Greta Thunberg

dowie said:
A model/actress posting about climate change/jumping on the support Greta bandwagon while simultaneously being among the biggest individual offenders.... people who pop up on Instagram in various different countries throughout the year are regularly pictured on private jets/mega yachts requiring tens of thousands in jet fuel/diesel to be burned each time etc... telling others to worry about the environment just seems so bizarre.

.
Click to expand...


why all the stupid poses? :p
 
Bear said:
Why do people single out China so much? Yes they are big polluters but they are trying to raise the stardard of living for the population, something most serious countries try to do. What about countries like the US who are wealthy yet still consume and pollute excessively.

You might be joking but the general comment still stands.
Click to expand...

1,420,547,042 Chinese people living at western levels of decadence is the death of the planet. Followed only By India. If that is ever achieved we will be living in ash and glass.
Their per capita is so low because of their ludicrous populations and you want them to achieve parity of lifestyle?
Yep the US are utter C words too and third on the list. No point talking to the US just now with the current government tho is there....
talking co2. If it isnt obvious.
 
StriderX said:
ONE SCIENTIST, WOW. oh GOD YES. Take your conspiracy theories back to r/conspiracy and 8chan.
Click to expand...

Galileo was thrown into house arrest because he was the only one to dare suggest the Earth went around the sun and not the other way round.

Science isn't a consensus, that's not how science works!!

rubberduck said:
Not a fan of hers, think she could do with putting a sock in it. Is almost certainly a hypocrite, doubt if she even cares about the environment, probably just a narcissist and likes being a spoiled brat in front of lots of ppl. What do you reckon?
Click to expand...

Utterly agree.
 
I believe she is genuinely passionate about the subject and quite smart compared to your average 16 year old but also believe that she’s being used a bit to push an agenda (albeit an agenda I agree with). I also find it a bit bizarre seeing people saying she’s the worst thing to happen to the debate.

Clearly the worst thing that’s happened to he debate is the politicisation of it as a left v right issue. You literally have people now saying it’s nonsense and fake just because they think it’s a “lefty” thing to believe in it, as if if science is now “left wing” lol.
 
bloodiedathame said:
[..] Take climate change out of the equation, agree to disagree, why would we not make the move to renewables?
Click to expand...

Because we don't have the technology to make it work without destroying huge swathes of ecosystems and massively increasing the risk to people...and maybe not even then. We'd need huge development of hydro-electric, which is the most dangerous form of electricity generation and highly destructive to the environment and huge development of pumped storage, which is wasteful, dangerous and destructive to the environment. We'd also need a lot of over-capacity in wind and solar because neither are reliable or controllable. We'd also need so many batteries that it's not even certain we could make enough even with the most environmentally damaging mining.

Some move to renewables, yes. They have a place in power generation. It might be possible to expand that place to some degree. In a few areas, low-emission long-term sources that are often wrongly called "renewable" can be used on a large scale. The best example is geothermal in Iceland. But that's dependent on specific conditions that don't exist in most places.

We need efficient controllable, reliable very low emission generation with a small footprint. At the moment, nuclear fission is the best bet for that.

Longer term, we might develop better solutions. Some currently unknown form of mass electricity storage, for example. That would make renewables viable. Still environmentally harmful, but viable. However, if we're going on technology we might have in the future then we may as well go with nuclear fusion since that solves all the problems at a stroke.

But that's only one aspect to the problem. Large animals are a large part of the emissions problem and often overlooked in the obsession with CO2 because the worst of those emissions is methane.

We need better technology, really. Promoting the idea that older people are bad and everything good they have done should be ignored doesn't help. Becoming a scientist or engineer might.
 
Efour said:
1,420,547,042 Chinese people living at western levels of decadence is the death of the planet. Followed only By India. If that is ever achieved we will be living in ash and glass.
Their per capita is so low because of their ludicrous populations and you want them to achieve parity of lifestyle?
Yep the US are utter C words too and third on the list. No point talking to the US just now with the current government tho is there....
talking co2. If it isnt obvious.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that the Western World has destroyed the planet in just over 100 years (of which you are a beneficiary of and still are) so there is no room to let developing nations improve their lot, even though we are continuing as if not much has changed but they shouldn't and then paint them as the bogey men. Always interesting when the wealthy dictate morality isn't it?
 
neckbeardthethird said:
I believe she is genuinely passionate about the subject and quite smart compared to your average 16 year old but also believe that she’s being used a bit to push an agenda (albeit an agenda I agree with). I also find it a bit bizarre seeing people saying she’s the worst thing to happen to the debate.

Clearly the worst thing that’s happened to he debate is the politicisation of it as a left v right issue. You literally have people now saying it’s nonsense and fake just because they think it’s a “lefty” thing to believe in it, as if if science is now “left wing” lol.
Click to expand...

It surely is a lefty/political thing, the left love Hollywood and surprise her parents are both actors. To me that and a few other things are enough. Maybe to you you need a 10 volume manual of evidence...

They love the limelight and what an opportunity. Behind the scenes you have people to Soros funding these movements with a more sinister agenda.

But if it makes people think then why not, it's just more drama really.
 
Bear said:
So what you are saying is that the Western World has destroyed the planet in just over 100 years (of which you are a beneficiary of and still are) so there is no room to let developing nations improve their lot, even though we are continuing as if not much has changed but they shouldn't and then paint them as the bogey men. Always interesting when the wealthy dictate morality isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yep that's what happened, shame eh?
Deal with it?
Or we all die.
You can talk little boo hoo stories all day but that's the truth.
 
This Thunberg individual just doesn't sit right to me, her actions just doesn't reflect that of a 16 year old, her facial expressions and the way she acts seems bizarre for a 16 year old, certainly not the usual description of a 16 year old.
 
VincentHanna said:
She has aspergers.
Click to expand...

I know a guy with Aspergers, it's an interesting condition, in his case he developed a photographic memory for the Tour de France and knew more than anyone on this subject even the commentators on the TdF.

In Miss Thunberg's case, a love and passion for climate change, who's a mouth piece of the likes of Mr Gates.

Could this be seen as taking advantage of a girl, molding her into something they can use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom