‘Blah blah blah’: Greta Thunberg’s verdict
after COP26 Glasgow summit to address climate change

Swedish campaigner Greta Thunberg branded the UN climate summit in Glasgow a ‘failure’. Greta’s remark came during a mass protest in Glasgow demanding quicker action from leaders. Greta said COP26 is ‘a two-week long celebration of business as usual & blah, blah, blah’. “COP26 has been named as the most exclusionary COP ever. It is not a secret that COP26 is a failure, it should be obvious that we cannot solve a crisis with the same methods that got us into it in the first place,” she said. “This is no longer a climate conference. This is now a global north greenwash festival. A two-week-long celebration of business as usual and blah blah blah,” the climate activist added. Delegates from nearly 200 nations are in Glasgow to hammer out how to meet Paris Agreement goals. The first week saw nations announce plans to phase out coal use, to end foreign fossil fuel funding. Meanwhile, two days of demonstrations are planned by activist groups to highlight the climate crisis. Campaigners say they expect up to 50,000 protesters in the Scottish city on Saturday.

Emotional COP26 President apologises for climate deal to ‘phase-down’ coal

well

FUCK CHINA

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-14/cop26-climate-deal-reached-with-coal-compromise/100618866
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-14/delhi-schools-construction-sites-to-due-to-smog/100618900

oh wait

Swiss Environment Minister Simonetta Sommaruga said the change would make it harder to achieve the international goal to limit warming to 1.5C. 

“India’s last-minute change to the language to phase down but not phase out coal Is quite shocking,” said Australian climate scientist Bill Hare, who tracks world emission pledges for the science-based Climate Action Tracker. 

“India has long been a blocker on climate action, but I have never seen it done so publicly.”..

The COP26 agreement in effect acknowledged that commitments made so far to cut emissions of planet-heating greenhouse gases were nowhere near enough, and asked nations to set tougher climate pledges next year, rather than every five years, as they are currently required to do.

“I think today we can say with credibility that we’ve kept 1.5C warming within reach,” Mr Sharma said.

abc

.

Pretty much what was mooted at the start of the meeting.

Another round to fossil capitalism.

Ian said:

Swiss Environment Minister Simonetta Sommaruga said the change would make it harder to achieve the international goal to limit warming to 1.5C. 

“India’s last-minute change to the language to phase down but not phase out coal Is quite shocking,” said Australian climate scientist Bill Hare, who tracks world emission pledges for the science-based Climate Action Tracker. 

“India has long been a blocker on climate action, but I have never seen it done so publicly.”..

The COP26 agreement in effect acknowledged that commitments made so far to cut emissions of planet-heating greenhouse gases were nowhere near enough, and asked nations to set tougher climate pledges next year, rather than every five years, as they are currently required to do.

“I think today we can say with credibility that we’ve kept 1.5C warming within reach,” Mr Sharma said.

abc

.

Pretty much what was mooted at the start of the meeting.

Another round to fossil capitalism.

those communists will find some way to blame Marketing for this you watch, they’ll probably claim he smooched up to Modi or something

Greta Thunberg is really familiar with the mathematics and statistics of global climate modelling and the biochemistry of photosynthesis.

Not.

I bet she hasn’t even read Seinfeld and Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change”.

mollwollfumble said:

Greta Thunberg is really familiar with the mathematics and statistics of global climate modelling and the biochemistry of photosynthesis.

Not.

I bet she hasn’t even read Seinfeld and Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change”.

No she probably hasn’t, think she would just like to grow up in a world with a future and without crazy people like you. Something very wrong with you moll.

mollwollfumble said:

Greta Thunberg is really familiar with the mathematics and statistics of global climate modelling and the biochemistry of photosynthesis.

Not.

I bet she hasn’t even read Seinfeld and Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change”.

Roffle

The science of climate change is very thoroughly settled.

Ian said:

mollwollfumble said:

Greta Thunberg is really familiar with the mathematics and statistics of global climate modelling and the biochemistry of photosynthesis.

Not.

I bet she hasn’t even read Seinfeld and Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change”.

Roffle

The science of climate change is very thoroughly settled.

Utterly.

I love Greta for her guts.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Greta Thunberg is really familiar with the mathematics and statistics of global climate modelling and the biochemistry of photosynthesis.

Not.

I bet she hasn’t even read Seinfeld and Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change”.

No she probably hasn’t, think she would just like to grow up in a world with a future and without crazy people like you. Something very wrong with you moll.

I’ve been wondering in the past few days. How much arsenic mining has helped carbon capture?

Nearly all arsenic mined would be used for treating timbers such as “treated pine” to prevent rot.
Untreated timbers rot back into CO2, or are burnt back into CO2. So are carbon-neutral.
Treated timbers always sequester carbon because they don’t rot and can’t be burnt.

So theoretically, from the amount of arsenic mined wordwide and typical softwood porosity, we can calculate exactly how much carbon is sequestered due to arsenic.

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

mollwollfumble said:

Greta Thunberg is really familiar with the mathematics and statistics of global climate modelling and the biochemistry of photosynthesis.

Not.

I bet she hasn’t even read Seinfeld and Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change”.

Roffle

The science of climate change is very thoroughly settled.

Utterly.

I love Greta for her guts.

Do a Search for David Attenborough’s A Life on Our Planet
it’s available as a Book, on DVD & BlueRay and airing on NetFlix

An Hour on how badly we f-t up followed by 23min. on How~To FIX IT

as the world’s leading Natural History programme maker
with several landmark BBC series, including:

Life on Earth (1979),
The Living Planet (1984),
The Trials of Life (1990),
The Private Life of Plants (1995),
Life of Birds (1998),
The Blue Planet (2001),
Life of Mammals (2002),
Planet Earth (2006) and
Life in Cold Blood (2008)

it’s pretty easy to get confused while searching

Ogmog said:

as the world’s leading Natural History programme maker
with several landmark BBC series, including:

Life on Earth (1979),
The Living Planet (1984),
The Trials of Life (1990),
The Private Life of Plants (1995),
Life of Birds (1998),
The Blue Planet (2001),
Life of Mammals (2002),
Planet Earth (2006) and
Life in Cold Blood (2008)

it’s pretty easy to get confused while searching

Meanwhile the economists continue with ‘populate or perish the thought’.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-15/radical-surge-in-immigration-three-ps-of-economic-growth/100619410

roughbarked said:

Ogmog said:

as the world’s leading Natural History programme maker
with several landmark BBC series, including:

Life on Earth (1979),
The Living Planet (1984),
The Trials of Life (1990),
The Private Life of Plants (1995),
Life of Birds (1998),
The Blue Planet (2001),
Life of Mammals (2002),
Planet Earth (2006) and
Life in Cold Blood (2008)

it’s pretty easy to get confused while searching

Meanwhile the economists continue with ‘populate or perish the thought’.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-15/radical-surge-in-immigration-three-ps-of-economic-growth/100619410

1. Immigration to richer countries reduces birth rates, which is a good thing.

2. The idea that continued population growth is essential for the economy is absolute crap.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Meanwhile the economists continue with ‘populate or perish the thought’.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-15/radical-surge-in-immigration-three-ps-of-economic-growth/100619410

1. Immigration to richer countries reduces birth rates, which is a good thing.

2. The idea that continued population growth is essential for the economy is absolute crap.

Well ifit helps
the 1st item on Attenborough’s fix-it list is cutting human population growth

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Meanwhile the economists continue with ‘populate or perish the thought’.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-15/radical-surge-in-immigration-three-ps-of-economic-growth/100619410

1. Immigration to richer countries reduces birth rates, which is a good thing.

2. The idea that continued population growth is essential for the economy is absolute crap.

Well ifit helps
the 1st item on Attenborough’s fix-it list is cutting human population growth

from link

However, officials say our productivity performance has recently become woeful. They say in the decade before COVID-19 hit our shores, Australia experienced the slowest per person growth in incomes, and output, in sixty years.

nice, clearly we should give up on that

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Meanwhile the economists continue with ‘populate or perish the thought’.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-15/radical-surge-in-immigration-three-ps-of-economic-growth/100619410

1. Immigration to richer countries reduces birth rates, which is a good thing.

2. The idea that continued population growth is essential for the economy is absolute crap.

Well ifit helps
the 1st item on Attenborough’s fix-it list is cutting human population growth

1972 – United Nations – The Limits to Growth.

