Greta Thunberg

Having a discussion is now "butt-hurt" seriously?

There are plenty who aren't having a discussion. The people who are berating her age, autism and upbringing are the butt-hurt ones.
i am not allowed to have a opinion? and if i have one im butt hurt? ok......

go fascism

Facism! That's quite the stretch.

Just because you have an opinion, it doesn't make it right.

I just find people getting offended by a 16 year old with good intentions pretty funny. I mean some on here are really wound up by her, that's hilarious.
 
100 years ago, yes, with the smog but 50 years ago in 1969 with various clean air acts and smokeless zones it was very rare.

Of the few bad winters I remember 1962/63 was the worst and that was not due to environmental issues, just a freak winter snowing from end of December to March.

Yes, cars and lorries were more polluting but there were fewer around. Yes people were more self reliant, they had to be. However all in all it was still good times.
Bit less than that. There was a terrible smog problem in London in 1952. My grandad was a milkman and used to tell me about how difficult it was to work in the pea-soupers.

No wonder he ended up with emphysema.
 
Yes! To try and get this back on topic...

(though granted I've not actually been slagging the kid off as I agree with a lot of what she says re: the environment, just not the political/anti capitalist side)

She seems to have gotten a bit of flack re: Antifa - though she indicates she didn't know about the violence angle:

Dl90muf.jpg


Her parents probably don't have the same excuse though, it does seem like people are trying to use her for political aims beyond simply her passion for campaigning re: the environment:

eztZGo4.jpg

Roughly translated it means "My handlers have told me to lie in an attempt to distance myself from my obvious support for the violent oxymorons, AntiFa".
 
Will be wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt too? Rapist and murderer...
But can't blame her. Just another mouth printing checks that her attitudes can't cash.
 
She will face the toughest question soon enough that quite a few HFA's have asked themselves with varying degrees of success:

What makes anything hard?

There is only life before that question, and life after it, for a systematiser.
 
Last edited:
If a 6 year old says "you should stop smoking, it's bad for you"

Your reply is "What do you know? You are 6"

How is your reply be relevant to the facts that smoking is bad for you? Your claim that she has no life experience has nothing to do with Climate Change, hence an excuse.

The issue is not whether the child is factually right or wrong. Saying that smoking is bad for you is not a contentious issue, I suspect almost every smoker is aware of that fact. But life is more nuanced than "smoking is bad for you" and a six year old has no concept of that nuance, so frankly I won't take any lessons from them.
 
It's hardly a revelation to say that climate change is bad, like we know, we don't need to be lectured by a 16 year old girl. The problem is that the solutions are incredibly complex because there's no Political will amongst the voting base, it would need every countries Politicians to make sweeping changes across their countries, changes which would lead to people going hungry, lead to a lack of money to care for old people and damage their economies irreparably. Every country would have to do this. The Politicians who made those changes would be voted out as soon as people started lining up for welfare and inflation and interest rates started to rise. People who support her and think that solving climate change is some easy thing to accomplish that isn't being done out of laziness or stupidity are literally brain dead to the point I wonder if they're capable of an original thought, go read a ******* book and learn some basic economics. Actually people lining up for welfare is best case, in some countries you'd have mass riots and civil war.

The sensible solution is to get countries to have something like a green fund that goes into researching technological solutions to environmental issues, building more nuclear power stations, working towards electric vehicles, less damaging forms of agriculture, etc.
 
Last edited:
Just a thought, has she gone home yet? If so how - by boat again? I heard her crew flew home after the boat trip, have they flown back to take her her home, if so what a waste.
Andi.
 
It's hardly a revelation to say that climate change is bad, like we know, we don't need to be lectured by a 16 year old girl. The problem is that the solutions are incredibly complex because there's no Political will amongst the voting base, it would need every countries Politicians to make sweeping changes across their countries, changes which would lead to people going hungry, lead to a lack of money to care for old people and damage their economies irreparably. Every country would have to do this. The Politicians who made those changes would be voted out as soon as people started lining up for welfare and inflation and interest rates started to rise. People who support her and think that solving climate change is some easy thing to accomplish that isn't being done out of laziness or stupidity are literally brain dead to the point I wonder if they're capable of an original thought, go read a ******* book and learn some basic economics. Actually people lining up for welfare is best case, in some countries you'd have mass riots and civil war.

