Climate Strike September 20

[Blue Jays]

"...another ad hominum attack.
Followed with an attack on ad hominum attacks. Which is really another ad hominum attack, only this time on 'the media'..."

lol. :-d

[72gmc]

That private teenager was wearing a MAGA hat in a public place. That's literally wearing your politics on your head, seeking attention. He got a bunch of attention he didn't want, and that's a hard lesson for a kid but one that he walked right into.

The current trend of resurrecting his name to prop up a straw man argument about Greta is the equivalent of tossing him into the situation again. Let him go.

[davids]

lol. :-d

Well you've decisively won me over to your well-reasoned position. It has been a pleasure to engage with you.

[Blue Jays]

"...It has been a pleasure to engage with you..."

Likewise! That is just one of the very many reasons VSalon is such a wonderful place.
It is essentially a room full of folks who love bicycles, cycling, and chatting current events.

[Corso]

(emphasis is mine)

As to your 'theory' quip - another common misdirection from climate change (and evolution) deniers. I'll just quote Scientific American here:

"Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing."

And most of us who occupy the planet are indeed average Joe/Janes. Forgive us. In FACT- so is Greta-average Jane Jr.

I have said nothing here that states I don't believe in climate change, so by simply saying "in some cases is theory" you've decided I'm a "denier"?

Here's another "quip" for you: Why did the dinosaurs expire? The "accepted" THEORY is a meteor hit. But not scientist agree. But truth is, no one fn' knows.

We're taught the layers of the Earth & it's core, etc, but drilling has barely made a dent--so again, no one really knows about the center of the earth, only theory. And yet it's all taught as fact in textbooks.

Global warming- there are some scientist who say "um, not really"... in any case, my theory, as an average Joe, is that the Earth (Mother Nature) has the ability to evolve and take care of itself. Nature is pretty amazing. Temperature rising? Maybe its simply supposed to.

I worry more about the plastic waste in the ocean, I don't worry about getting hit by a meteor. I'm not a denier, I'm just someone who isn't losing sleep over it.

[David Tollefson]

From the Wiki:

Hypothesis vs. Theory

A hypothesis is a guess or the predictive statement that is made after the observation; it comes from the experiment. The hypothesis is based on possibility and suggestion, whereas the theory is based on the evidence, supportive results and the repeated testing.

[Corso]

From the Wiki:

Hypothesis vs. Theory

A hypothesis is a guess or the predictive statement that is made after the observation; it comes from the experiment. The hypothesis is based on possibility and suggestion, whereas the theory is based on the evidence, supportive results and the repeated testing.

Us average Joes can't spell Hypothesis...so theory it is!

Going back a bit: Mia culpa on my Prius battery link. I have nothing against what anyone chooses to drive or ride. I've always heard the battery manufacturing done in countries that have tight solution laws sort of negated the "green" part of the car. If I've misunderstood that part, I stand corrected.

[King Of Dirk]

That private teenager was wearing a MAGA hat in a public place. That's literally wearing your politics on your head, seeking attention. He got a bunch of attention he didn't want, and that's a hard lesson for a kid but one that he walked right into.

I just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that flying across the Atlantic to address the United Nations isn't attention seeking behavior for which a kid should expect a hard lesson in unwanted attention, but wearing a baseball cap outside one's home is? I just want to know which standard I should be applying, because I didn't know there were two and I want to keep them straight.

[djg714]

I just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that flying across the Atlantic to address the United Nations isn't attention seeking behavior for which a kid should expect a hard lesson in unwanted attention, but wearing a baseball cap outside one's home is? I just want to know which standard I should be applying, because I didn't know there were two and I want to keep them straight.

Are you talking about the stupid kid making fun of the Native American man?

[King Of Dirk]

Are you talking about the stupid kid making fun of the Native American man?

No, I'm talking about Nick Sandmann.

The Media Wildly Mischaracterized That Video of Covington Catholic Students Confronting a Native American Veteran – Reason.com

[thollandpe]

Global warming- there are some scientist who say "um, not really"...

Some scientists? If you care to make a list, you'll find that a lot of them are not, in fact, climate scientists. Some have been given a platform because they do have some science credentials, but they're way out of their realm. And you will probably name four that I've just written on this cocktail napkin, because the fact is that there are not many who disagree.

The overwhelming consensus says otherwise.

If you had a suspect mole, would you show it 100 dermatologists but listen to the two or three who say it's probably nothing? Or that it was going to happen anyway? Or leave it because melanoma might actually make you more attractive?

[mjbabcock]

I just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that flying across the Atlantic to address the United Nations isn't attention seeking behavior for which a kid should expect a hard lesson in unwanted attention.

As someone who taught a student who twice testified in front of the U.N. about the her people’s existence in a refugee camp where she spent the first 28 years of her life, I’d say that the people testifying are principally interested in drawing attention to problems they see as having global proportions.
Add to that the young woman’s ASD diagnosis, and I’m rather confident she is primarily motivated by a singular focus on global climate change that most of us don’t understand. I had an ASD student who was convinced that we needed to populate Mars because outlet own planet was doomed. He then proceeded to try to recruit young female classmates to come with him to help populate the new planet...going so far as to hold up signs indicating his offer and intentions. It didn’t go to well for him, but I got a glimpse into the thought processes that ASD students can employ. I’m pretty sure she doesn’t care about the personal notoriety.

[thollandpe]

Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, but a bunch of middle aged men (or old man in Trump's case) getting cranky over the stance and remarks of a 16 year old speaks volumes.

Twitter

They can get help, thankfully.

[monadnocky]

Here's another "quip" for you: Why did the dinosaurs expire? The "accepted" THEORY is a meteor hit. But not scientist agree. But truth is, no one fn' knows.

We're taught the layers of the Earth & it's core, etc, but drilling has barely made a dent--so again, no one really knows about the center of the earth, only theory. And yet it's all taught as fact in textbooks.

This latter statement, I think, highlights what I wrote a few posts back (and someone else discussed in their mention of post-positivist versus socially-constructed notions of "truth." No, nobody really "knows" the composition of the Earth's core, or how the dinosaurs went extinct, in that nobody is capable of direct sensory experience of these phenomena (if that is your definition of "to know"). But there are layers upon layers of evidence for the latter from a variety of different fields which converge around a common understanding constructed over time regarding the planet's composition. That's what a scientific theory is. As someone pointed out above, the way scientists use the term "theory" and the way the public uses the term "theory" are two completely different things. At this point, it seems very likely that the accumulated evidence of what comprises the Earth's composition likely approximates reality (or "truth"); although there is certainly room for surprising discoveries and evidence that suggests otherwise, such evidence must be compared to the vast literature that converges on a common understanding of Earth's composition.

I would be surprised if high school and college texts present Earth's composition as a sure thing. These texts, I would hope, use such language as "likely," or "evidence suggests that" (and discuss the evidence), or "current understanding indicates that." That's the way scientists speak. Doesn't mean that it's a guess - it's not. But to say that the core of the earth could be molten iron or could be camembert because there's no "proof" of either would be silly.

Your suggestion that we need drilling to really "know" for me indicates a misunderstanding of "theory" and what that word means. You need to see it, touch it, experience it with your own senses; proxy measures (accumulated evidence) do not provide the certainty that you require to "know" something. This is my guess.

From time to time, there is research that strongly suggests that our current understanding of a formerly-understood phenomenon needs refinement, and shifts the way we think about something. Einstein's understanding of gravity, for example. These are amazing to be sure (Newton wasn't "wrong" per se - he just didn't have a complete understanding of the nature of gravity. It's not like Einstein's discovery theorized that, in fact, gravity was comprised of tiny immensely strong insects that pulled things together.)

In terms of what happened 65 million years ago - there is no "accepted" theory of why the dinosaurs went extinct. My understanding is that this is still a hot topic in paleontology, with diverse streams of evidence pointing towards several causal explanations, from huge eruptions of the Deccan Traps (massive volcanic activity kind of where India is now that changed the composition of the atmosphere), to the meteor strike (which has tons of evidence supporting that this did indeed happen), to gamma ray burst, to a combination of all of these, or other things altogether. But to say that "scientists do not agree" doesn't mean that they don't have a clue, and does not imply that nobody really knows. There are strong lines of evidence indicative of one, or several, suspects.

There are similar very strong lines of evidence from multiple fields of scientific inquiry that suggest climate change is taking place at a rapid rate due to anthropogenic factors (I first became familiar with one of these lines of evidence in 1991, when I first saw the Mauna Loa graph in an undergraduate ecology class -I remember the instructor was kind of puzzled and alarmed at the same time). Do we "know" this is happening in the common sense? I guess not. But I think that would suggest we don't "know" a lot of phenomena that are pretty well characterized at this point in our history.

[Will Neide]

Are you talking about the stupid kid making fun of the Native American man?

This has been confirmed to be a false claim.

