Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to University World News, 23,000 scientists have signed a petition supporting the climate change student strikes.
Scientists unite to back strikes for climate change
Michael Gardner 23 March 2019Academics in Germany, Switzerland and Austria have joined forces in support of the ‘Fridays for Future’ school strikes addressing climate change. They call for urgent action to halt global warming.
A joint petition written by ‘Scientists for Future’ and signed by more than 23,000 academics in the three German-speaking countries calls for immediate steps to be taken to tackle climate change and emphasises that the school protests initiated by Swedish campaigner Greta Thunberg are fully justified.
The petition stresses that a range of social and technological innovations already exist that “can maintain quality of life and improve human well-being without destroying our natural resources”.
Scientists4Future was initiated by Gregor Hagedorn, coordinator for national and international research infrastructures at the Museum für Naturkunde – Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science in Berlin.…
Read more: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190321152316347
The following is the letter from the Scientists 4 future website (translated by Google Translate):
Statement from scientists on the protests for more climate protection – # Scientists4Future
Source: https://www.scientists4future.org/stellungnahme/
The concerns of the demonstrators young people are entitled
At present, many young people regularly demonstrate for climate protection and the preservation of our natural livelihoods. As scientists, we explain on the basis of reliable scientific findings: These concerns are justified and well justified. The current measures for climate, species, forest, marine and soil protection are far from sufficient.
The Paris Agreement on Climate Change of 2015 obligates states under international law to keep global warming well below 2 ° C. In addition, all countries have pledged efforts to limit warming to 1.5 ° C.
It is now important to reduce the net emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases quickly and reduce them to zero at the latest worldwide between 2040 and 2050. Faster lowering increases the likelihood of reaching 1.5 ° C. The burning of coal should be almost completed by 2030, and the burning of oil and natural gas reduced simultaneously, until all fossil fuels have been replaced by climate-neutral energy sources. Taking global climate justice into account, this change would have to be even faster in Europe.
Even if there is still a need for participation and discussion: Now action must be taken. Both are not mutually exclusive. There are already many social and technological innovations that can preserve the quality of life and enhance human well-being without destroying our natural resources.
In all German-speaking countries , the necessary scale and speed are not achieved in the transformation of energy, nutrition, agriculture, resource use and mobility. Germany will miss the self-imposed climate protection targets for 2020 and the achievement of the goals of the German Sustainability Strategy for 2030 is also highly endangered. In addition, there is still a lack of an effective climate protection law. Austria has set goals in its climate and energy strategy that are in no way in line with the Treaty of Paris, and for that purpose neither the necessary measures nor the financial means are provided for. At the same time, soil consumption and sealing per person per year in Austria are the highest in Europe.Switzerland has only slightly reduced its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990; At the same time, emissions generated abroad increased significantly. In the first parliamentary debate on the total revision of the CO2 Act, the domestic reduction targets were deleted and the reduction of Swiss emissions was to be compensated abroad. After all, the law has failed for the time being.
Young people rightly demand that our society focus on sustainability without further hesitation. Without profound and consistent change, their future is in danger. Among other things, this change means: We are introducing new sources of energy and renewable energies with the necessary speed. We consistently implement energy-saving measures. And we are fundamentally changing our diet, mobility and consumption patterns.
Politicians, in particular, are responsible for promptly creating the necessary framework conditions. In particular, climate-friendly and sustainable action must become simple and cost-effective, climate-damaging action unattractive and expensive (eg through effective CO2 prices, cessation of subsidies for climate-damaging activities and products, efficiency regulations and social innovations). A socially balanced distribution of the costs and benefits of change is essential.
The enormous mobilization of the new movements (“Fridays for Future” in Germany and Austria, “climate strike” in Switzerland) shows that the young people understood the situation. As scientists, we can only emphatically underline their demand for quick and consistent action.
As people who are familiar with scientific work and are concerned about current developments, we consider it our social responsibility to point out the consequences of inadequate action.
Only by acting swiftly and consistently can we limit global warming, stop the mass extinction of plant and animal species, preserve the natural foundations of life, and create a livable future for present and future generations. This is exactly what the young people want to achieve from “Fridays for Future”. They deserve our respect and our full support.
Despite claiming an ongoing mass extinction event, still not one word of support for nuclear power, the only scalable zero carbon energy source which might attract support from conservatives.
Are they getting their Koolaid from Jim Jones ?
To be a total pedant, it was actually Flavr-Aid, as Jim Jones would only buy a cheap knock off.
Was the cyanide generic or name brand?
Zyklon B was a German favorite.
One wonders how much school these students will have to skip to qualify for a PhD in Climate Science based on “equivalent life experience”.
5 student protests (on 2 continents) equals one PhD dissertation in climate science – but first the student has to figure out what a continent is.
Plus, they have to sign a Disclaimer saying that they never used a calculator or ever even owned one.
Here in CAlifornia … that “experience” in the fight for “climate justice” WINS a starting $6-figure salary on the CA Air Resources Board … including a fully vested (98% of your highest spiked salary) Pension after 20 years.
Those board members must be very good at creating resources out of thin air. How else do they make the profits needed to pay their wages and the pensions of their predecessors.
Easy when it’s other people’s money. It’s called taxation.
It also highlights that the “climate change” “industry” is all about talking about saving the planet. They’ve had the talking part done now for about 20 years, but still not changed the Keeling curve (of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere – for you planet-savers who are wondering what that is). God forbid that they should actually have to do anything besides high-level (to them), organized BS-ing and virtue signaling.
I’d say we’re lucky that climates sensitivity is as low as it is, because these idiots couldn’t get carbon dioxide out of a paper bag but, if it really was a problem, it would be competent people dealing with it.
No it does not! It was an “agreement”. There are individual, voluntary submissions of intent. There is NO legally binding obligation
Scientists would be well advised to stick to science, they do not understand the first thing about “international law”.
Since they are having their brains stuffed with fake pseudo-scientific claims at school, they probably are justified in not turning up.
So they recognise that the limits are “self-imposed” and not “international law” . They are not even smart enough to be self-consistent in their political BS.
STOP the politicking, go learn some real science and then teach that to the children whose education has been entrusted to you.
Thanks for highlighting that the Paris Accord targets were always supposed to be legally nonbinding (maybe we could call this an “intent to be cautious”). In some sense then, the Accord targets are not serious promises as such, or not really contractual?
I’d always heard this sort of thing about the Accord, and certainly, this point has seemed to me to be a significant part of how the Paris Accord was “sold” to the world. For instance, it was said toward the end of 2016 that the reductions promises were somehow commitments in principle but still nonbinding? So, to make a paraphrase out of this, it’s been “go ahead and sign everyone, we’re signaling some nice cautious precautions here, but it can’t hurt your economies or anything, since you can always miss the targets if need be”. I’m sure I’ve also heard it said that, in this way, the Paris Accord was designed as a “softer” approach to the older, failed Kyoto Accord (which failed, I think, around 1998 or so).
The comment that I wish to make here, is that, if we think this “commit, but don’t worry” idea over carefully, isn’t this just a way to create a kind of “bad faith” in any agreement such as this? So, we make these promises, then isn’t any seriously concerned citizen in the world going to see them as actual promises, not just options for the bottom of the priority heap?
In an accord full of bad ideas and unfairness, this is just one more feature of bad faith. A promise that sounds good, but is maybe not really a promise, that sounds like a recipe for disappointment and divisiveness to me.
The comments are correct and every major country will miss their targets, there are 6 or so small countries that will hit their targets. Most countries will also miss their 2025 and 2030 targets by massive amounts. Meanwhile CO2 emissions chug along at a few percent growth each year and all the activists fly to the next meeting to discuss their success.
Nick W, ….. forget about the students, …… it’s the academics that are scared shirtless, to wit:
Quoting: Michael Gardner’s comment:
SURPRISE, SURPRISE, ……. the academics (and their institutional employers), who benefit the most from taxpayer funded “global warming/climate change” issues, …… are demanding job security and more money, more money, …… MORE MONEY.
Let the darlings go swimming in the Arctic Ocean, which has been “ice free” since 2013, as predicted by “consensus science”. Or not.
Do you have a source for that prediction?
Thanks
I do not recognize your name, so I guess you are new here.
The usual conventions here are to be polite. Also, demands for “a link” or “references” are usually taken as the tactics of a troll. Sometimes trolls get treated pretty harshly here.
After all, if you are tech-literate enough to post here, you can search this info up yourself. After all, we are not your personal librarians.
So, I searched up the claim, and within seconds I found these people who have made the prediction of an ice-free arctic by 2013:
Wieslaw Maslowski – Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California
John Kerry – American Politician
Al Gore – Climate Hustler, Many and multiple times.
That will help with your searches.
TonyL
Your research does not support the idea that the “climate consensus” has ever said that Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. Try again…..
In the interests of comedy gold, here’s the BBC article about Maslowski’s work:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
Interestingly, the 2018 summer low was higher than that of 2007:
So Simon, what was the climate consensus regarding the date of Arctic ice-free summers?
Al Gore is the spokesman for the “consensus”.
His docudrama “An Inconvenient Truth” is considered to be the definitive presentation of the theory of Global Warming.
Have A Nice Day!
Thanks Phil
There are many scientists around the place (on both sides of the debate) who make extreme predictions. Hell some here even think it is cooling. I doubt many at the time (2007) would have agreed with the guy the article was about. I consider the IPCC to be the definitive voice on the current state of the thinking. I don’t think they have ever put a date on the year we will be ice free. But if they have, it would not have been 2013.
So you are looking for political consensus not scientific consensus. Riiight!
Simon or is that Simple Simon here again.
Telling us that the the Prophets of doom are predicting to the world that the Arctic Ocean will be ICE FREE in the coming northern summers .
They are also predicting that the Greenland ice is soon going to melt and also most of the ice on the Antarctic continent .
At this time this is not happening and the stories of rapid ice melt are just that.
And I am not going to give you a link to this .Go look for your self .
There are some good archives here at WUWT .
You might even learn something .
Patrick MJD
“So you are looking for political consensus not scientific consensus. Riiight!”
Nope. I’m pointing out that there was no scientific consensus (no matter how many times the lie is told) that the ice would be gone by 2013. And I am right
GWAN
“They are also predicting that the Greenland ice is soon going to melt ”
Bollocks. Greenland is losing ice now as is the Arctic and as it happens the planet, but… no one is saying it is going to disappear any time soon.
“Simon March 23, 2019 at 10:43 pm”
Cheery picking then?
Simon March 23, 2019 at 10:43 pm
“Greenland is losing ice now as is the Arctic”
How can either be losing Ice “Now”, the warmist place in Greenland, which is the southernmost tip is -4C at the moment, the rest of it varies down to -48C.
The Arctic is around -2C to -29C.
Or do you mean “recently”, like the last 2 years when Greenland broke records for increasing Ice?
https://www.iceagenow.info/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget-far-far-higher-than-average/
“Hell some here even think it is cooling.”
I haven’t heard those “hotter and hotter” and Hottest Year Evah!” memes from the Alarmists lately. Why is that, Simon?
It’s probably because the temperatures have been cooling for the last three years.
Simon – March 23, 2019 at 8:38 pm
Then you have serious problems, …… Simon, ……. and your miseducated ignorance of the science of the natural world is your most pressing problem.
Or do you have a “funded intere$t” that mandates your support of all IPCC claims and commentary?
The IPCC has become such a mess it never ceases to cut it’s own legs off and nobody trusts it. It made several massive blunders the first was to introduce the whole human rights equality rubbish under it’s scope which basically made it poison to everyone. The second was then to become basically an activist base camp so nothing it says can be viewed as impartial.
With both blunders it has now managed to get itself sidelined as not even involved directly in the Paris process and can’t even get it’s reports accepted only noted 🙂
‘After all, if you are tech-literate enough to post here, you can search this info up yourself. After all, we are not your personal librarians.’
Whoa!
The usual convention is that those making the claim are those who need to justify it.
Not those who question it.
That applies to ‘climate scientists’ and ‘sceptics’ alike.
It is simple…do the research first…make the claim afterwards. Not the other way round.
Derg,
Enjoy,
Go look Derg.
Predictions galore drop like ninepins if you do your homework.
Derg was legit in questioning the claim that “consensus science” predicted ice free Arctic by 2013. It did not.
There are loony tunes like Lying Al and Wacko Wadhams who have made some spectacularly stupid claims.
What does seem to be the consensus view is that Arctic melting is produced by AGW, that it is accelerating due more open water and will continue to accelerate until we repent.
That is firmly rebutted by observations since 2007. Clearly we have little idea what the true drivers and mechanisms of Arctic sea ice is.
Greg – March 24, 2019 at 7:15 am
Greg, please tell me what you think the difference is between …… “consensus science” and the likes of “Lying Al and Wacko Wadhams”?
Greg
“”””There are loony tunes like Lying Al and Wacko Wadhams who have made some spectacularly stupid claims.””””
Yes, and there are also some spectacularly stupid “climate scientists” who didn´t correct Al´s spectacularly stupid claims. And because that, they accept some hyss hyss “consensus”.
It´s all what you say, and it´s all what you do.
“Scientists unite”…….”Academics …. have joined forces”
“A joint petition written by ‘Scientists for Future’ and signed by more than 23,000 academics”
I think they are saying someone called scientists wrote the petition….and 23,000 school teachers signed it
and now that these schools off demonstrations are sanctioned by the government….
…all 23,000 teachers get a paid day off with every demonstration
and that’s the way the German gov is pushing their agenda
Exactly, “Academics” not “scientists” signed it. Don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. They aren’t “school teachers” either. They are worthless ivory tower types who probably have worthless degrees in sociology, obscure language literature, minority group studies, etc. .
No use going to school. The world is going to end in 12 years. Might as well borrow all you can and party like you are never going to pay it back.
Because it is clear. Jusr ask macron. There is not going to be any drastic action on climate because people are already taxed to the max.
It is much, much easier to get rid of politicians than it is to get rid of co2.
“It is much, much easier to get rid of politicians than it is to get rid of co2”
Excellent observation. And that’s the direction we should take by getting rid of our delusional politicians and keeping the beneficial CO2. Let’s take the easy way out.
The story says 23,000 ACADEMICS, not 23,000 scientists. Big difference.
…actually it say 23,000 school teachers signed a petition to get days off with pay
Heck! I’d sign that. Who were the idiot teachers who didn’t sign?
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
More than that, standing by idle, while autocratic, societary perverts molest the minds of the future adult population.
All doubt that climate science is really anti fossil fuel activism has now been removed. Thank you stefan rahmstorf
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/03/hidden-hand/
Interesting Graph on there that the current “Climate Scientists” have tried to bury by changing the past.
?w=480
Where did you find it?
I agree. It is perfectly within our means to build 6 inch high(er) sea walls.
Austria and Switzerland will nor have to, though…
Do they also want to eliminate the approx 95% of naturally occurring CO2?
The naturally occurring CO2 is a special type of gas called Capitalism Neutral CO2. It doesn’t affect the temperature in the fake science models. I’ve seen the graphs, and it’s worse than we thought.
Don’t forget that photons of infrared light will selectively decide to strike a molecule of “man-made” Capitalism-Neutral carbon dioxide before they strike a molecule of natural CO2. This is fully within the power of intelligent, agency filled photons. That’s why they also can choose to strike CO2 molecules in general, while preferentially avoiding H2O molecules because they dislike them for being unreliable (FWIW because they are always condensing and falling out of the sky).
/sarc (I hope no one really needed this)
All human emitted (anthropogenic) CO2 molecules are actually an isotope of the naturally (nature) emitted CO2 molecule because all human emissions contain an H-pyron (Human pyron) …… which makes them easily identifiable within the near-surface atmosphere, ….. including the measuring/counting of their total ppm quantity, …. their total residence time in earth’s atmosphere …… and their GWP (global warming potential) for calculating the yearly increases in/of near-surface air temperatures.
Is it ‘Global warming’ or ‘climate change’ we are worried about, again? I can’t remember what I’m supposed to think. And when ‘global cooling’ rears it’s ugly head again,then what do we call it? If I get these guys right, we had the climate cooling, then warming, and all the while changing. I guess we should change the time required to observe and worry about these climate phenomena to one day. At that point I suggest we change the name of this strange variation in daily climate to ‘weather’.
If it’s so damn important why don’t they just strike every school day til they’re 18? They’re not learning anything but propaganda anyway, so does it really matter? The only fact they need to absorb is that a lot of their own children and grandchildren will probably starve to death if their ‘cause’ is successful, so the useful idiots called teachers should at least get them ready for that coming enevitability.
23,000 socialists signed a paper supporting socialist activism…… Meh.
Using indoctrinated school children as activist political pawns is child abuse.
A grade school student qualifies as an academic.
A grade school student qualifies as an academic.
Mao’s Great Leap Forward had a similar backing by university academics encouraging he youth and children to join Mao’s Red Guard of revolutionaries.
The children of the Red Guard afew years later ended up sending many of the academics who supported them off to “re-education camps”…. and were never seen again.
Those German academics are too focused on Western history to see the Eastern history they are repeating.
If German scientists knew any history they would know about the ice ages, and that those came and went without fossil fuels!
If German scientists knew any history they would know about (from Wiki):
Not many words in this need changing to reflect the current ‘green’ ideology.
A bit more recently, that is also the pattern of Mao’s Red Guards, of students recruited for their ideological enthusiasm. Or the Taliban, which translates as something like “The students”.
A history of atrocities by activist youth groups is apparent.
Speaking of recruited students, apparently AOC’s indoctrination wasn’t sufficient to guarantee that she’d vote for her own Green New Deal when the opportunity arose! Oh well, the next casting call will be more thorough!
They know the history, and because that, they know it works. Old people (krhm) often say that history repeats itself. Why don´t we ever learn?
Somehow they do not understand that what progressives hate and fear more are other progressives who could think you are not progressive enough which makes you a traitor to the progressive cause.
Indeed. The insider threat is far more worrisome to the Left than recognized.
Seth Rich is unavailable to comment on that.
Here’s how it works, in a nutshell: intellectuals protest the old order, march, get arrested, strike, make speeches. The ruthless bastards who are going to take over after the revolution note these people and take names.
After the revolution, when the ruthless swine are in charge, they round up everyone they took notes on to prevent them from fomenting the next revolution.
That wheel only goes round once.
My opinion is that the younger generation always likes to think the Revolution was their idea. When in fact it was the Old Guys. And then the Revolution runs out of Bad Guys, so they turn on the Old Guys.
Today, many Liberal Professors on US and Candian campuses are scared of the Progressive SnowFlakes they created with their activism and suppression of free speech ideas in the first place. Many of those professors have been sent before PC Sensitivity Hearings at their institutions after being “reported” by student-revolutionaries who didn’t like a joke or comment they made in class.
The Left always ends up eating its own.
Even in US politics we see this: Minnesota Senator Al Fraken, one of their own, was forced to resign by the Leftist PC enforcers for something he did 8 years before he became a US senator.
Academic professors must understand the Leftist PC beast they have created, a beast that must feed constantly, will now consume them.
Can’t see it makes much difference, considering the garbage being pushed into kids in school.
“global climate justice” – anthropomorphism much?
I urge all those abused children to read The Adventures of Pinocchio (Carlo Collodi), and more specifically the “Toyland” episode :
Plot :
“Pinocchio does excellently in school and passes with high honors. The Fairy promises that Pinocchio will be a real boy the next day and says he should invite all his friends to a party. He goes to invite everyone, but he is sidetracked when he meets a boy nicknamed Candlewick who is about to go to a place called Toyland where everyone plays all day and never works. Pinocchio goes along with him when they are taken there by The Coachman, and they have a wonderful time for the next five months.
Pinocchio and Candlewick became donkeys.
One morning in the fifth month, Pinocchio and Candlewick awake with donkeys’ ears. A Dormouse tells Pinocchio that he has got a donkey fever: boys who do nothing but play and never study always turn into donkeys.”
Carlo Collodi nailed it 140 years ago :
The Toyland’s episode relates exactly what all those climatistas activists (and other Malthusian psychopaths) are actually pushing :
– the creation of generations of donkeys ready to swallow even the most idiotic dogma.
One can only podner at what would actually make those kids in Germany happy. Their government has spent nothing short of a large fortune on wind and solar, resulting in an unstable grid, energy poverty due to high prices along with a huge cost imapct on business and industry. Despite these kids and probably their own kids having to pick up the massive tax tab as well as enduring the hardships that will now result, these kids want to inflict even more misery on themselves. Even more amusing, Germany is not exactly a warm place, with rain and cold weather persistent for most of the year.
You forgot the destruction of swathes of their Beautiful countryside.
“these kids want to inflict even more misery on themselves”
These kids may inflict more misery on themselves, but that is not their goal. They think they are doing the right thing. That’s what they have been told and they obviously belive what they have been told.
Don’t blame the kids, and don’t blame the school teachers. Instead, blame the real culprits in this CAGW fraud: The Climategate temperature data manipulators that have lied to everyone and caused people to take drastic actions because of their fear of these lies being true.
President Trump needs to get Dr. Happer moving on debunking the CAGW lies and give these kids some relief and hope for the future. The kids and everyone needs to see the other side of the story.
The kids will understand one day, and they won’t be happy that they have been duped by unscrupulous Climategate scientists. Just a small number of these Climategate criminals have caused all ths chaos. Everyone else depends on their bastardized predictions to be legitimate and the world goes mad. Well, the Western world.
Trump was right, CAGW is a Hoax. But it was perpetrated by Climategate criminals, not the Chinese. It’s still being perpetrated by Climategate criminals.
The title should have been: “German BRAINWASHED GULLIBLES voice support for students skipping school”.
Inappropriately using the term scientist is a falsity.
Not a big loss for whatever German education system has turned into. Re-qualification courses can lead a handyman to certified airframe engineer in 18 months. Scary.
The idea to cope with unemployment due to industrial recession is simple: -Give grades and diplomas to about anyone stepping into the course.
There’s not much left to hurt as German industry flees the consequences of the ongoing energy suicide.
Apart from stating these people signed, where are the signatures? Names and credentials would be good. Colour me sceptical, but I doubt there’s a single credible or relevant scientist among them. The statement has nothing new in it, just the same crap piling higher over the years. This sounds more like someone arriving late to the show trying to catch up.
Ah yes German scientists. Seem to remember they supported another mass extinction ideology in the recent past.
The headline infers 23,000 ‘climate scientists’, the press release 23,000 ‘scientists’, and the self-description gives 23,000 who are ‘familiar with the scientific work’ – downhill all the way. I don’t imagine that there is an academic in Germany, of any description, who could not make that claim – ‘familiar with the scientific work’; this blog has illustrated again and again the kind of ignorance and stupidity that can lie behind such a claim. I have been a lifelong academic (now retired), and the experience does not give me reason to value the opinions of those who sign petitions.
I was in Melbourne during the Green New Deal student/children’s demo.
The lack of sound purity coming from the loud hailers and from the sound systems was spooky and raised memories of past times.
The scene from Cabaret where the Hitler youth stands up in the Tea Garten and sings best sums up the scene.
As the chant, “Reach Higher” came into the park around the Victoria Parliament, repeated over and over, its distorted sound was disturbingly similar and reminiscent of 1930s rallies in Germany.
We have to stop this nonsense.
Is a whole new generation of climate scientists being produced?
I don’t know about skipping school in Germany but here it is an offence with a heavy fine.
To justify this offence on the basis of climate change surely it is time this was taken to court and the scientists made to prove beyond reasonable doubt that fossil fuel use is the cause of climate change.
Since they claim the science is beyond question this should be easy or are they afraid the failed predictions, the sub low end commercial standards for the source data and the primitive method of predicting the pattern of normal might just be exposed to the public. Or maybe even that the zero correlation between areas of fossil fuel use compared to maximum temperature anomalies might just be raised in public awareness.
Hear, hear. +42!
No wonder, youth’ knowledge about what ever is declining, not that nat. sciences are a highlight in German schools and the missing days are relevant.
😀
“23,000 academics” ??
Is the word, “academics”, supposed to convince us of greater legitimacy?
My question is, “Academics in WHAT fields”? — political science?, … art?, … world history?, … culinary arts?, … home economics?, … ???
I could tell you that I have 23,000 signatures from the best tempered, most likeable individuals you could ever want to meet. But what I mean is 23,000 paw prints from well-bred, well-trained dogs, with excellent temperaments and socialization.
Any physicists in there? Engineers? Meteorologists? Geologists? … ???
“Academic” does not automatically render people immune from ignorance in relevant subjects to make properly informed conclusions about the issue under consideration.
OT …has anyone else noticed how earthquakes in the fracking areas around Oklahoma have dropped off significantly in recent years? It is as if it was all naturally caused in the first place, and had zip to do with fracking, or fracking waste disposal.
“has anyone else noticed how earthquakes in the fracking areas around Oklahoma have dropped off significantly in recent years?”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/09/27/man-made-earthquakes-decline-oklahoma-kansas/1443306002/
“Oklahoma’s induced earthquakes increased drastically in 2009 and peaked in 2015, according to Stanford University. In order to reduce the quakes, Oklahoma regulators mandated a 40 percent water injection reduction in early 2016. The number of earthquakes soon declined.”
end excerpt
Thunderstorms are breaking out in Oklahoma and Texas and heading east. People should keep their eyes open.
Thanks for sharing. The rate of quakes dropped significantly, only 13 in the last 30 days for example.
Strewth, these kids are cucked to the nines. They’re supposed to be bunking off school to get laid, loaded, and have a good time.
Just because I may die before you, kids, it doesn’t mean your vote counts double mine. This is also a game that can be played by both sides: Greenpeas et al stole my future when I was that age by hindering the development of nuclear power. We are now much poorer as a result because cheaper energy is the bedrock of economic development and wealth generation, whatever some teachers may have told younger generations.
I further wonder if the same teachers are responsible for the unspecified “range of social [..] innovations that already exist” to create this utopia being sold to these students? It seems curious that this petition is international, yet restricted to German nations. I hope they’re better than some other social innovations coming out German-speaking Europe in the 1930s.