SCIENCE said:

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

1. Immigration to richer countries reduces birth rates, which is a good thing.

2. The idea that continued population growth is essential for the economy is absolute crap.

Well ifit helps
the 1st item on Attenborough’s fix-it list is cutting human population growth

from link

However, officials say our productivity performance has recently become woeful. They say in the decade before COVID-19 hit our shores, Australia experienced the slowest per person growth in incomes, and output, in sixty years.

nice, clearly we should give up on that

sorry cut early

If policymakers knew how to fix it you’d think they would.

well they obviously do know, like magical carbon-free coal, the answer is, as always, technologies that do not (yet or ever) exist

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

Ogmog said:

Well ifit helps
the 1st item on Attenborough’s fix-it list is cutting human population growth

from link

However, officials say our productivity performance has recently become woeful. They say in the decade before COVID-19 hit our shores, Australia experienced the slowest per person growth in incomes, and output, in sixty years.

nice, clearly we should give up on that

sorry cut early

If policymakers knew how to fix it you’d think they would.

well they obviously do know, like magical carbon-free coal, the answer is, as always, technologies that do not (yet or ever) exist

If we’d let the pandemic rip, could it not have left us without enough coal miners?

roughbarked said:

Meanwhile the economists continue with ‘populate or perish the thought’.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-15/radical-surge-in-immigration-three-ps-of-economic-growth/100619410

Geeziz Kroist on a Cracker!

Plan sounds like a cross between the
breeding of Catholics to support the church,
the pre-Civil War justification for Slavery, and
the importation of a cheap under-paid labour force

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

Meanwhile the economists continue with ‘populate or perish the thought’.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-15/radical-surge-in-immigration-three-ps-of-economic-growth/100619410

Geeziz Kroist on a Cracker!

Plan sounds like a cross between the
breeding of Catholics to support the church,
the pre-Civil War justification for Slavery, and
the importation of a cheap under-paid labour force

Meet our new Government, Dominic Perrottet and cronies. Moving from the front.

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

Meanwhile the economists continue with ‘populate or perish the thought’.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-15/radical-surge-in-immigration-three-ps-of-economic-growth/100619410

Geeziz Kroist on a Cracker!

Plan sounds like a cross between the
breeding of Catholics to support the church,
the pre-Civil War justification for Slavery, and
the importation of a cheap under-paid labour force

um

we all know who the Dom P guy is right

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Ogmog said:

roughbarked said:

Meanwhile the economists continue with ‘populate or perish the thought’.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-15/radical-surge-in-immigration-three-ps-of-economic-growth/100619410

Geeziz Kroist on a Cracker!

Plan sounds like a cross between the
breeding of Catholics to support the church,
the pre-Civil War justification for Slavery, and
the importation of a cheap under-paid labour force

Meet our new Government, Dominic Perrottet and cronies. Moving from the front.

um

we all know who the Dom P guy is right

we apologise to roughbarked (and Bogsnorkler in the other thread) for being slow today and retire

It looks like people missed my point, or perhaps are dismissing it without giving a reason.

2. Yes the idea that population growth is a necessity for a sound economy is absolute crap, but
1. The idea that immigration to higher wealth countries is a problem for climate change is also absolute crap. Climate change is a global problem, and immigration has exactly zero effect on the global population, and reduces global population growth, so we should be encouraging it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

It looks like people missed my point, or perhaps are dismissing it without giving a reason.

2. Yes the idea that population growth is a necessity for a sound economy is absolute crap, but
1. The idea that immigration to higher wealth countries is a problem for climate change is also absolute crap. Climate change is a global problem, and immigration has exactly zero effect on the global population, and reduces global population growth, so we should be encouraging it.

Yes

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It looks like people missed my point, or perhaps are dismissing it without giving a reason.

2. Yes the idea that population growth is a necessity for a sound economy is absolute crap, but
1. The idea that immigration to higher wealth countries is a problem for climate change is also absolute crap. Climate change is a global problem, and immigration has exactly zero effect on the global population, and reduces global population growth, so we should be encouraging it.

Yes

Is it possible that at least in the shortmedium term (when rapid emissions reductions are said to be required), the effect of immigration could increase per capita emissions more andor faster than it reduces capitas¿

Ogmog said:

Well if it helps
the 1st item on Attenborough’s fix-it list is cutting human population growth

the 2nd item is to Restore the Wild: Un-Fuk-It and Fuk-Off

as stated in my recent Surface Nuisance thread
if we don’t, ’The Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas’

scratches rocks

Ogmog said:

Ogmog said:

Well if it helps
the 1st item on Attenborough’s fix-it list is cutting human population growth

the 2nd item is to Restore the Wild: Un-Fuk-It and Fuk-Off

as stated in my recent Surface Nuisance thread
if we don’t, ’The Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas’

I keep throwing them
but people keep missing the point
by blunting the point with unrelated arguments

SCIENCE said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It looks like people missed my point, or perhaps are dismissing it without giving a reason.

2. Yes the idea that population growth is a necessity for a sound economy is absolute crap, but
1. The idea that immigration to higher wealth countries is a problem for climate change is also absolute crap. Climate change is a global problem, and immigration has exactly zero effect on the global population, and reduces global population growth, so we should be encouraging it.

Yes

Is it possible that at least in the shortmedium term (when rapid emissions reductions are said to be required), the effect of immigration could increase per capita emissions more andor faster than it reduces capitas¿

Certainly seems to be possible.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Ian said:

Yes

Is it possible that at least in the shortmedium term (when rapid emissions reductions are said to be required), the effect of immigration could increase per capita emissions more andor faster than it reduces capitas¿

Certainly seems to be possible.

so should we encourage it in the shortmedium term

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Is it possible that at least in the shortmedium term (when rapid emissions reductions are said to be required), the effect of immigration could increase per capita emissions more andor faster than it reduces capitas¿

Certainly seems to be possible.

so should we encourage it in the shortmedium term

Yes, because for a long term problem minor short term variations are irrelevant.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Certainly seems to be possible.

so should we encourage it in the shortmedium term

Yes, because for a long term problem minor short term variations are irrelevant.

surely continued increases in coal burning should be of no concern then, there are plenty thousandmillion more years to go

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so should we encourage it in the shortmedium term

Yes, because for a long term problem minor short term variations are irrelevant.

surely continued increases in coal burning should be of no concern then, there are plenty thousandmillion more years to go

Well I was using short/medium term with reference to the timescale of the associated problem, so say up to 20 years.

If increasing coal burning in the short term (up to the next 20 years) results in faster reduction of GHGs in the longer term, then it is a good thing, but if it doesn’t it’s a bad thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, because for a long term problem minor short term variations are irrelevant.

surely continued increases in coal burning should be of no concern then, there are plenty thousandmillion more years to go

Well I was using short/medium term with reference to the timescale of the associated problem, so say up to 20 years.

If increasing coal burning in the short term (up to the next 20 years) results in faster reduction of GHGs in the longer term, then it is a good thing, but if it doesn’t it’s a bad thing.

‘Good thing, bad thing’. Very eitherorish Rev!

:-)

The Rev Dodgson said:

It looks like people missed my point, or perhaps are dismissing it without giving a reason.

2. Yes the idea that population growth is a necessity for a sound economy is absolute crap, but
1. The idea that immigration to higher wealth countries is a problem for climate change is also absolute crap. Climate change is a global problem, and immigration has exactly zero effect on the global population, and reduces global population growth, so we should be encouraging it.

Where did I dismiss it?

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

surely continued increases in coal burning should be of no concern then, there are plenty thousandmillion more years to go

Well I was using short/medium term with reference to the timescale of the associated problem, so say up to 20 years.

If increasing coal burning in the short term (up to the next 20 years) results in faster reduction of GHGs in the longer term, then it is a good thing, but if it doesn’t it’s a bad thing.

‘Good thing, bad thing’. Very eitherorish Rev!

:-)

Your assessment seems to be towards the correct end of the spectrum.

I shall endeavour to follow a somewhat similar trend in the future.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It looks like people missed my point, or perhaps are dismissing it without giving a reason.

2. Yes the idea that population growth is a necessity for a sound economy is absolute crap, but
1. The idea that immigration to higher wealth countries is a problem for climate change is also absolute crap. Climate change is a global problem, and immigration has exactly zero effect on the global population, and reduces global population growth, so we should be encouraging it.

Where did I dismiss it?

I don’t know.

I didn’t even know you did dismiss it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It looks like people missed my point, or perhaps are dismissing it without giving a reason.

2. Yes the idea that population growth is a necessity for a sound economy is absolute crap, but
1. The idea that immigration to higher wealth countries is a problem for climate change is also absolute crap. Climate change is a global problem, and immigration has exactly zero effect on the global population, and reduces global population growth, so we should be encouraging it.

Where did I dismiss it?

I don’t know.

I didn’t even know you did dismiss it.

That’s OK then. ;)