The sensible solution is to get countries to have something like a green fund that goes into researching technological solutions to environmental issues, building more nuclear power stations, working towards electric vehicles, less damaging forms of agriculture, etc.

I disagree strongly with that. Not one political party, other than perhaps the Green party, in the UK speak strongly about environmental changes. I took the time to read that component of each major party's manifesto before the elections, and no one took the environment, by which I mean energy, seriously. Labour, for example, want to lower energy prices. Guess what happens when you lower energy prices - people care less about energy. The current energy minister is Andrea Leadsom, who apparently studied political science at university - how is that helpful to anyone?

For any country to make a meaningful change to climate change, they have to review their energy policies and stop allowing inefficient engineering in the market place. There are countless examples in the industry I work in, low carbon technology, where technologies which are better performing, with lower energy consumption, are kicked out for lower priced, more inefficient, wasteful equipment.

It's also worth pointing out that the electrical grid in the UK is 3-4 times smaller than it needs to be if we are all to drive electric cars. We won't be able to increase the capacity of the grid by that amount.
 
I disagree strongly with that. Not one political party, other than perhaps the Green party, in the UK speak strongly about environmental changes. I took the time to read that component of each major party's manifesto before the elections, and no one took the environment, by which I mean energy, seriously. Labour, for example, want to lower energy prices. Guess what happens when you lower energy prices - people care less about energy. The current energy minister is Andrea Leadsom, who apparently studied political science at university - how is that helpful to anyone?

No Political party has it in their manifesto because it won't win them any votes, and in fact if they put in the meaningful changes needed it might actually harm their chances, and they will cease to be a Political party. How strongly the public feel about issues is what parties base their manifestos on, which is why I said there is no political will amongst the voter base.

For any country to make a meaningful change to climate change, they have to review their energy policies and stop allowing inefficient engineering in the market place. There are countless examples in the industry I work in, low carbon technology, where technologies which are better performing, with lower energy consumption, are kicked out for lower priced, more inefficient, wasteful equipment.

It's also worth pointing out that the electrical grid in the UK is 3-4 times smaller than it needs to be if we are all to drive electric cars. We won't be able to increase the capacity of the grid by that amount.

Again the public is the driving force there, they want low prices, not highly energy efficient. We come back to market forces again. The problem isn't companies or politicians, it's the general public. Until people actually witness the consequences of climate change nothing will change.
 
That said, it would only take 3 signatures to put the environmental complaint significantly to bed. The cost is in the order of 150 trillion+ usd, according to one account I've seen. Personally, I think that's an underestimate by a factor of 3.
 
I just find people getting offended by a 16 year old with good intentions pretty funny. I mean some on here are really wound up by her, that's hilarious.

No one is getting the hump because of her age or anything like that, it is because she is a marketing tool and people can see through it.
 
No one is getting the hump because of her age or anything like that, it is because she is a marketing tool and people can see through it.

Let's say it is all a marketing ploy wrapped up an an eco-bubble... so what? If she's being sponsored by companies who have technology available to reduce emissions, I don't really see the problem (apart from not being upfront honest). If that is the case then it's symbiotic, she achieves the outcome she wants, so do her sponsors. Anyway, the whole premise of this argument is pure hear-say, made-up, tin-foil hat malarkey.
 
No Political party has it in their manifesto because it won't win them any votes, and in fact if they put in the meaningful changes needed it might actually harm their chances, and they will cease to be a Political party. How strongly the public feel about issues is what parties base their manifestos on, which is why I said there is no political will amongst the voter base.

Again the public is the driving force there, they want low prices, not highly energy efficient. We come back to market forces again. The problem isn't companies or politicians, it's the general public. Until people actually witness the consequences of climate change nothing will change.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly why Greta Thunberg is important IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom