General / Off-Topic Hilarious counter to youth bemoaning the elder generations re climate change

[jasonbarron]

Sorry to bring up this old post, but did you know that the nice old lady with the soft spoken "words of wisdom" to Greta on top of the calming piano music represents Friends Of Science?

"The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable."

Friends of Science - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

So digging a little deeper:

"We are independent of corporations, governments, and other organizations, and receive no funding from them".

not true:

"In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper."

Your head is being filled up with misinformation Jason, and you don't seem to have the tools to distinguish wheat from chaff? Would you like to learn how to do that?

Kinda obsessed with me, eh?

Congratulations, you just discovered a point that I've been repeating like a broken record: scientists all work for a paycheck, or a grant, and under an oversight umbrella that may or not have a bias that skews findings, especially how they're disseminated to the public. It goes without saying, now that we have established that, that you're going to prefer your own flavor of bias.

Unless you're trying to say that these people aren't "real" scientist's because you don't agree with their findings, then we're spinning off in a whole different direction.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Kinda obsessed with me, eh?

Congratulations, you just discovered a point that I've been repeating like a broken record: scientists all work for a paycheck, or a grant, and under an oversight umbrella that may or not have a bias that skews findings, especially how they're disseminated to the public. It goes without saying, now that we have established that, that you're going to prefer your own flavor of bias.

Unless you're trying to say that these people aren't "real" scientist's because you don't agree with their findings, then we're spinning off in a whole different direction.

I'm not obsessed with you, but I'm concerned about the misinformation you spread based on your ignorance.

I didn't discover anything watching that video, or some of Michelle Stirling's other videos. I already know how to fact check my sources. That is a huge part of a scientific education. You can find scientists that believe the Earth is no more than ~6500 years old, or even that it's flat. However, that is not the general consensus among scientists.

Stirling in particular is the communication manager of FoS. (Full of ....?). She's from Alberta, and she has been heavily involved in lobbying for the oil sands. FoS is funded by the oil industry. Does that by itself discredit Stirling? No. Should it raise an eyebrow and cause you to check her statements out before quoting her? Absolutely!

If you did that you would discover that FoS also argue that the global warming is caused by the Sun, a claim that has been refuted by scientists over and over. Here it's being done by one of the most respected scientists I know, and contrary to the people at FoS, he's an astronomer so he should know a thing or two about the Sun:

“Friends of Science”? I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means.

Well, if there’s one thing you can always count on when it comes to organized global warming denial, it’s how Orwellian it is.

slate.com

Is greenwashing a thing? Absolutely. I've personally worked at a price winning company that dealt with "solutions to pollution". The CEO didn't give a donkey's bottom about the environment, but he did understand economics and playing the fear. However, he was not a scientist. Are there corrupt scientists? Absolutely. FoS as an obvious example. However, you don't get rich by running around talking about limiting growth or cutting down resource spending. It's among those non-rich scientists you should try and find the truth Jason.

 

[jasonbarron]

I'm not obsessed with you, but I'm concerned about the misinformation you spread based on your ignorance.

I didn't discover anything watching that video, or some of Michelle Stirling's other videos. I already know how to fact check my sources. That is a huge part of a scientific education. You can find scientists that believe the Earth is no more than ~6500 years old, or even that it's flat. However, that is not the general consensus among scientists.

Stirling in particular is the communication manager of FoS. (Full of ....?). She's from Alberta, and she has been heavily involved in lobbying for the oil sands. FoS is funded by the oil industry. Does that by itself discredit Stirling. No. Should it raise an eyebrow and cause you to check her statements out before quoting her? Absolutely!

If you did that you would discover that FoS also argue that the global warming is caused by the Sun, a claim that has been refuted by scientists over and over. Here it's being done by one of the most respected scientists I know, and contrary to the people at FoS, he's an astronomer so he should know a thing or two about the Sun:

“Friends of Science”? I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means.

Well, if there’s one thing you can always count on when it comes to organized global warming denial, it’s how Orwellian it is.

slate.com

Is greenwashing a thing? Absolutely. I've personally worked at a price winning company that dealt with "solutions to pollution". The CEO didn't give a donkey's bottom about the environment, but he did understand economics and playing the fear. However, he was not a scientist. Are there corrupt scientists? Absolutely. FoS as an obvious example. However, you don't get rich by running around talking about limiting growth or cutting down resource spending. It's among those non-rich scientists you should try and find the truth Jason.

Let me just stop you right there, buddy; no, I don't go around fact checking every article, every video exhaustively, that's true. Unlike you and most of the people I deal with on this issue is that I have a rather busy, productive life running a business, managing a marriage and raising children and I only have so much time to devote to any one issue. The climate change issue hardly makes the cut in my life concerns, falling somewhere between transgender genital mutilation studies and lesbian dance theory.

You can mock me, laugh at me and generally devote massive amounts of your own time trying to debunk me, but the great irony is that it's guys just like me with similar experiences and concerns that you should be trying to convince, not harass, and you're failing miserably.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Let me just stop you right there, buddy; no, I don't go around fact checking every article, every video exhaustively, that's true. Unlike you and most of the people I deal with on this issue is that I have a rather busy, productive life running a business, managing a marriage and raising children and I only have so much time to devote to any one issue. The climate change issue hardly makes the cut in my life concerns, falling somewhere between transgender genital mutilation studies and lesbian dance theory.

You can mock me, laugh at me and generally devote massive amounts of your own time trying to debunk me, but the great irony is that it's guys just like me with similar experiences and concerns that you should be trying to convince, not harass, and you're failing miserably.

Well, that doesn't really make you an "expert" on climate change does it? I'm sure you will personally be fine with whatever you're busy with, no matter what I do, and I sincerely hope you will. The problem I have is that you spread and re-spread misinformation, together with a lot of other people, and that is dangerous to all of us, including your own children. You need to stop doing that, all of you, and you need to wake up and smell what's left of the coffee.

 

[jasonbarron]

Well, that doesn't really make you an "expert" on climate change does it? I'm sure you will personally be fine with whatever you're busy with, no matter what I do, and I sincerely hope you will. The problem I have is that you spread and re-spread misinformation, together with a lot of other people, and that is dangerous to all of us, including your own children. You need to stop doing that, all of you, and you need to wake up and smell what's left of the coffee.

News flash: nobody opining here is an "expert" on climate change. Look at you, for instance.

Edit: oh, and drop the "for the good of your children" bit. With the whole argument we went on about yesterday concerning Greta's abuse it's crystal clear that you could give a flying fig about children, or protecting them.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

News flash: nobody opining here is an "expert" on climate change. Look at you, for instance.

Edit: oh, and drop the "for the good of your children" bit. With the whole argument we went on about yesterday concerning Greta's abuse it's crystal clear that you could give a flying fig about children, or protecting them.

No... You're telling me that some of the deniers aren't "experts"? That came as a surprise, but I guess you learn something new each day, if you're willing to listen.

You should be happy that I'm concerned on behalf of your children. I don't think Michelle Stirling is.

 

[jasonbarron]

Okay messrs Picco & wecome, I guess now it's time for you guys to divulge your bonafides in the 'ol climate change science arena, since you're now moving the goalposts to mean that only qualified "experts" can comment on the topic. And wecomeinpeace, I'd put the likelihood of her legitimate concern over yours by a wide margin, primarily because I know you have none and I know nothing at all about her.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I guess now it's time for you guys to divulge your bonafides in the 'ol climate change science arena

No

 

[jasonbarron]

No

That's about what I thought. Glad we got that cleared up

 

[WeComeInPeace]

That's about what I thought. Glad we got that cleared up

Jason, I honestly think that even if I told you I had a Nobel Price in physics, you would still listen to Michelle, because what she says makes you more comfortable than the truth. Especially me, because I kind of like arguing these matters with you, even though we agree on more points than you think. Your rhetorical skills are much better than your fact checking or your ability to control your temper, which makes it kind of fun, but honestly it's not nice of me, so let's leave it here.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Knock it off please.

Discuss the post not the poster.

 

[Soron Silin]

I've got a lot of respect for Greta; she's a very committed person. I happen to agree with her view of climate change; I believe that if we don't do something right now and in a massive upheaval, we will get more immigration, many people will die and our children and grandchildren will inherit a worse life than ours.

However, to blame everything on our generation is to mis-understand history. I'm a little too young to have taken part in the 1960s, but there were vast numbers of young people there who were probably just as committed to the environment as Greta is. As some have said, that was pollution rather than climate change. We did have a pretty good effect on that. But the people who were protesting for the environment are, by and large, not the people running government now. Most of our politicians were raised in conservative households, went to private schools and studied hard at prestigious universities while looking down at the hippies. Their peer group wore jackets and bow ties to dinner rather than tie-dye dresses and sandals.

I have pontificated that we made a mistake with racism; we assumed that we had it beaten when it became government policy. In fact we only achieved a 51% penetration. Now that the government position is less condemning, that 49% has been empowered. It's the same problem with environmentalism.We pushed hard enough that changes were made but we didn't convince everybody, even in our own generation or our children's. Now that the reality is becoming known and the only way to fix it is to spend vast amounts of money and live a less rich life, it is a very hard sell.

I don't see any condemnation of Greta being at all on point with her arguments. They all attack her and her actions. Attacking her parents or the shadowy corporations supposedly behind her is attacking her; it robs her of free-will and makes her a stooge. That accusation must wound her personally, and therefore it is an attack on her. Her sailing across the Atlantic is another straw-man. If she had flown they they would have attacked that even if, as one article suggested, she had taken a standby seat. I've not seen any actual calculation of the carbon footprint of her voyage other than complaining that some crew-members had to fly. Sure the boat had to be made but so did the airplane. Her meals were probably packaged in plastic, but they all are. The electric car that Schwarzenegger lent her uses fossil fuel to make the electricity. (But the UK now uses more sustainable than fossil fuels to generate electricity quite often.) It is impossible in the modern world to be completely carbon neutral. That is the whole problem that she is fighting.To condemn her whole argument on those grounds is missing the point.

I don't have time to read scientific papers on every subject. I do read a few and I can recognise outrageously bad science and pure populism. That's all I see in the anti-climate change camp. On the other hand I see that 99%+ of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. That's good enough for me. And anyway...

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Knock it off please.

Discuss the post not the poster.

As they say at the enginners when I accidentally hit boost instead of the landing gear: Your-arrival-has-been-noted

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Regarding Greta..... Regardless of if she is ultimately right or not, she is doing her best to make a change. Perhaps she is misguided, perhaps not.... maybe her sailing trip wasnt completely carbon neutral......

but I admire the set of balls on her (in the nicest possible way). If she were my kid i would be hugely proud of her - and as i said, that is regardless of if she is right or not.

people trying to make a positive change to the environment should be admired.

look at it this way, I am not religious, i do not believe any of the "rules" of organised religion, and I could definitely find historic examples of where religion did bad things.......... but all that aside, the local church around us runs a really close community and they do loads for people in the area. I do not have to "believe" in their core beliefs to be able to see the good they are doing for the local area.

 

[Ethaidan]

But to put a serious hat on.......if 1st world millenials want a better future then they need to lead a different lifestyle. The generations they blame did not have half the stuff the millenials have. They are the generation who have had the most compared to EVERY previous generation. If they are not prepared to give things up why should anyone else? Yet I don't see any campaign for millenials to lead a more eco balanced life. Things eco conscious millenials should do:

1) less reliance on electronic devices.
2) less plastic toys etc.
3) walk/ride to school.
4) don't breed

Because the only people who are going to eff up "their" future is "themselves" by what "they" do or don't do.

What a load of rubbish! Every generation has had more than the previous, so what.

I was raised by Boomers. Raised to spend and to consume. Raised to aspire to own (heat, furnish, etc. ) a large family home, to have multiple televisions, large fridge and deep freeze, multiple cars, the latest gadgets, the latest fashions, take multiple vacations per year - all of that was taught to me by one of the generations with less than I had access to. Following on from how my generation was raised, far too many have unquestioningly passed those precious Western cultural traditions onto the next generation, and exported them around the world.

It's not up to the millenials, it's up to everyone. I can't tell if you're actually serious about no campaigns for a more eco/sustainable life - if you are, you're not looking. As for your points...

1) Most millenials I know are no more reliant on electronic devices than anyone else. In fact, many I know have a phone and a laptop/tablet, and not much else (fridge, etc. excepted) because that's all you really need nowadays. Do you really think that modern phones use more electricity than my old non-rechargable battery chugging Walkman? Or their laptop more than my first TV, computer, etc.
2) Who buys plastic toys anymore?
3) many of the ones I know do - none of them can afford to run a vehicle
4) Brilliant. Oh, and actually, they are breeding less - the average family size in the west keeps shrinking.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

I've got a lot of respect for Greta; she's a very committed person. I happen to agree with her view of climate change; I believe that if we don't do something right now and in a massive upheaval, we will get more immigration, many people will die and our children and grandchildren will inherit a worse life than ours.

However, to blame everything on our generation is to mis-understand history. I'm a little too young to have taken part in the 1960s, but there were vast numbers of young people there who were probably just as committed to the environment as Greta is. As some have said, that was pollution rather than climate change. We did have a pretty good effect on that. But the people who were protesting for the environment are, by and large, not the people running government now. Most of our politicians were raised in conservative households, went to private schools and studied hard at prestigious universities while looking down at the hippies. Their peer group wore jackets and bow ties to dinner rather than tie-dye dresses and sandals.

I have pontificated that we made a mistake with racism; we assumed that we had it beaten when it became government policy. In fact we only achieved a 51% penetration. Now that the government position is less condemning, that 49% has been empowered. It's the same problem with environmentalism.We pushed hard enough that changes were made but we didn't convince everybody, even in our own generation or our children's. Now that the reality is becoming known and the only way to fix it is to spend vast amounts of money and live a less rich life, it is a very hard sell.

I don't see any condemnation of Greta being at all on point with her arguments. They all attack her and her actions. Attacking her parents or the shadowy corporations supposedly behind her is attacking her; it robs her of free-will and makes her a stooge. That accusation must wound her personally, and therefore it is an attack on her. Her sailing across the Atlantic is another straw-man. If she had flown they they would have attacked that even if, as one article suggested, she had taken a standby seat. I've not seen any actual calculation of the carbon footprint of her voyage other than complaining that some crew-members had to fly. Sure the boat had to be made but so did the airplane. Her meals were probably packaged in plastic, but they all are. The electric car that Schwarzenegger lent her uses fossil fuel to make the electricity. (But the UK now uses more sustainable than fossil fuels to generate electricity quite often.) It is impossible in the modern world to be completely carbon neutral. That is the whole problem that she is fighting.To condemn her whole argument on those grounds is missing the point.

I don't have time to read scientific papers on every subject. I do read a few and I can recognise outrageously bad science and pure populism. That's all I see in the anti-climate change camp. On the other hand I see that 99%+ of scientists believe in anthropocentric climate change. That's good enough for me. And anyway...
View attachment 148860

I was born in the early 60s, and I was a kid when Limits To Growth came out. I remember some of the grownups being concerned. Especially my favorite teacher, who told us kids that the planet was "very polluted" and that his generation hadn't been able to solve it, so now it was up to us.

Then I spent a large part of my life doing TV commercials for useless junk (cause $$$), while driving Harleys for fun and large 4WD cars in the city. I bought new clothes because you have to follow the latest fashion, changed my computer and other gadgets as often as possible, and didn't care about my waste, which was comfortably removed by someone I didn't care about. I haven't been even close to worrying about what my teacher taught me. I haven't been the saint towards the environment he was hoping for.

Some years ago I started studying again to tank up on the MsC I never got around to when a couple of BsCs were more than adequate, and pure randomness did that I ended up studying sustainability (a master degree is a master degree ). Getting to understand biophysics, ecology and sustainability was chocking. When I asked my professors why no one outside the scientific community seemed to understand the severity of the current state of the system, why it wasn't top news like the climate and something leaving everyone sleepless, they said: "We try, but nobody cares". I was one of the ones not listening. It almost sounds as if I'm a born again. I'm agnostic. I feel like a daemon though. Not that it fixes anything.

 

[jasonbarron]

Jason, I honestly think that even if I told you I had a Nobel Price in physics, you would still listen to Michelle, because what she says makes you more comfortable than the truth. Especially me, because I kind of like arguing these matters with you, even though we agree on more points than you think. Your rhetorical skills are much better than your fact checking or your ability to control your temper, which makes it kind of fun, but honestly it's not nice of me, so let's leave it here.

Not true. I'm genuinely interested in your qualifications.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Kinda obsessed with me, eh?

Your new hairstyle undoubtedly. As we all !

 

[Leper Messiah]

What a load of rubbish! Every generation has had more than the previous, so what.

I was raised by Boomers. Raised to spend and to consume. Raised to aspire to own (heat, furnish, etc. ) a large family home, to have multiple televisions, large fridge and deep freeze, multiple cars, the latest gadgets, the latest fashions, take multiple vacations per year - all of that was taught to me by one of the generations with less than I had access to. Following on from how my generation was raised, far too many have unquestioningly passed those precious Western cultural traditions onto the next generation, and exported them around the world.

It's not up to the millenials, it's up to everyone. I can't tell if you're actually serious about no campaigns for a more eco/sustainable life - if you are, you're not looking. As for your points...

1) Most millenials I know are no more reliant on electronic devices than anyone else. In fact, many I know have a phone and a laptop/tablet, and not much else (fridge, etc. excepted) because that's all you really need nowadays. Do you really think that modern phones use more electricity than my old non-rechargable battery chugging Walkman? Or their laptop more than my first TV, computer, etc.
2) Who buys plastic toys anymore?
3) many of the ones I know do - none of them can afford to run a vehicle
4) Brilliant. Oh, and actually, they are breeding less - the average family size in the west keeps shrinking.

Yeah the only mistake previous generations made was to want their kids to have a better life...what a COLLOSAL balls up that was eh? Should hang 'em all for thinking that way.

The thing is, a little comprehension is needed, most people know we all need to do something....thing is I can't see the millenials doing much but "moan" about what the previous generations did.

I realise mdern tech is more efficient. But I bet there are MORE modern phones in circulation than there were walkmans and MORE laptops now than PCs back in the day. Also these deives are on for longer too, did you play your walkman ALL day, because most millenials phones will be on all day. But to save arguing can someone show the power consumption figures for the 70's 80's 90's compared to 2000's and 2010's? If less power is being consumed now then I'll conceed.

I would bet a lot of money that your "average" milllenial has a LOT of electronic doodads.
I dunno who does buy plastic toys anymore?...I'll just look online and see what the top toys are then shall I.......oh look all PLASTIC. Not sure what planet you live on to say that.
Of course school kids can't afford to run a vehicle, I think lack of license would be a problem to eh?
Which is good thing and needs to continue and the rest of the world needs to do likewise.

 

[jasonbarron]

Your new hairstyle undoubtedly. As we all !

You should see me without pants.