Why Are News Outlets Giving Children a Microphone

awpitt

Main Streeter
I'm over these child activists. If they're under 30, chances are good I don't give a crap what they have to say about adult issues. Rarely you come across an intelligent 20-something, but mostly they're ignorant, self-involved, and blathering things they heard some celebrity say.

The Dems, in particular, like to use children as a human shield. It's supposed to prevent anyone from disagreeing with them. Like how David Hogg was everywhere, but if you said anything back to him the Dems would go, "Oh, how DARE you ATTACK a CHILD!!!"

This pearl clutching, of course, doesn't stop them from threatening to rape and kill our President's 12 year old son.


I wouldn't discount everyone just because of their age. And Dems aren't the only ones who use children as a "human shield". I know plenty of late teen and 20-somethings who go on those "pro-life" marches. They tried recruiting my son when he was in high school.

When I was in high school, the state wanted to put a chemical waste dump in Pleasant Valley. Having lived in Middletown, you might be familiar with it as it's situated in Washington County along state route 67 south of Boonsboro. It was actually featured in National Geographic. At any rate, a bunch of us "child activists" got together, made parents aware and raised hell, so to speak. Went to local hearings, met with Beverly Byron (our U.S. House Rep at the time), and went down to the State House for more hearings. That was my first long distance trip after having got my license. In the end, the State pulled back on their plans for the chemical waste dump. I remember first telling my Mom about it and she said, "Do you want to just fuss about it? Or, do you want to do something about it?".
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
An actual chemical waste facility is far more pressing, and tangible, than the spiritual imaginings of the Church of Global Warming.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Not to mention there was something "Children of the Corn" creepy about this girl.

That's because she's severely mentally ill and is being further traumatized by her parents and handlers. It's disturbing and not unlike those stage mothers who literally prostitute their children to Hollywood for fame.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
That had to be the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. Here this child is, railing against her audience, and they applaud her.

This is a characteristic of the left that I've only recently come to grasp - this craving for guilt to be thrown upon them.

But it's not. While they might beat their breast and do their mea culpas, the real reason they want it is a club to hit others with.
It's not guilt they're expressing, it's sanctimony.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
And Dems aren't the only ones who use children as a "human shield". I know plenty of late teen and 20-somethings who go on those "pro-life" marches.

Name one. Because if you pick a number, that's how many children I can name who have been recruited to shill publicly for the Left.

Going on a local march is a bit different than becoming a global celebrity and spokesperson for a cause, don't you think?
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
Name one. Because if you pick a number, that's how many children I can name who have been recruited to shill publicly for the Left.

I'm not naming names. There're people I know and I'm just not going to name them on here.


Going on a local march is a bit different than becoming a global celebrity and spokesperson for a cause, don't you think?

Perhaps but everything starts somewhere.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I'm not naming names. There're people I know and I'm just not going to name them on here.

So we agree that you don't know of any conservative kids who were recruited and turned into enormous celebrities in order to further a political agenda? And that Dems in fact appear to be the only "adults" who use children as a human shield?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
This is a characteristic of the left that I've only recently come to grasp - this craving for guilt to be thrown upon them.

But it's not. While they might beat their breast and do their mea culpas, the real reason they want it is a club to hit others with.
It's not guilt they're expressing, it's sanctimony.

Well, I do get that she wasn't really talking to the UN audience. I know full-well they are the 'hanlders'. They invited this little actress there. She was yelling at us - you and me and whoever else might have been watching. The fact that they are so desperate to push their cause, and they are failing with "knowledgeable" adults, they have to thrust terrified children at us to lecture us into submission. I think most rational thinking adults are not going to be lectured by some 16 year old spoiled activist. The only reaction I got from this was just "bizarre".
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
So if 97% percent of scientists agreed a bullet to the head would probably kill you, you would be the one to go out try it and make sure, hunh?

I keep seeing this 97% (or whatever high number) and never see the actual source of it. Do you have a source for this. I mean names, lists, backed-up data to prove they actually believe this stuff, and total number of scientists to square out the 97%?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I keep seeing this 97% (or whatever high number) and never see the actual source of it.
The source was "An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change that was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008." They sent out the survey to 10,257 earth scientists, 3,146 responded. Then from those responders they filtered it to 79 and declared them experts. Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So it was 75 out of 77 of the few selected that were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I keep seeing this 97% (or whatever high number) and never see the actual source of it. Do you have a source for this. I mean names, lists, backed-up data to prove they actually believe this stuff, and total number of scientists to square out the 97%?

From here --

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...ic-global-warming-consensus-not/#45ec2fb53bb3

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

_

So - 75 out of 77. Out of an original group of 10,257, in which less than a third even answered.
If you want to prove your case - FIND ANOTHER NUMBER. Or survey. This one might as well have come from the Babylon Bee or the Weekly World News.

What's worse about this oft-quoted statistic is - seriously, they never asked even a significant SAMPLE of the world's scientists - not even a significant SAMPLE of the ones most likely to have an informed opinion on the matter. And I always doubt any statistic that renders a number that HIGH. If you had a survey asking if the sky is blue or water is wet, I STILL think a higher number would disagree. That's just being human.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
The source was "An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change that was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008." They sent out the survey to 10,257 earth scientists, 3,146 responded. Then from those responders they filtered it to 79 and declared them experts. Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So it was 75 out of 77 of the few selected that were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.

I bet they're really good at Twister.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
So we agree that you don't know of any conservative kids who were recruited and turned into enormous celebrities in order to further a political agenda? And that Dems in fact appear to be the only "adults" who use children as a human shield?

I'll agree with the first part.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
The source was "An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change that was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008." They sent out the survey to 10,257 earth scientists, 3,146 responded. Then from those responders they filtered it to 79 and declared them experts. Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So it was 75 out of 77 of the few selected that were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.

In other words... common core maffs.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The source was "An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change that was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008." They sent out the survey to 10,257 earth scientists, 3,146 responded. Then from those respondents they filtered it to 79 and declared them experts. Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So it was 75 out of 77 of the few selected that were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.



Looks like CHERRY PICKING to me ....... why send out 10,000 Surveys why not just ASK 'The 79 Experts '
 
Top