic]

Scientists reveal how the fossil fuel industry misled the public about climate change

There their spending have also payed of. For example that Trump have appointed a former coal lobbyist as head of EPA.

Andrew Wheeler, former coal lobbyist, confirmed to lead EPA - CNNPolitics

Trump also wants to spend billions of dollars on propping up unprofitable coal plants.

Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants - Daily chart

While the fossil fuel companies haven't been able to disprove manmade global, instead the evidence is so overwhelming that even they have to acknowledge the need for action.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en...-change/statements-on-paris-climate-agreement
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The reason that federal agencies continue to warn about the urgent need for action on climate change because the evidence is so overwhelming. Something even Trump's pick for NASA have to admit. ...
Click to expand...
You're not reading what I write. Or, if you are, you're not rebutting my specific arguments.

Spamming me with links for things I already know and understand isn't going to help.
 
COTO said:
You're not reading what I write. Or, if you are, you're not rebutting my specific arguments.

Spamming me with links for things I already know and understand isn't going to help.
Click to expand...

I provided those links to refute your claim. That my links shows that fossil fuel companies have spend enormous amount of money on delaying the transition away from fossil fuel. While at the same time the evidence for the urgent need for action is so overwhelming that even fossil fuel companies's have to acknowledge it on their homepage.

Also that Trump's attempt to influence NASA's climate research by appointing Republican and former climate denier as head of NASA failed. Because Jim Bridenstine had to acknowlegde how overwhelming the evidence was.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
That my links shows that fossil fuel companies have spend enormous amount of money on delaying the transition away from fossil fuel.
Click to expand...
And what part of "From the few million the Big Oil corporations shell out in grants in a given year? As opposed to the trillions (yes, literal trillions) in grant monies governments have paid out in the past decade for pro-consensus research?" do you not understand?

Anti-consensus: tens of millions.

Pro-consensus: hundreds of billions.

Anti-consensus: $X0,000,000.

Pro-consensus: $X00,000,000,000

Anti-consensus: 8 digits

Pro-consensus: 12 digits

Care to address the disparity and comment on what effect it might have on bias in climatology research?

Bergslagstroll said:
Also that Trump's attempt to influence NASA's climate research by appointing Republican and former climate denier as head of NASA failed. Because Jim Bridenstine had to acknowlegde how overwhelming the evidence was.
Click to expand...
Evidence of what? Climate change, or man-made climate change?

Even the most outspoken "climate deniers" on this forum believe the climate is changing. The $96 trillion dollar question is how it's changing, what's causing it, and what--if anything--can/should be done to mitigate the change.
 
COTO said:
And what part of "From the few million the Big Oil corporations shell out in grants in a given year? As opposed to the trillions (yes, literal trillions) in grant monies governments have paid out in the past decade for pro-consensus research?" do you not understand?

Anti-consensus: tens of millions.

Pro-consensus: hundreds of billions.

Anti-consensus: $X0,000,000.

Pro-consensus: $X00,000,000,000

Anti-consensus: 8 digits

Pro-consensus: 12 digits

Care to address the disparity and comment on what effect it might have on bias in climatology research?


Evidence of what? Climate change, or man-made climate change?

Even the most outspoken "climate deniers" on this forum believe the climate is changing. The $96 trillion dollar question is how it's changing, what's causing it, and what--if anything--can/should be done to mitigate the change.
Click to expand...

You have provided no sources for your claims. While I have provided sources for the enormous amount of money fossil fuel companies have spend delaying the transition away from fossil fuels. Also fossil fuel companies are among the biggest companies in the world so they could have easily disproved the urgent need for action.

List of largest companies by revenue - Wikipedia

Instead the evidence is so overwhelming that even they have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil
 
Bergslagstroll said:
You have provided no sources for your claims. While I have provided sources for the enormous amount of money fossil fuel companies have spend delaying the transition away from fossil fuels. Also fossil fuel companies are among the biggest companies in the world so they could have easily disproved the urgent need for action.

List of largest companies by revenue - Wikipedia

Instead the evidence is so overwhelming that even they have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil
Click to expand...
Here. Tit for tat.

Re government monopsony on climate change research:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/climate_money_press_release.pdf

Re the multi-trillion profitability of climate change "solutions":
Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry << JoNova

Re a government scientist changing his mind:
Former NOAA scientist from climate-change alarmist to 'denier'
 
COTO said:
Here. Tit for tat.

Re government monopsony on climate change research:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/climate_money_press_release.pdf

Re the multi-trillion profitability of climate change "solutions":
Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry << JoNova

Re a government scientist changing his mind:
Former NOAA scientist from climate-change alarmist to 'denier'
Click to expand...

Why do you belive those sources are credible?

Also not even your own sources back your claim: "As opposed to the trillions (yes, literal trillions) in grant monies governments have paid out in the past decade for pro-consensus research?" do you not understand?"

Because according to your first source the American government have spend 79 billions dollars since 1989 and research is only part of that cost. That according to your source that money have been spend also on a lot of other areas. Also Republicans have for almost all that time controlled the White House and/or one or both houses of Congress. So they could have easily blocked any research that wasn't credible. Those 79 billions over three decades can be compared to the billions of dollar a year Trump wants to spend on propping up unprofitable coal plants.

Daily chart - Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants | Graphic detail | The Economist

While the other source with 1.5 billions dollars seem to be for a lot of different sectors like for example renewables, cars to that your source call "green building". There those 1.5 billion is roughly the same amount of money as the revenue of the world's four biggest oil companies.

List of largest companies by revenue - Wikipedia

Also investment in renewables have really payed of, because renewable are now outcompeting fossil fuels on prices.

Declining renewable costs drive focus on energy storage | REVE News of the wind sector in Spain and in the world

https://www.rechargenews.com/transi...deals-soar-tenfold-in-europe-study/2-1-731698

There the evidence is so overwhelming that even Trump have to acknowledge climate change. While at the same time Trump wants to force federal agencies to ignore environmental threats.

Trump now says climate change is 'serious' and not 'a hoax'
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom