MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Climate Change
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
"This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be standing here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to me for hope? How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!"
Last edited:
Climate activist Greta Thunberg, 16, addressed the U.N.’s Climate Action Summit in New York City on Monday. Here’s the full transcript of Thunberg’s speech, beginning with her response to a question about the message she has for world leaders. https://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-un-climate-action-summit/
“My message is that we’ll be watching you.
“This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school, on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!
“You have stolen my dreams, and my childhood, with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money, and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!
“For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away, and come here saying that you’re doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.
“You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.
...
At the end of this month, as you probably know by now, an extraordinary hoopla event will descend on Manhattan in the form of a “Climate Action Summit,” summoned by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, to get the nations of the world finally to take seriously the threat of “global warming” and pledge to actually take serious action to save the world from catastrophe.
The chances of that happening are nil.
Oh, yes there will be speeches and promises. Under increasing pressure from alarmed citizens, led by the enlightened youth of the world who know they will be the primary victims of the coming environmental disaster, most national leaders will toss around ideas like carbon taxes, bans on coal mining and nuclear energy, building “retrofitting,” renewable solar fuels, carbon dioxide entrapment, and “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions. Some will be willing to start doing something about one or another, while simultaneously asking for somebody else to pay for the astronomic costs.
But the whole thing is an illusion. The problem is too big, the solutions too imperfect, and the timing, even if everything got fixed in a decade, is too late.
Siberia has warmed up faster than almost anywhere else on Earth. Scientists say the planet's warming must not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius — but Siberia's temperatures have already spiked far beyond that.
A Washington Post analysis found that the region near the town of Zyryanka, in an enormous wedge of eastern Siberia called Yakutia, has warmed by more than 3 degrees Celsius since preindustrial times — roughly triple the global average.
The permafrost that once sustained farming — and upon which villages and cities are built — is in the midst of a great thaw, blanketing the region with swamps, lakes and odd bubbles of earth that render the land virtually useless.
For the 5.4 million people who live in Russia’s permafrost zone, the new climate has disrupted their homes and their livelihoods. Rivers are rising and running faster, and entire neighborhoods are falling into them. Arable land for farming has plummeted by more than half, to just 120,000 acres in 2017.
In Yakutia, an area one-third the size of the United States, cattle and reindeer herding have plunged 20 percent as the animals increasingly battle to survive the warming climate’s destruction of pastureland.
Siberians who grew up learning to read nature’s subtlest signals are being driven to migrate by a climate they no longer understand.
This migration from the countryside to cities and towns — also driven by factors such as low investment and spotty Internet — represents one of the most significant and little-noticed movements to date of climate refugees. The city of Yakutsk has seen its population surge 20 percent to more than 300,000 in the past decade.
And then there’s that rotting smell.
As the permafrost thaws, animals and plants frozen for thousands of years begin to decompose and send a steady flow of carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere — accelerating climate change.
“The permafrost is thawing so fast,” said Anna Liljedahl, an associate professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. “We scientists can’t keep up anymore.”
Mitigating climate change requires a large-scale transition to a low-carbon economy. The scientific consensus is that climate change is undermining the ecological systems on which human and all other forms of life depend, and that mitigating climate change is crucial to preserving the conditions for economic growth and life within earth systems. There is also a strong scientific consensus that limiting global warming to well below 2°C requires a transformation in the structure of global economic activity on a massive scale.
On their own, markets cannot deliver sufficient mitigation. Market failures, unaddressed and exacerbated by government failures, prevent an appropriate market response to the challenge of mitigating climate change. Some market failures can prevent needed long-term private investment even if public investments were sufficient and relative energy prices appropriate, justifying the use of financial policies as complements to fiscal policies.
…
The broad consensus in the literature is that expected damages caused by unmitigated climate change will be high and the probability of catastrophic tail-risk events is nonnegligible. There is high uncertainty around climate damage estimates and many different estimates have been produced in the literature. Some studies point to large damages.
[T]he uncertainties are more important than the baseline scenarios, and that climate change is likely to uncover previously hidden interdependencies between the economy and natural systems, revealing new and potentially enormous disruptions and costs.
There is growing agreement between economists and scientists that the tail risks are material and the risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change, including, in the extreme, human extinction.
INCHEON, South Korea — A landmark report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on climate change paints a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought and says that avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has “no documented historic precedent.”
The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
The report “is quite a shock, and quite concerning,” said Bill Hare, an author of previous I.P.C.C. reports and a physicist with Climate Analytics, a nonprofit organization. “We were not aware of this just a few years ago.” The report was the first to be commissioned by world leaders under the Paris agreement, the 2015 pact by nations to fight global warming.
The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.
You know what I never understand about this, is why was the earth more tropical when the CO2 levels and temperature was much higher? You know when meters of lush vegetation created all the oil we burn? You know around the time of the dinosaurs, and all the shell fish that created all the limestone? When they were enjoying easy propagation?
My biggest questions is the temperature was higher and co2 higher pre trees, so how did life start if the world was so inhospitable compared to now? You know all the droughts that occurred because of the co2. Life should have never made it to land. Especially when it was so fragile.
I remember in the 1970's when they were trying to figure out how to heat the world to stop the ice age that was coming. Or that the acid rain was going to acidify the oceans and kill all marine life by 1990.
Also why is the earth greening if its collapsing? They can measure that with satellites. Crop production has increased in multiplies above what they have done with genetic engineering.
You can find hundreds of stories of scientists losing their funding or jobs when they don't follow the bandwagon. my favorite is when they retire and actually speak the truth, lol.
Plus most will admit the rule of 50% where they are wrong 50% of the time and it is only real science when it can be duplicated. And so far the connection between temperature and co2 is not happening as predicted and cannot be replicated. The climate models are very flawed. Most don't even take in account clouds or water. The climate models were designed to learn about climate not predict it.
Its really easy to find US temperature Data, and easy to compare 2019 to 1920's where the temperature were much higher by over 10F average, and that was pre CO2 levels of today. Hmmm. Sorry but I'm a skeptic. Once they start to use emotion to move their agenda, instead of facts, because the facts won't work, it looks shady. Greta is a great example of this.
Maybe the climate scientists that I follow are on the deny it agenda, because there is so much money in it, lol
why is there such a disparaging difference between the Danish Meteorological societies ice data and Nasa? First off Nasa has been caught numerous times fudging data.
Plus I don't want to see a built video, if you go right on their website there is actual satellite images and it shows something different.
Also Ice sheet movement is brought about by ocean currents more than temperature.
Also I like how they started their data from when the ice was at its thickest. Maybe they should have started it back in 1920 when the ice was all pretty much gone. It would look like there is a lot of ice now in comparison.
This is skewing data to make it look favorable in their view. Very shady science.
Same reason why they start the hockey stick graph around 1970 because that was when the world was at its coldest in the last 100 years. If they started it at the beginning of the 1900's then you would see the temperatures are actually colder now then in the 1920's
Last edited:
If you go on to NOAA, they have the data that shows that extreme storms and fires are at a all time low. Shit the earth is even the most peaceful with wars than it ever has been.
Later today, I'll post some videos with actual data from reputable sources, so this way you can actually compare yourself.
I see no data in that. Just someone saying things are not going to met? What modeling are they using?
The comments are actually funny. No one in the comment section actually believes it, and who are these top scientists?
You arte a Dr.? Do you not believe in facts to come to conclusions not generalizations and unproved data based on assumptions?
Similar threads
