South Fork Students Say They Were Discouraged From Marching in Climate Strike

Hazel Baumstone and other youth at the student climate strike Friday. [Photo by Isabella Sherr]
We spoke with South Fork High School students during their lunch period, Monday, September 30 to ask how it went Friday and what compelled them to participate in the Student Strike for the Climate.
They said that they were pleased with how Friday’s climate strike played out. Apparently, there hadn’t been a formal plan, but that students wanted to show the community that South Fork High students take this matter seriously. They said they hadn’t planned to march, but that “they marched by animal instinct.” The formal plan was to gather next door to the school and listen to one another’s speeches. After that was over, they “still had plenty of time,” so the marching began. Whoever took the lead is unknown, but the group proceeded south to the Miranda Market and then north to “the grove,” and back to the school and into class for 5th period.
The kids we spoke to said they were actively discouraged from taking the school strike, but that students felt it is important to let their elected leaders know they are worried about their futures. These seven students say they have been told school teachers and faculty are prohibited from supporting protest activities, but they feel the climate issue is being treated differently than last year’s protest of weapons in the wake of school shootings.

Tyler Bates, Sterling York, Vivian Noll, Lily Loomis, Stella Morris, Isabella Sherr and Mimi LeClair were all interviewed for this story.
According to the group, “Last year, students organized a protest against school shootings, and the principal was supportive.” But with climate change, they feel it was different. One person said, “Athletes were told, if they went to the [climate] protest, they would not be allowed to play.” The group concurred that the athletes had been told that, but that the consequence did not occur.
One student in the group said, “Teachers keep saying ‘climate change is a controversial issue,’ but its not, its just science.”
South Fork High’s Principal, Cyndi Aguiar, didn’t respond before publication. We will update with her response when we receive it.
When the students were asked why they participated in the climate strike, they said responded: “Cuz it matters.” “We see other kids making their voices heard, but Humboldt tends to stay back.” And one said, “We are sheltered from the reality of climate change [by virtue of Humboldt’s mild climate,] but it’s happening, and we can be smart about it.”
They are inspired by Greta Thunberg of Sweden. One student said, “Greta, if you are reading, this we love you!”
They went on to say, “We can see the leaders aren’t going to do anything.” “Adults cannot control our thinking on this. Its our future.”
And, “We want to inspire people to take action on this themselves by writing letters, physically cleaning up [the environment,] making changes to the ways they use energy, and being conscious consumers.”
The students said they feel like they aren’t getting enough science education to speak clearly on the data. One said, “California teaching standards are supposed to include climate change but we haven’t really had it.” Another said, “In 7th grade we touched on it, but we haven’t focused on it.”
According to the students, Earth Science is the only life-science class being taught this year at South Fork High, and it is designed for freshman level students. Most of the students interviewed are in their junior and senior years. The one student who is in the Earth Science class says thus far they are learning about Astronomy and the science related to Earth’s core, but not its atmosphere or life cycles as of yet.
Another student continued the topic of science education at South Fork High, saying, “Students who want to excel in science have to take it online. It’s not an easy experience. If someone wanted to be a doctor from South Fork, they would have a really hard time is what I’m saying.”
When asked what reaction to the climate strike they’ve received, they said, “A lot of people thought it was through the school, but it wasn’t. It was each person’s own decision” whether or not they wanted to participate. “No one gave anyone permission to leave the school.” Another added, “A protest is not something where you get permission from the oppressor.”
If asked whether it was going to become an ongoing event, someone said ‘No, we don’t want to get suspended.” They did say, “We want to do a couple more later in the year. We are still trying to improve recycling in our school.” They also talked about their pride in the school’s garden that contributes to the lunch meals and talked of their plan to paint a mural at the school.
To the students and the readers: this interview occurred with seven students on their lunch break, I wrote down all the students’ names, but couldn’t keep up with attributing all the quotes, so I attributed none of them.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Not surprising, I mean you see a good portion of comments on this blog are against a wind energy project that would replace half of the county’s electrical usage. Get out the way you old farts, let the kids who need to survive in this world have some input on their future.
Too Much Wind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nemy4TD4I3A 10 mins. September 17th.
You’d prefer a refinery explosion or a nuke plant meltdown? Your opinions always seem to be right in line with those of petroleum companies, probably due to all the InfoWars bullshit you consume and shit back into these forums.
Shit from a bull, it is.
????
~when will we tire of mediocrity i ask.
InfoWars is the definition of mediocrity. Any progressive threat to the status quo, no matter how slight, is blown up into an existential threat. Remember how Obama was building concentration camps to house christians? Or how every mass shooting is a false flag conspiracy to take our guns, to spite Obama actually LOOSENING gun laws while in office? Now you have a president actually PUTTING (hispanic) Christians in concentration camps and banning bump stocks but that’s okay because hE’s OnE oF uS. Now the threat is Antifa or maybe the Deep State or something, but definately not white nationalists because they vote republican. It’s mediocre, hackjob partisan propaganda bankrolled by the very worst industries and you eat it up like pig slop.
Yep.
I’m an old fart, and I fully support wind energy.
Age has little to do with this, or any politics. Just look at the people who volunteer and give their time and efforts to positive endeavors. You will find a LOT of 70 to 90 years olds.
It should also be apparent to anyone by this point that there are bad people of ALL ages out there.
That’s what i have to say about housed and unhoused. Criminals and low lifes in both groups, only one gets labeled as a whole with the actions of the evildoers.
Yeah cause we should destroy our local scenery and hurt our local wildlife populations for a project that won’t put a dent in climate change.. not buyin it..
So it’s better to do nothing?
No, but there are better places more suited for wind farms. And, I actually think if people put solar on thier houses it would be a much better option.
1 out of every 2 homes would have to go solar and fully cover all of their electric needs to equal what the wind project could do in just one location.
I agree with you, it’d make me happy to see solar on every other home, but it’s not within reality sadly.
I’d like to hear where a better location is. Obviously many wind people who spec spots keep coming to this location for a reason. I’m sure the wind folks would rather pick a place with less activists and more acceptance in area they work.
If not there, where will Humboldt generate their own clean energy and more importantly, when?
Why do wind farms have to be in Humboldt? There are massive wind and solar farms in Cali in much more suited locals. Why choose a location directly across from reinterduction of the Condor? Besides according to The Gysers website, The geysers in Sonoma, generate 60% of Northern California’s energy needs, this is a completely renewable, carbon Neutral reliable source of energy.
And if we can finance wind farms, why can’t we finance solar installation? Ohh.. Because it doesn’t generate profits and carbon credits for a company that heavily invested in fossil fuels…
You didn’t answer my question and I assume because you cant. But I’ll answer yours.
Why do we need a wind farm in the county? Because the county is aiming at having 100% renewable energy completed by 2025. Are you against something like that and why?
So you approve of solar and other renewables, just not wind in Humboldt. And you like these renewables if only they aren’t tied with carbon credits, is that correct? So your solution is put it elsewhere and and get rid of carbon credits? But in the meantime, keep giving our money to big oil, coal, nuclear, etc until something else can be figure out?
Why am I Against something like 100% renewable energy by 2025, because it’s and absolutely Outlandish Idea, that’s why! When ever “Arcata” starts implementing something like “Emergancy” ordinances aimed at “Environmental” blablabla.. Yeah.. FOS.. Super Suspect!
And YOU didn’t address the fact that the California Condor will be released close to the site selected for the wind farms. I choose the Condor over Tax write offs for Giant oil companies!
I do support renewable energy being integrated into the power matrix, however, I don’t think Humboldt is a good candidate for giant wind farms. Yes, put it elsewhere. The first project from Shell Oil was already shot down for simular reasons. It’s just not a good match.. I think it’s much more efficient and better for Carbon reductions to put the windmills in a more productive and efficient, less environmentally impacted space.
I support Carbon Taxes, but the windmill project here, is just a clever write off from a huge company looking to cash in at the expense of the natural heratige in Humboldt.
Yes, put it else where, find other less intrusive ways to cash in on “carbon taxes” instead of letting Big oil companies cash in on our natural heritage!
Outlandish is continuing to get our electrical needs from nuclear, coal plants, etc.
It is sad that your focus is on money and not replacing big oil and coal with renewable energy.
Locally we get most of our energy from natural gas and hydroelectric.
There are no area coal plants. Hydroelectric is, of course, zero carbon, but there is a concerted effort to decommission this source.
The old, “Not in my back yard”. And when the times get bad and it is too late to make suitable solutions who are the first to complain. People who say, “Not in my back yard”! Problem is everyone has a backyard.
Please provide links and details. 1 out of every 2 homes in Humboldt or the planet and how big would the wind project have to be and how many birds would die per year at a wind dark that size. It’s crucial to provide more facts than opinions when trying to inform or debate people.
My mistake, I was incorrect about 1 of every 2 homes – it has an off the hip comparison to prove how outlandish it would be to “go rooftop solar” as an excuse to cub the wind farm. The solar needs to compare to the wind farm would be much larger than my previous comment. Thanks for pointing that out.
There is no evidence that condors run into wind machines, especially the larger and slower moving ones that are being planned to be installed in Humboldt.
We need condors to find that out.
I know a biologist who worked for a wind farm counting avian deaths. She quit and took a lower paying job because she was so appalled by the carnage. I’ve heard the new turbines are more bird friendly but condors are pretty big targets.
And naturally small population that even a couple of deaths would be hard to support. The natural world has animals who seem niches with the enviroments that work for them. Some of those niches are quiet and away from disturbance. And like all grand single minded, single issue focused ideas, the quietly useful are ignored.
The world’s experts always know what’s needed to fix a problem. The trouble comes when they don’t see the problems that the fixes create.
Here’s some ballpark numbers. There are 12 million households in California. If I assume 12 million houses with a 1000 square feet of PV array per house (2000 Sq ft might be the average roof size but with gable roofs and shading, etc half that per house is probably high) and with 15 watts of electrical production per square foot that is 180 billion watt hours of possible production.
According to California Energy Commission California consumes 194,842 billion watts hours in total energy use. So total possible rooftop solar production would be 0.09%. Maybe we can double that if commercial buildings are included… hey, maybe even triple that. So, 0.27%
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
I have decided to comment as to late… This agenda is fully financially supported by community organizer groups FUNDED by GEORGE SOROS! A GLOBALIST pinning to collapse the WORLD system of governance. The man as of date has been banned from 6 countries. His goal is to indoctrinate society allowing the breakup of local culture and tradition to allow outside influence to eventually erode every belief held by nations and religions. (One World Government). This is the FACTS look them up
Bottom line! Cha-ching.
https://www.technocracy.news/global-climate-strike-heavily-backed-by-george-soros/ September 29th.
Still pretending that the Koch Foundation doesn’t exist?
Great article – Thank You for finding it. Everybody should read it!
Yep, and the whole climate change thing is a scam. A vehicle for socialism. I have a big problem with the damage they are doing to kids with this brainwash.
On one hand I’m glad that the younger generation wants to be involved in shaping their future and I wish them Godspeed, on the other hand I want to ask if theyre still eating tide pods?
Tide pods aren’t the problem.
It’s beef /pork eggs and dairy !!
I think you entirely missed Mike’s point.
His point is biased & narrowminded. That’s just some kids showing off with the tie pods. Doesn’t mean NONE listened in science class & all are stupid.
Mike doesn’t have a point, get it? Mike wants to minimize the students by accusing them all of the stupid acts of a few.
What Mike should just say is he doesn’t believe in climate change, but he just can’t help himself and goes off the rails. Every time…
Oh, mike has a point. I just typed my point. But as it was as long as a college dissertation I erased it and I’ll settle with the Andy Kaufman riddle instead. Is a joke still funny if no one else gets it? The answer is. Yes, yes it is. But I do like talking about my alias in the third person.
Nothing wrong with eggs!
Seem to recall a woman in her mid 40s doing that as well.
Protest and free speech are critical aspects of our US system. There should be a class, or at least a portion of a US History course that focuses on the history and value of protest in our country. Civil rights, women’s, gays’ and workers rights, war resistance, and yes, environmental protections, are just some of the important changes that were born from grass roots protests.
Also. Would like more info on who was discouraging students from participating in peaceful protests. Look forward to your promised update on that from the Principal. …..Coaches used to say the same thing, ‘you can’t play in games if you (protest, have long hair, or fill in the blank)’ 40-50 years ago during the 1960s-70’s.
NOTE TO STUDENTS: DON’T BE DISSUADED!! Like Greta, YOU have the power to make change!!!
Protesting is definitely not only a trait of the progressive left.
Protesting can be used to support fascism or any other regressive or exclusive movement.
Society doesn’t only move in one direction, it moves in all directions.
Turning school into more of a political wasteland may not turn out that well.
And why should kids stay in school, if saving the world is more important..and more kids want to float boats around doing speeches..
Why should I work, if the climate is changing?
Why should I have to pay for anything
If the climate is changing?
Except for straws of course, and bags at stores, which the customer gets to pay for now, thanks protesters.
All efforts should be focused on restoring what 100 corporations, allowed by a corrupt congress and dark money, and subsidized by our taxes, have done to cause this ecosystem collapse and pollution. Protecting a countries land, air, water, and people’s health and rights is why we elect politicians. Protests have brought us every human right we have ever achieved. Taxation without representation means war, historically. Our children’s future and the planet is worth fighting for.
Excellent.
Double that.
Depopulation is the cure.
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” ~ James Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
(1896-1969) son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the German government, Chairman of the CFR
http://libertytree.ca/quotes/James.Warburg.Quote.BC08
This idea that corporations are the real villains is a construct of the political left. They must have a villain to blame for the worlds conditions because not to have one would mean humanity’s nature is the problem. If humanity’s nature is the problem, the left could not legislate it out of existance as they see as the only solution to anything.
Since the source of problems is human nature, the left always is prey to dictators, tyrannical government because that is always the bottom line to change what will not be changed. It then become worse than the problems it seeks to fix. Leftist policies always to be treated as dynamite- useful as a step in achieving some goals but too destructive to have any place in building afterwards.
It’s a fact that oil companies have known about, and have been preparing for, global anthropogenic climate change for decades, and have been producing millions of dollars in propaganda to muddy the waters. Propaganda you enthusiastically parrot.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
Think you were pretty much moving in one direction with your comment also. Leave the kids alone. Some of you sound scared. Scary kids protesting. OMG !!! OMG!!!
I’ll gladly pay a nickle for a bag just so I don’t have to see them wrapped around bushes and fences. Notice how few bags are strewn about now?
Like the deposit on aluminum cans- you don’t see many of them littering the countryside anymore because they are collected but those who have no other source of income. Of course that means you need to have created a class of indigent to do the collecting or the idea doesn’t work. Strange how that happens.
Poor people existed before the advent of recycling.
We don’t need to drink from straws and bring your own bags. It’s the little things that make a huge impact.
No they don’t. That’s litter, not reality. Try to buy stuff not in a plastic clamshell package. Think about why those clam shells exist and what would eliminate them. And why the mores created by a society are the solution to problems that apparently not related to them directly. Somehow no kid ever protests a lack of civic responsibility because that requires more difficult thinking and personal action. Which is harder than joining a protest flash mob.
Seems kind of interesting. But I think if they want to change something they should have a discussion about the local economy surrounding Garberville. Did they ever mention any type of impact to our environment by diversions of local streams. Pesticides used in the soil. Carving out Mountain sides for Mega grows. The biggest polluters in the world are also China India Pakistan. Remember kiddos the phone that you’re using the car that you’re driving everything has an impact. Riddle me this it’s okay for our state legislatures two band straws unless you ask for them. But on the other hand we can Les Miles and Miles of black pipe in our mountains. I’m sorry but the eco-friendly standards in which surrounds your community’s might need a taking it looked at.
These are precisely the issues in which the children have expressed interest. They said they would like to learn about all of these things, but their teachers won’t teach them. Maybe their teachers need a better education.
I’m the first person who would say we need to stop messing up our home, but the “climate crisis” is a ploy to push policy, not clean up our mess.
https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU
Here are the graphs presented in the video. They are all from “official sources”.
https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/global-warming-fraud-exposed-in-pictures-bA-1mNrK0kiarserpfa9iA/
??Good morning Kelley, so your saying you disagree that there is a climate crisis? Or is it just your bias web site? Oh hey I’m an old fart to.
Every chart he uses are from official sources. The data is being manipulated.
Thank you for doing your homework.
The climate change scam needs to stop.
Its all about establishing carbon taxes that would be held together by world government, the taxes would go to fund this world government. Why don’t these folks understand the scam being pulled on them.
They are loosing this argument because they have been continuously exposed as fraud scientist.
Now they are using our children, filling them with lies to push there propaganda. These children don’t understand carbon taxes or whats going on and they are being taken advantaged of like human shields. its low and pathetic.
This guy has done the real homework:
https://realclimatescience.com
??Another bias website. You use to hang out in another blog another under another moniker, damn.
Nope. This is my only online identity.
Address the data.
Jesus buddy, for such a free thinker you seem to parrot every single talking point of fox news/Brietbart/Info Wars. Are you Dean Glaser?
A quick google search of “the data” gave me this gem:
Tony Heller, a birther who criticizes climate science under the pseudonym “Steven Goddard,” wrote a blog post that claimed “NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934.” After the Drudge Report promoted a report of this allegation by the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph, conservative media from Breitbart to The Washington Times claimed the data was “fabricated” or “faked.” On June 24, Fox & Friends picked it up, claiming that “the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s” but scientists had “faked the numbers”
So let me get this straight….the majority of scientists, and I would venture to guess close to 100% of the scientist not on big oil’s payroll, are all lying to us about the data in some sort of super conspiracy that would not benefit them at all? I also have to believe that NASA is “cooling” and “heating” the atmosphere as part of the conspiracy???? And not one of the scientists or NASA employees has ever leaked any of this information. Where are NASA’s heating and cooling machines and how come nobody has any evidence of them in action? Let me guess: Chem trails???? In 1934 when NASA “cooled” the planet, did they know global warming was gong to be a thing at the end of the century?
Come on now, take the tinfoil hat off and go for a walk buddy. The mental gymnastics you guys have to do talk yourselves into believing this stuff is astonishing.
“23 September 2019
Sr. António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations,
United Nations Headquarters,
New York, NY 10017, United States of America.
Ms. Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, Executive Secretary,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Campus, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1,
53113 Bonn, Germany
Your Excellencies,
There is no climate emergency.
A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.
The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.
We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation. We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.
We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!
Please let us know your thoughts about such a joint meeting.
Yours sincerely, ambassadors of the European Climate Declaration,
Professor Guus Berkhout – The Netherlands
Professor Richard Lindzen – USA
Professor Reynald Du Berger – French Canada
Professor Ingemar Nordin – Sweden
Terry Dunleavy – New Zealand
Jim O’Brien – Rep. of Ireland
Viv Forbes – Australia
Professor Alberto Prestininzi – Italy
Professor Jeffrey Foss – English Canada
Professor Benoît Rittaud – France
Morten Jødal – Norway
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt – Germany
Rob Lemeire – Belgium
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – UK”
https://clintel.nl/brief-clintel-aan-vn-baas-guterres/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/there-is-no-climate-emergency-scientists-call-for-reasoned-debate-2_3100870.html
Last time I think I noted Berkhout’s issues. This time Lindzen:
For a quick and dirty look, here’s Wikipedia: “Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented “are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported.”[56]
Or more in depth: New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=3&
Or Piece by piece: Skeptical Science https://skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_arg.htm
And the other 498? Address the data.
Willie Caos Mayhem – Check out the first 12 mins of this video. It’s from peer reviewed science and does a good job of separating itself from religion and politics.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GxERTlbAo7g&t=1401s
You’ll see in the vid Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles scientists have verified by drilling 2.2 miles of ice core in Antarctica. In doing so, they retrieved over 420k years of data. During the (MWP) Medieval Warming Period 850-1100 c.e. the heating cycle was actually close to 3x further from the average than we are today. Either way, I still think we need to take better care of our planet and am all for better technologies. The first step is knowledge and people’s beliefs are skewed from all the propaganda. I know some of mine are. If a person thinks they are immune to propaganda, they are heavily in denial. Keep an open mind and seek truth. Knowledge is power.
400,000 years is not a very long time in geological terms. The only mass extinction that has occurred during that time is the one we are currently causing. This is like going outside at night and declaring the sun doesn’t exist.
There’s a lot of money to be made in oil company propaganda and apologia…
Cuddling your pygmy mammoth on the couch? Is your giant ground sloth out in your back yard? Climate change effected extrinctions long before humans could have been responsible. Sometimes the environment changed so that it advantaged humans while simultaneously disadvantaging other species.
So what’s your solution to the real issue of a human population expanding until it inevitably collapses under its own weight? Because no matter what is done along the way, we are increasing geometrically.
Family planning works. Many countries currently have negative population growth due to family planning.
Scam me all you want if that is your angle – I sure do not mind if solar farms and wind farms prop up in my town. It is the least we can do to help reverse some of the damages my generation have caused, I hope.
I am not asking you to believe in a “Climate Crisis”, your mind is already made up. But please stay out of the way of positive progress in hopes of a better future. Out children should have a world filled with less smog and pollution.
I’ve been engineering and installing on-grid and off-grid “alternative ” power systems for 20 years. I’ve no problem with power generation diversification; in fact I think it’s important to the long term health of the power grid. My issue is the sales pitch behind doing these systems and the policies that are pushed because of a manufactured crisis. If co2 is really the problem, then the solution is not what we are being sold.
So what sales pitch would you rather hear?
And have you ever been to Sacramento or Los Angeles on a bad smog day? You need more science than that to change your mind?
Sorry, that’s not science, that’s anecdote. Besides, smog is a heavy particulate and not what the UN IPCC is addressing; it’s co2. If they were serious they’d push for local economics instead of global and curb the use of trans-oceanic cargo ships. 15 of these largest ships emit as much pollution as ALL the cars in the world… and there are 90,000 of these ships.
So your fight is taking down the global economy, good luck with that one. Now may we please have all the dinosaurs clogging the aisle all move to one side?
15 tankers is better than another 90 million cars on the traffic-congested roads.
Actually Ullr is probably right about this one, local economies and less transportation of goods would have a drastic influence on the reduction of CO2
You’re not the first person who would clean up anything.
You’re the first person who would deny the science, denigrate the children, and send the world to hell in a flaming handbasket. You don’t have to lie about it…
Ironically, I live a simple life with a small footprint. I drive as little as I can, grow, hunt and raise a lot of our families food. Essentially, I live the way the chicken little’ s are preaching.
The problem presented is dubious, at best, but worse is the solutions presented don’t do anything towards the, so-called, problem. It is a ploy to push policy.
Urover, I cannot disagree with you more about your belief there isnt a huge problem coming our way from co2 release, however, it is highly accurate we are nowhere near appropriate solutions coming from government.
Thats what people are striking over. They want real solutions.
I, personally, strongly support a carbon tax. I will change my behavior when it hurts not to.
And alfred, the money from the carbon tax is not destined for a one world government, but for investments in the new technology these kids need to thrive as we ha e had the opportunity to thrive.
I’d like to see some actual, hard data. A bonus would be a predictive model that has shown accuracy.
That’s not reading speculation or presumptions about where the data is leading. It’s actual data that isn’t convienently truncated to fit the hypothesis.
Check out the last 420k years of ice core data. There is a climatic ebb and flow not related to co2 .
??loc.gov
Library of Congress, really? That’s about like saying “google”.
??noaa.gov noaa.gov
DANGER***DANGER
dot gov @ dot corporation
The Carbon tax has pushed the Oil companies to develop new technologies, like carbon extraction and turning carbon into fuels, it’s not a ? solution, but, the oil companies would never have done that with out carbon taxes. The carbon tax also encourages them to implement technologies that make the processing emit less Carbon. So, I support reasonable carbon taxes.
Let’s give the government money to fix climate change because they have done suchhhh aaa goooddd job with everything else. I mean the roads are AMAZING, the schools are soo well funded, hospitals A+. So yeah let’s give the dilholes more money so they can squander it. Look I believe in climate change. But anyone that believes that our government is capable of using our tax dollars efficiently is a idiot.
^^^what Mike said^^^
Did we just become best friends!? Yep!
Dear best friend, Mike,
~are you familiar w/Jaekels? And voodoo? It appears to be a twenty-eight day cycle prob. I mean, the conversation will digress further than “How do you have time to even wipe”?, and “You’re so smart, you should be president”, to “fellating an overlord” . . . even Guest makes time to check in on this.
For entertainment purposes only. Not a veiled death threat.
Have to agree with you there.
No, you’d rather suck oil company cock than explore ANY potential solution to climate change. It’s almost like you’ve been primed to reflexively fellate your plutocratic overlords by the media you consume.
I’m not a prude but I find using sexual acts to indicate disgust really takes away from enjoying sex and the human body. Can we stick with metaphors that don’t make sex sound evil?
“Seeking validation from corporate propaganda designed to make you feel privy to secret knowledge without having to change your life in any meaningful way” doesn’t have the same ring as “fellating.” I don’t mean to disparage the act of fellatio, just the long-term eagerness of certain users to pay lip service to naked corporate propaganda.
Besides, you let the right wingers on here make veiled death threats all the time. I think a little blue language is pretty tame in comparison.
“Blue” language doesn’t bother me. Turning sexual pleasure into synonym for something disgusting does.
If you see a veiled death threat, that I’ve missed, point it out by responding to it with my name. If I agree, I’ll delete the comment. It is against the rules unlike blue language…
I don’t want to add another rule but I’d appreciate it if you would take my delicate sensibilities into consideration when you write.
I don’t see the distinction between saying “it would be better if all the *insert minority group* were killed” and “I want people to kill all the *insert minority group here*. I see that kind of talk here all the time, and I have pointed it out.
That quote is bullshit.
One recurring feature of these efforts is what’s known as quote mining, where lines are taken out of context to try and discredit people associated with climate science or the UN. If that doesn’t work, then just make up words that people never said.
Here’s how it usually works. The “source” for a particular quote will invariably lead you down a rabbit hole, echoing with the sounds of other climate science deniers quoting the same material. If a misrepresentation occurs in two different places, this does not suddenly make it real.
Rarely, if ever, will the quote be linked to a primary source that might give you some idea of the context, relevance, or the actual date when the quote was supposedly delivered.
At other times, the claimed “quote” turns out not to have been a quote at all, but a piece of reported speech or a headline that someone stuck quote marks around to turn it into a quote. This is not how quoting people works.
But let’s have a look at some of the worst cases.
‘We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.’
In the run-up to the COP23 (as in, the 23rd Conference of the Parties) climate talks taking place in Bonn, the Energy &Environment Legal Institute (EELI) used a quote from German climate policy expert Professor Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research to suggest a sinister motive for the United Nations Paris climate deal.
EELI, which backs President Trump’s attempts to withdraw from the deal, wrote that Edenhofer had “affirmed” the Paris agreement, saying in a press release:
[Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working GroupIII, affirmed the scheme:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”]
If you search for the phrase “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” you’ll find it repeated over and over on climate science denial blogs and sympathetic conservative media outlets. The link given by EELI goes to a page that also claims Edenhofer had “spilled the movement’s dirty secret.”
So where did the quote come from, did Edenhofer say it, and was he really admitting a sinister plan to redistribute the world’s wealth?
The quote originates from this 2010 interview, written in German. Have you spotted the first problem?
How could Edenhofer have “affirmed the scheme” from the Paris accord, when the Paris deal didn’t even exist in 2010 (it was only signed in 2015)? It’s OK. You don’t need to answer. By the way, EELI’s Christopher Horner wasn’t so keen to answer questions about his coal funding in Paris.
All the outlets using the Edenhofer quote have relied on Google Translate to tell them what Edenhofer might have said, as the original interview was in German.
A spokesperson for Edenhofer told me the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“
The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/07/how-climate-science-deniers-manufacture-quotes-convince-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot
That’s all you got? One copy and paste refuting 1 quote…
Address the data.
No Ullr,
That’s all you got.
If it was so easy to read about the false quote you posted, why didn’t you do it?
Further than not doing that, you also posted it as a real quote.
Why?
Why should I bother with anything else you’re presenting when you cant even acknowledge the quote and premise you present is false in the first place?
Why should I assume your performing solid checks and balances on information when you didn’t on something so simple that its refuted with so little?
Should I assume you understand what your posting as data anyway?
Not likely.
No, you just go with a “that’s all you got” remark that shows if I presented little, you presented much less.
“Edenhofer freely admits that the IPCC policies on climate change have nothing to do with environmentalism and are primarily a means of wealth redistribution. In a November 2010 interview for Neue Zürcher Zeitung he stated, “We [UN-IPCC] redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore …”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#1adaca1468a3
“NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
“Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/11/19/climate-talks-or-wealth-redistribution-talks/
He most definitely said it. Regardless, my concern is with the data and the site and video I linked above shows the data from “official sources”.
The data. It’s all there.
https://kymkemp.com/2019/10/02/south-fork-students-say-they-were-discouraged-from-marching-in-climate-strike/#comment-866712
You lost, Ullr.
Your “official sources” are bull.
Just give it up…
Or maybe read something about what a billion scientists have been saying since the 70’s.
Such ridiculousness!
Here, your link with all the assumed “data” also uses the false quote you spouted.
But here’s what your author says about the false quote they posted in the link you gave;
“The climate change activists will of course claim that such statements are out of context.
I agree they likely are.”
Even your link says the quote is bullshit.
What did you say about human hubris below?
How do you have time to even wipe?
You mean after cleaning up all the shit posted here?
Because I can multi-task.
“The climate change activists will of course claim that such statements are out of context.
I agree they likely are. But the brainwashing of kids isn’t.”
I gave the full quote and links to the part of the interview translated into english. The wiki footnote gives the link to the full German interview.
No you used a false quote to create a premise to lead into a link of charts that looks like an art project by a 7 year old.
The meme quote and inference that you and your linky used is trash.
And your link even says so!
“I agree they likely are ( out of context)”
-your link.
And it was all explained more thoroughly in my original reply that you obviously haven’t read completely.
Like this one from the IPCC?
Like this one from NASA?
Like this one from NOAA
How about this one from NOAA?
Or maybe the USDA graph was done by a 7 year old?
It won’t matter what you give them, they’ve already downed the whole pitcher of kool-aid. Sheep.
This is the garbage one. This is the one presented by National Climate Assessment to journalists. https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
BTW the only site I’ve seen refuting the quote is your one link with an article written by one person who has zero qualifications.
Forbes and Wikipedia are generally recognized as pretty reliable sources. Desmogblog, not so much.
You’very used Quora before, so here you go:
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Ottmar-Edenhofer-the-UN-IPCC-official-say-We-redistribute-de-facto-the-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy-%E2%80%9D-when-discussing-climate-change
Too bad whoever compiled all these graphs for you removed all the citations, so we can’t easily actually fact check the veracity of your claims they were changed.
Do you need to be spoon fed? Do a little research. Each one of the graphs come from known agencies and published research.
That’s not how citations work. How about a link to the ORIGINAL sources of these graphs. You have a history of just copy-pasting horseshit you found on InfoWars or where ever.
Your quora link backs up what I’m telling you.
Not only does the answering fellow admit to also not speaking German, he also states this while seemingly talking directly to your false impression:
…Americans in particular for many years have associated the phrase ” redistribution of wealth” with active schemes to tax the wealthy in order to support economic support to the poor.
“In the context of the quote, though, it’s clear that Edenhoffer is not discussing
transfer payments at all, but rather the fact that climate policy alters the value of National assets worldwide.”
– your link
~what if you don’t believe in fossil fuel? If fossil is the origin, then surely, there is/was a “peak oil” time lapse/layover. Fossil implying X amount, right? Isn’t that the idea? Scare City. Altho, it’s shifted from science scarcity to “we gotta stop using this, because …?”
Not sure what climate science denier is, either? It is a negative, right? Or, is it even on the list? What about
not questioning 3400 degree “firestorms”, where “Normal” is now year-round global military industrial complex devastation, with no end in sight. Is this what you call a quote climate science denier unquote, Brian?
“Abiogenic petroleum origin is a body of hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas deposits are mostly formed by inorganic means, rather than by the decomposition of organisms.” – wikipedia
https://enviroliteracy.org/energy/fossil-fuels/abiotic-theory/
“The prevailing explanation for the formation of oil and gas deposits is that they are the remains of plant and animal life that died millions of years ago and were compressed by heat and pressure over the years. Russian and Ukranian geologists argue that formation of oil deposits requires the high pressures only found in the deep mantle and that the hydrocarbon contents in sediments do not exhibit sufficient organic material to supply the enormous amounts of petroleum found in supergiant oil fields.”
~i get that its “The prevailing explanation”.
“The abiogenic origin theory of oil formation is rejected by most geologists, who argue that the composition of hydrocarbons found in commercial oil fields have a low content of 13C isotopes, similar to that found in marine and terrestrial plants; whereas hydrocarbons from abiotic origins such as methane have a higher content of 13C isotopes.”
But let me guess, you know more about radioactive carbon isotopes than 99% of geologists and chemists, because QAnon or Alex Jones or something.
Just giving information to those who might not be familiar with abiogenic oil production as a theory.
~thanks, Ullr Rover.
Crazy how much shit you get on these threads when most everything you are saying can be verified with some research. The divide and conquer technique is working marvelously.
~that’s for sure.
Ullr Rover takes his research to the nth and back again.
The only article he sited ended by stating that most geologists reject the theory because the world’s hydrocarbons contain the wrong carbon isotope. You people don’t even read your own fucking citations, then you have the gall to jerk each other off about how different and unique your opinions are. It’s really pathetic. Lap up that industry propaganda.
I agree.
I just wish you were commenting more often so calling out bullshit was more spread out by the very few of us who do so.
Thanks Jaekel
I have to take brakes from posting every couple of months. Kym kinda lets her forums become a dumping ground for Alex Jones/Glen Beck/QAnon garbage and its not a healthy place to spend too much time.
If a person gets so frustrated at another person not agreeing with them that all they can do is shower personal insults, then taking a break ( whether voluntarily or not) is the only recourse. It doesn’t send Ullr Rover into hissy fits when you do the typical parting personal insult on each post. Even if you have a real point, you can’t stop yourself from dropping poison at the end. Yet you blame others for your intolerance. It is not Kym’s fault or Central HumCo, Ullr Rover or anyone else’s problem.
The rule for posting comments should be comment, respond with civility or get out of the way.
Frustrations rarely arise as simply as you say in the manner your addressing them with Jaekel.
You ignore the right wing conspiracy peddling, including Columbine shooter molestation theories, laser beams killed thousands, chemtrails/agenda 21, global illuminati, civil war, etc., etc.
If you were more objective, the repeated postings would frustrate you too.
It’s not just a little disagreement that frustrates Jaekelopterus.
I wasn’t endorsing abiogenic oil production. I presented a link which presented the idea, critically, to those who may not have heard the theory before.
That’s a fucking lie and you know it. You copy-pasted the “theory” and stopped at the counterarguments.
Which is why I left the link. I don’t know the source of oil and neither do you. You may believe someone else’s research but you are as clueless anyone else. I try to only copy and paste enough to lead someone into their own research. Spoon fed minds are useless… curious and critical minds may learn something.
Yes, we absolutely DO know the source of oil. It comes from the compacted, mineralized remains of carbonfierous forests. That’s the scientific consensus of 99.999% of geologists. It’s better established than plate tectonics. The angiogenesis of oil is flat-earth level bullshit, even the articles YOU sited agree on that.
Love the constant use of the word “denier” a term that in the past was used almost exclusively, and directed at, those who denied the Holocaust of WW2. That’s why the climate scammers use it, for its impact. But don’t let that slow you down, it’s almost Jan 1st, and then the Obama easy money is kaput.
“Hide the decline” Dr. M. Mann (creator of the so called “Hockey Stick Graph” in an Email to Phil Jones of East Anglia)
Remember folks it’s your money, not theirs. By the way, why did they change the name from “global warming” to “climate change”? Hmmmmm
Ullr rover,
Thanks.
For all the Alex Jones propaganda?
@Kym,
Do we have to be treated to the “Alex Jones” name four times a day?
What is the purpose?
If you will have opinions…people will have opinions about your opinions. So if people who want you banned have to put up with your comments, then it only seems fair that you have to put up with theirs.
??Everyone gets a fair chance. ??Know matter what you think of there opinions. Debate is good.?
Debate and insults from trolls are two different animals, Willie.
“You spread shit like pig slop because you watch Alex Jones” (paraphrased), isn’t exactly a debate, now is it?
It’s no debate.
It’s a fact.
And like many hard truths it needs to be said and heard.
Psychosis is not news.
wow you are really smart… you should be president, brian
Being smart obviously doesn’t win elections.
Maybe if I had a fake reality TV show and was born with a silver spoon, did interviews with white Nationalists while promoting debunked conspiracies about the first black President…..
Then, I might have a chance.
No one mentioned anything about being banned. I’m referring to trolls like Guest @ 7:46 pm last night.
I have No opinion about Alex Jones, and can’t remember our resident Guest posting a link or mentioning Alex Jones. I never have posted anything about Alex Jones.
So the question remains.
This is the right-wing equivalent of complaining because we got your pronoun wrong. But much stupider. Much, much stupider.
Positively.
Dealing with off-topic comments is not welcome on some sites, on some it is. Both are correct in that debate is the primary reason forums are so useful.
When a commenter posts 4 words that include a persons name, that’s not debate. It’s a cheep shot. I don’t know a single site where cheep shots are welcome.
Ullr, thanks for standing your ground here. I’m not going to get into this rabid discussion on global warming. All I can say is that I agree with you on this point. Climate change is so emotionally manipulated, politically and policy oriented that we have really have NO idea what percentage is caused by humans and what is caused by natural cycles. It would take years to weed through bias, sponsorship and agenda alone, never mind a close look at variables.
I also tend to think that we humans in general think so much of ourselves that we take more credit than is deserved in most cases…
The hubris of humans is quite the stumbling block. The subject is so emotionally charged it’s hard for anyone to address the data when they’ve already made up their minds. My main concern is the emotional mob is being manipulated to push bad policy. The science should be solid, but given the failure of predictive models it obviously is not.
Then why are you trying to pass off discredited theories about oil being spontaneously generated abiotically?
Presenting alternative theories for critical assessment is not endorsing said theory. Why are you so intent in limiting people from addressing or thinking about various concepts and ideas? Are you that insecure about your own understanding of the world?
I’m not trying to censor you [edit] Just pointing out that you’re peddling bullshit, as per usual.
Just to reiterate, YOU DIDN’T EVEN FINISH READING THE ARTICLE YOU SITED.
Welp, the motivating emotional factor is fear of death. Fear of species death to be exact. Can’t find a much better motivator than that one. Fear of hell kind of went out of style with the inquisitions I think. I kind of wonder if the intensity isn’t similar though.
If we’re not careful we could eventually have another civil war on our hands. Certainly agendas are never what they seem to be at face value. The intensity on several levels is really over the top. They are playing with explosives this time. I don’t even think “they” know what they’re doing.
~yep. We search for logic where none exists.
I wonder what number of students would show up on a Saturday or Sunday?
Getting out of class has always had a great appeal.
The students DID NOT LEAVE CLASS for the protest. This was THEIR LUNCH PERIOD
Yelling doesn’t make you correct.
You are mistaken. The students absolutely did walk out of class.
Perhaps you should make sure you’re correct before activating the caps lock.
Were you there?
I was there.
What time does P4 start? (11:10)
What time did the walkout begin? (11:30)
What time does P4 end? (12:00)
30 minutes of CUT TIME
What time does P5 start? (12:05)
What time does P5 end? (12:55)
What time does lunch begin? (12:55)
The walkout ENDED 55 minutes BEFORE LUNCH.
Any questions?
Maybe you should spend more time at the school. Perhaps you’d learn something. Many people do every day.
i like quibbling
Yes, the truth and facts are so trivial. What really matter are opinions and feelings.
I think they did skip some school. They started at 11.30 while lunch begins at 1.00. But they did go back to school for 5th period.
Rover is right.
And like usual, political leaders will exploit the idealism and good nature of young people in order to advance a new version of the same old agenda. creating new and different problems, without even solving the original ones.
Canyon, thanks.
He isn’t right, actually. He just parrots Alex Jones.
And young people have minds of their own.
Rover is completely wrong as usual, pushing discredited theories like the angiogenesis of petroleum. “Theories” exclusively propagated by oil company mouthpieces.
I like facts. Do you have any?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum
If you find yourself getting skeptical, just click on the little numbers in the text. They lead to actual, scholarly papers, a feature InfoWars.com lacks last time I checked.
Thanks, from your link:
“Abiogenic petroleum
Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. “The controversy isn’t over whether abiogenic oil reserves exist,” said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. “The controversy is over how much they contribute to Earth’s overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.”[71]”
For the record, I’m not much of a fan of Mr. Jones and do not peruse his Web site.
“…but never in commercially viable amounts.” Considering how efficient fracking is at gathering trace amounts of petroleum, tgat should tell you just how very, very marginal abiogenic petroleum is.
“Rover is completely wrong as usual, pushing discredited theories like the angiogenesis[sic] of petroleum.”
Dude, you stuck your foot in your mouth. Chew away.
~oh it’s just the wrong use of a L-wing pronoun, Ullr Rover. Stop lying, like you always do.
I went to South Fork in the 60’s, and we marched during our lunch hour to protest the nasty treatment, and bullying of our most respected coach. It did not do anything to stop the crap being piled on him. He and his family finally moved away. I respect the students for trying to make a change in our world. Cut them some slack and get off their backs. Every single drop of water that goes into the bucket of climate change will fill it. I just takes time.
greta is not reading this
Maybe not. Maybe the next Greta is.
the oppressor?!!! pfffff
First of all, the world’s global temperatures are not rising. NOAA in an effort to meet recording standards deployed 114 site complaint weather stations that was completed in 2008. They have consistently shown a slight decline in temperatures over a 11 year period. They are named USCRN stations.
Now on to proportionality. How many of these students, like Obama’s head of the EPA Gina McCarthy, can tell you how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Scant few, if any, is my guess. That percentage is .03% of which 98% is from natural causes. Four hundred parts per MILLION folks represents our contribution. This hoax is a wealth distribution scheme (from our pocket to theirs) and no it’s not “settled science”. I see the windmill folks are out in force. Gotta push this scam through before Jan. 1st, now don’t we. Would not want to miss that subsidy windfall. It’s not about climate folks, it’s about money.
I could show you dozens of studies showing global temperatures are increasing. I’m sure you could find a couple that refute them. It’s easy to find an opposing view on everything
??And that was 10yrs ago we’ve tripled the use of fossil fuels since then and the population has grown over a billion.
I went to Miranda specifically to support the students last friday. I am really proud of them and I am glad I went. I was surprised to see only one other woman there in support.
i dont think it is ok that you comment after you got called out on your last comment being a flat out lie…. and after the use of all caps. im suprised you even commented again
I made THIS comment long before I responded to the other…☺
And YOU are not to whom I am speaking, obviously.
Way to acknowledge your mistake. Well done.
??Personal I probably won’t be here in about 15yrs but my children will be and for those of you that are and if your still burning fossil fuels well for one thing thing the planet won’t survive pulling the the fossil fuel from the mother that much longer and if it does you’ll be be throwing up your lungs from all the carbon in the air. Take a trip to China ask the Chinese why they wear the masks? Or go to India?
They dont wear masks because of co2. The masks dont filter co2, they filter heavy particulate matter.
??They wear them because there country is covered in coal emissions. ?
Yes, heavy particulate matter coal emissions
15 years…. im holding my breath
Willie,
I hope you have at least 20, and I hope they treat you real well regardless….
Useful pawns for the rich and powerful have always been, and will always be, part of the problem.
This was written after the event. If the author had been there during the event and taken pictures of the kids and their speeches and their march, we’d have a better sense of what happened. They had some great signs and Earth Club members read very impassioned speeches. Then they marched up to the market and back past the school to the redwood grove. It was all done during their lunch break, and they all came back into their classes in time for 4th period not 5th. The protest ended with a young man announcing that the school board is considering installing solar panels on all the buildings. This was met with cheers and applause. The fact that some of them were told they couldn’t attend is outrageous. It was on their own time. I applaud these young local kids. It is a fact that two weeks ago 4 million plus people world-wide marched because of this climate crisis we’re already in. Many many more marched this past Friday, like our local kids. I have nothing but praise for them.
Thank you for actually reporting what happened. I was there and was kicking myself because I had not brought my phone and thus could not record it.
This is exactly what happened at this event. There was a woman there who recorded it. I urged her to send her recording to Kym, but I don’t know if she did. There were young people recording it. Maybe one or more of them will weigh in…
Thank you for your feedback but this isnt true, kids marched before their lunch break, during 4th and 5th. Most kids missed their study hall.
I have been told that the lunch break time has changed since my kid went there. It used to be at 11:30. So an 11:30 start was during 4th. Sorry for the mistake. Did all the teachers approve it or did some kids walk out without permission? So the period missed was study hall for most students?
Well. The author has a whole life and cannot be at each event at it happens. That day she needed to be in fortuna when it happened.
But as it turns out, she’s not the only person with a pen. Thank you for your first person account.
Even if that account is not true 😉
You are mistaken.
The students walked out of 4th period. Some arrived to 5th period on time, some were tardy. Lunch is between periods 5 and 6.
As I said above, I was mistaken. Lunch used to be at 11:30.
Actually Kym posted some of the signs in another post, and I thought they were brilliant… It is outrageous that some where told they couldn’t attend! Civil disobedience is a big part of our ever evolving world, and I applaud them too! Kudos to them for making it happen regardless!
Yes she did. I meant more of the actual march.
Alleged climate crisis.
Test
??They did an episode on Vegas CSI one time called “Three Generations is Enough ” I sure hope some of you are the last of your lines.
You first willie. You first. Luckily I live above 3 foot sea level so I’m optimistic.
If you truely want to be honest and fair, during the “weapons protest” mentioned in this article, no attention was given to students who support peoples’ right to bear arms. In addition to peer pressure silencing their presence, no Humboldt media even suggested such students existed. Remember, we live in Humboldt County. Imagine an article coming out of Texas that suggested students there unanimously wanted to do away with civilian gun ownership.
FWIW, if a student wrote this article, grammar and punctuation errors abound, but good work.
I found this to be extremely informative on the climate change topic. The first 12 mins pretty much sums it all up.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GxERTlbAo7g&t=1401s
If anyone can refute the data, please do. Definitely worth 12 mins of your time.
Actually here is an Article about the crazy scientists who studied the ice cores. It’s funny because the man who invented the icecore did so, after a frustrating day, and threw some ice in his whiskey that was supposed to be a sample to be analyzed , and realized it was releasing ancient atmosphere … lol oops..
However, the conclusions from the Icecore Scientists was that humans absolutely have an influence..
What the Ice Cores Tell Us, and How Deniers Distort it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
Gregg Braden does present some interesting data, however.. and some of his other Vid are intersting as well…I like his video on Heart Intelligence… But, not quite sold on his ideas on Climate Change just yet…
That was an interesting piece, especially towards the end when he talks about global vs local and compares Greenland vs Antarctica IC. One thing I’ve learned over the years is how important our first ammendment is. Without that protection it would be impossible to hear all sides of the argument and make an educated decision. People today are too quick to choose a side. I definitely think we are causing harm to our planet. Over population and consumption of any species in any habitat usually leads to the destruction of the habitat and lessens the carrying capacity for said species. I think our planet is going to make it harder to farm in an effort to reduce human population and strain on the planets resources and overall health.
Thx Ryan. The 1st amendment is paramount to the free Flow of the Info! Absolutely! Population and Lifestyle choices definitely have an impact on this earth! The earth’s ebb and flow will most definitely check us at some point, and already is! Extreme weather is on the rise! The Human race is fairly adaptive, ingenuitive, I think we can bring about some positive changes. Personally I think, we as humans are our greatest nemesis and our greatest teachers.
It’s true, people today are very quick to pick a side, me personally, I tend to believe all issues are multifaceted, and it’s important to try to grasp the whole picture, even if one chooses one side or the other for what ever reason..
We are definitely impacting our the web of life in big ways, and it’s bound to boomerang back at us at some point! THX for your Info Ryan!
I’m also a believer in issues being multifaceted. It’s the sole reason I’m open to hearing every argument from every angle. Even then, a lot of the big issues are still hard to wrap your head around. I think you are right that we will adapt, but I think during that process the poor will be hit the hardest. Unfortunate for them as they probably had the least to do with causing the problem in the first place.
400,000 years is not very long in geological terms. The only mass extinction that occurred during that time is the one we are currently causing. That’s like going outside at night and declaring that the sun doesn’t exist.
There’s a lot of money to be made in producing oil company apologia right now…
One obvious thing people are forgetting- we can not all agree to what extent climate change is because of human action. BUT we do all agree on one thing- curb pollution!
Why do we now have cow bells calling for “action against climate change”? Because action against POLLUTION was very very effective. Pollution will definitely kill us and many other species. Although, it probably won’t kill the earth. Pretty much everyone is untied against fouling our own nest. Can’t have too much unity can we?
Start at the source.
Dare to color a little bit outside the lines.
Pollution. Definitely a better focus. Climate change is like saying wet water.
??
Well said!!
Proud of the high school kids!!
??The children haven’t felt the bite of greed as most of the adults have or the illusions of false promises by politicians or gurus that sit around and tap there bitches out on a keyboard all day. There eyes are starting to open past the lies they’ve been fed and some are standing up and making there voices heard. Some will be of voting age as soon as next year,let’s just sit back back see were the youth takes us,unless your scared?
??This is what they call Cultural Shock. When your faced with a reality that things around you are changing but you want them to stay as they are. ?
I thought culture shock was what happens when a person from one society, immigrates to another society, by force or by choice, like immigration.
Enviornmental degradations like global change and climate footprints are just what happen when humans increase their numbers at a outrageous rate, all in the persuit of a better life for their families of course.
There is no way we can stop large scale enviornmental problems without taking a serious look at the insane russet mite infestation called humanity.
Just changing what type of fuel we use isn’t going to change the tendency of human societies to create unintended problems
You’re right no doubt about it.
How do we reverse population explosion?
Ancient societies worldwide used to control their populations. Today, we do the opposite. I just don’t know what to do.
Ancient societies used to reproduce at a much higher rate than we do now, they just typically had much higher infant mortality.
Why would population explosion not be a lie like everything else? I’m used to my government lying to me. Generally, whatever lame stream media presents, the exact opposite is true. Do we even know if the 7 billion number tossed around is a valid count? Can we all fit in Texas?
US women are having fewer and fewer babies.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fertility-rate-united-states-births-women
This is the one thing you are correct about, sort of. About 11 percent of Earth’s surface is being used to feed people, but that could be greatly reduced through more efficient methods of crop production. In particular, evermore cheap efficient LED lights have allowed for vertical farming to become a commonplace reality.
Do nothing. Then those of us (on whichever side) will sit back with smug satisfaction as we join wooly mammoths and saber toothed tigers in extinction. ☺?
//”Enviornmental degradations like global change and climate footprints are just what happen when humans increase their numbers at a outrageous rate, all in the persuit of a better life for their families of course.”//
~as opposed to the global military industrial complex, aluminum spraying, and Glyphosate?
That happens as well, among other things unstated.
We know there are major problems with human nature and techno-industrial society.
I’m just not convinced the movement to change the climate is really the panacea to humanities ungovernable problems.
I too do not buy the ‘change the climate’ mantra (either side), as the do all, fix all, that the political $cientists would have us believe.
I’d be elated if the toot, toot, toot, and the sound of chainsaws in the forest would stop. If legislation would stop. If commerce would stop. If death dumps in the sky would stop. It’s gonna take a lotsa our energy to stop the machine. At least slow it down. At least put the breaks on.
It sounds like you just want society to collapse.
No, not collapse, just control itself before society collapses.
Many good arguments presented in this thread.
But I missed the ones that were presented in the book of Revelation. I reread that chapter, and nowhere does it say that we can forestall the inevitable by simply robbing from Paul to pay Peter off.
Oh well.
The Catholic Curch, the guys who put that book into Biblical canon, think otherwise.
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/06/14/pope-francis-mitigate-global-warming-and-spare-further-injustice-poor
Well, that particular church has many problems that differentiates them from all others.
That’s not saying that there aren’t good people within it’s clutches, or that there aren’t bad people in the other churches, but what I am saying, is that just because it’s a ‘church’ doesn’t mean every thing said and done by them should be taken as gospel.
Gotta love that Snake cathedral, halls of gold, banks of oppression, walls that divide, and their number one mission to become the one world religion.
What else ya got Jaek?