[Corso]

Some scientists? If you care to make a list, you'll find that a lot of them are not, in fact, climate scientists. Some have been given a platform because they do have some science credentials, but they're way out of their realm. And you will probably name four that I've just written on this cocktail napkin, because the fact is that there are not many who disagree.

The overwhelming consensus says otherwise.

If you had a suspect mole, would you show it 100 dermatologists but listen to the two or three who say it's probably nothing? Or that it was going to happen anyway? Or leave it because melanoma might actually make you more attractive?

Out of what I wrote, that's what you focused on? Did you stop there and not read the rest?

let me re-state and agree with you: ALL scientist agree the temperature is rising.

Maybe its supposed to.

God only knows how many cycles the planet has been through. Modern man can only make educated guesses on exactly what has happened before.

And since everyone with a crystal ball (or crystal iPhone) believes our great grandchildren are doomed, I'm confident that that either technology at that time, or Mother Nature itself will take care of the planet.

As I said from the start, I like Greta. My wife is Swedish, and her relatives from Sweden have the same direct way of speaking. But she is NOT one of your climate scientist, so let's not pretend (even with her full conviction) that everything a 16 year old is preaching is 100% accurate.

I'm sure she's inspired some to join the fight. Perhaps a new generation that will indeed figure out solutions. It's all good in the end, let's hope the sudden fame doesn't hurt her in any way.

[caleb]

I do not think a lay person can come to the issue of climate change with an open mind and somehow conclude that the earth is not warming, or that it is not caused in significant part by humans. It is absolutely the scientific consensus, and those claiming otherwise are fringe cranks who mostly can't get their ideas past peer review. As has already been mentioned, the perception of disagreement is manufactured and promoted by the underbelly of the fossil fuel industry and their allies in government.

If prior convictions about politics or a particular way of life motivate someone to conclude against evidence that somehow pretty much everyone who knows what they're talking about is wrong - that science is basically a sham - and so are willing to discount the lives of future generations to serve their own interests in the present, I can't call that anything but totally and completely immoral. This is not some stupid game of tit for tat political points. It's a matter of whether or not we're willing to take account of future generations and make even minor sacrifices now so that other future people - many of whom have already been born - can have a shot at decent lives.

The American status quo is done, one way or another. Our only choice is whether we take action now and save the best we can, or the earth takes action against us over the next hundred years. I can see no reasonable, decent, or humane conclusion except that we need to change, and we need to do it now.

[72gmc]

I just want to make sure I understand.

OK. I said that choosing to wear your politics on your hat (in a public mall in the nation's capital) is attention-seeking behavior. It's neither private behavior nor the opposite of what Greta is doing, as it was characterized in the comment I was responding to.

Same behavior. Same standard.

I also said he shouldn't be pulled back into the light by people who disagree with her.

And now, having attempted to re-re-dispose of the double standard, I will exit to my beer.

[Greg Costello]

Greta, and every other child, has a right to be angry. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone is offended by her "uppity attitude." Their generation and those that follow will see environmental degradation and resultant strife worse than we can imagine.

This is an existential threat, full stop. I live this issue day in and day out and have for 30 years. Look at the latest birds in North America analysis: 3 billion less. This is not only an extinction crisis , it is an abundance crisis in that its not just the most imperiled species that are in free fall, its all species. Pick any species' class - mammals, insects, invertebrates - they are all in a state of sharp decline, why? Because we, the most invasive species on earth, have decimated and devoured this place. Climate change is simply the cumulative effect of all that we are and for decades decision makers and world leaders have willingly, and knowingly refused to do anything meaningful to change the free fall trajectory of life on earth. They richly deserve to be lectured by children. And as I think King of Dirk said a few pages back, her anger is rightly directed at all of us as we all contribute, fundamentally there are too many of us consuming too much, particularly in first world countries. But truly those in power and those with the power to curtail political action, like the kingpins of coal and oil and gas, deserve most of the that punch.

The latest, saddest phrase among conservation biologists - dead species walking. Example: polar bears. The question, to which our actions in the next decade or so hold the answer, is whether **** sapiens sapiens is in that class. Disparaging a 16 year old girl for being scared for her future - classic case of shooting the messenger.

[vertical_doug]

Let's say instead of global warming, scientist discovered an asteroid which was on a collusion course to hit earth in 5 yrs. Would Humanity be able to respond? Or will we endlessly argue about who should pay what, or focus on the small probability the asteroid orbit will miss us, etc etc . or argue that the earth had been hit by an asteroid before and mother nature copted, etc etc.

I suspect given the current climate of scientific skepticism and lack of global leadership, the answer is the later in my opinion.

I'm on the beach.