16 year old Greta speaking on climate change at UN (Page 2)

It's official, we're all going to die.  But the Earth will not.  The Earth will always sustain life.

lol, so the warming of the first half of the 20th century was coal plants huh?  haha, I have to admit that's the first time I've heard that one.  ;-) 
I wonder what caused us to warm from the glaciers.  Probably the dinosaur farts.  I'm obviously trying to be silly, but it does raise a good point.  The current AGW crowd has sold the farm on CO2 being the primary forcing agent for the global temperature.  Hence, CO2 goes up, temperature goes up so the way we stop temperatures from going up is we have to cut CO2.
You can absolutely look at temperature increases in the 20th century and see CO2 increases that correlate so it's absolutely a valid hypothesis to investigate.  However, when we see that CO2 has continue to increase at a fairly constant rate, but temperatures have not continued to increase at the same rate.  Furthermore we see that temperatures increased at a similar rate prior to the significant increase in the rate of CO2 increases.  In other words they correlate at times, but not all the time.  The true science has been struggling to figure out why, and one of the more recent hypothesis is that the oceans are absorbing more of the heat due to the increase in CO2 and therefore temperatures are "cooler" than predicted.  
Those are valid hypothesis' to investigate for sure. 

Here's the nasa data on CO2 concentration for the last century+ so you can see the raw data yourself. 
CO2 in 1900 295.7 ppm
CO2 in 1950 311.3 ppm
15.6 ppm increase or 5.3% increase from 1900
CO2 in 2000 369.64 ppm
58.34 ppm increase or 18.7% increase from 1950

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt

CO2 has increased at a rate of more the 300% more the second half of the 20th century vs the first, but the warming was still fairly consistent overall.  If anything it's yet another datapoint that shows CO2 may not be anywhere near as much a forcing agent as was once thought.  It absolutely contributes, but from what research has shown us it's been overstated. 

Lemmee see here........I'm gonna guess the age of the average Climate activist at 40......give or take a few but it makes the math easier.

Those experts on our planet's climate have been on Earth for .0000000089%  of it's existence.  I wish the Earth could laugh.....it would have to be the greatest belly laugh ever.

Let's do this.....let's REALLY make a difference and quit using fossil fuels tomorrow.....just stop and "save the earth".....I'm in!!  Most of the world's population will be gone in 6 months.....in the big cities it'll be about 30 days.  I'll use what resources I have just to try to hang on and REALLY throw the finger up.

I'm not listening until the green theatrics are done......until then, or 12 years when it's too late (LMAO),  I'm a NO.

There has not been a SINGLE workable plan proposed....just a bunch of hot air and talk about spending money that nobody has.  Let the Libs run the show and poor people will be the big losers....just like in every big city now.

Let me know when the adults start discussing how to rein it in......not these sound bite idiots looking for "likes" on their social media accounts while they line their pockets spewing fear. 

Now....get off my lawn!!

good guess, but it's actually not a disparaging term. 
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): Overall warming of Earth's climate caused or produced by humans.

There's no question humans have an effect, it's just a matter of how much.

Everything we do has side effects, but it takes a monumental shift for it to even register though.  The benefits of increased CO2 have taken all mankind's combined burning of fossil fuels for 100 years to change.  Crazy to think about. 

The earth's temperature is a really weird metric in general because what is "the earth's temperature".  Watch the local weather tonight and you'll notice there are 50 weather stations that all have different temperatures that sometimes vary as much as 10°F across 20-30 miles.
We have very accurate satellites today that are capable of measuring the upper troposphere and such to get more broad temperatures, but to compare those temperatures to a thermostat in a single location in england in 1890 is kind of silly.  It requires sophisticated modeling that takes a LOT of tweaks to even make a dataset that kind of looks normal.

The US alone has added 4M miles of paved roads that all generate more heat than the dirt that was replaced.  Urban "islands" where hundreds of thousands of homes are all churning out heat day and night are all adding heat and absorbing more solar heat, etc.  There are 1000 things that have changed on our planet (including the use of fossil fuels) that all contribute to the climate over the past 100 years, but our truly accurate measurements have only existed for a little over 20 years. 

Quite simply, we have no idea what rate of increase we've had in global "temperature" over the past 1M years because we don't have sattelites to compare data against.  We have to "guess" on the old data and compare it to the new more accurate data. 

What if you're the one trying to give them the finger and increased CO2 and warmer temperatures are actually going to make a more vibrant and productive earth for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?
So far, we've had a substantial decrease in deadly storms, increased rains, increased crop production the past 30 years, presumably as a result of "global warming".  (sorry, climate change) 

Remember, we've had a lot of fear mongering and doom and gloom from the alarmists, but seriously look around and tell me what's actually worse the past 30 years.  Fewer forrest fires, fewer severe storms, higher crop production, etc.

I know I know, but if it saves one child... 

Which "change" are you referring to?  Warming or cooling?

Historically cooling has been very devastating to all global life and warmer periods have been the most productive and strongest growth periods of life.  In the past 20 years we have had far less severe storms, increased food production, and fewer deaths from cold in the winter. 
Now lets look at the negatives... Um... well...  Umm... "if we don't stop CO2 we're all gonna die..."  "we're gonna kill our grandchildren" blah blah

I'm being a little fecetious, but with observable data we have the increased temperatures of the past century have had mostly positive effects and very few negatives (if any).  Just remember, far more people die from the cold than they do from the heat.  That alone is pretty compelling.

So, yes based on observable data I do believe a warmer earth would be far healthier overall for those that inhabit it. 

Quoting Michael man's debunked "hockey stick" tells me a little bit about where you're getting your information from. 
There is no hockey stick in observable data.  Only in alarmist projections that have proven unreliable based on real world data. 
As was also stated, we've only had reliable global temperature data from satellites for a little over 20 years.  The global surface temperature is very suspect and heavily manipulated.  You can't tell me the regional temperature of your city last night within a tenth of a degree, so you certainly can't tell me the accurate global temperature from 1890 within a tenth of a degree.

You kind of proved my point on the extreme weather front because you cited an article about what they think is going to happen and not what is actually happening.  My whole point was that the alarmists claim there will be more severe weather, but the factual data is proving otherwise.  From your linked article: "Certain weather and climate extremes are expected to become more frequent during the 21^st century."  That's a hypothesis that's been thrown around for decades, but it continues to be proven untrue. 

The number of hurricanes in the Atlantic has been fairly flat cyclical patter the past 100 years with a downtrend overall in number and severity the past 20 years.  Those are facts, not projections. 
Heat "natural disasters" kill more than cold natural disasters.  Of course they do, because we have more natural disasters that happen in the summer.  duh.  You're kind of trying to cherry pick, but even your cherry pick still helps prove my point because in reality we've had a decrease in natural disasters and severe storms the past several decades.  So if the decrease is related to an increased global temperature than it's a good thing. 
What I was specifically referring to is that in the US we lose twice as many people every year to cold exposure than we do to heat exposure.  The numbers are far more disparate globally. 

Could you please point out what statement I made that was false?  You cited a projection of an increase in storms to disprove my statement that factually we've had less storms, tornadoes and such.  I'll help you out, my data is accurate and you're believing what the alarmists want you to believe.  It's OK, I used to be there too.  I'm just trying to help you open your eyes a little. 

If you're truly interested in learning about this topic and not just parroting what certain politicians tell you to believe I encourage you to listen to both sides of the debate.  The AGW folks are really more about politics than they are science.  They use emotion and fear in lieu of science and data.  Any scientist that even attempts to publish a paper questioning anything is shouted down from the "scientific community" and labeled as deniers and attacked.  That is not science because science welcomes dissent. 

Here's a talk from a couple months ago by Dr. Willie Soon.  He's an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer for the Harvard Smithsonian Center.  
He touches on a lot of the areas we're discussing today and how the alarmist community manipulates data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4&feature=youtu.be