Greta Thunberg

sideways14a said:
See if you keep moving left all your life, keep going past centre, past tony blair (ok he was maybe on the right of centre) past kinnoch and eventually sailing past Corbyn.
What happens? What happens when you keep going to the left? Do you eventually appear on the right? or do you sort of just fall off the planet?
Click to expand...


Oh i wish, oh how i wish...
 
MookJong said:
We just need less people to be born and wind the population of the planet down to a sustainable level. Who the hell wants to be packed into a city anyway, it's madness.

Less people and more untouched countryside, sounds like heaven to me.
Click to expand...

But what about GROWTH and PROFITS for the shareholders?!

explicit4u said:
Surely cities help with the more untouched countryside?

There’s nothing wrong with cities, done properly they’re much more efficient per capita.

As for population levels, they’re perfectly sustainable if we can sort out the distribution. Obese westerners and a starving ‘3rd world’ hints that it’s a distribution problem not a population problem. Although admittedly some are growing at unsustainable levels, but that should level out.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a global issue. Those growing population zones though are a bomb waiting to go off, they are either going to do things the right way to sustain the population and not just increase pollution, over farm, deforest etc and give their citizens a good standard of life, or they don't do this and they become even more hellish places to live and everyone leaves and the real mass migration to the west occurs.
 
Population isn't a problem just look at China/India, the problem is (on a world stage at least) the standard of living is too high for a government to manage that sort of population, it needs to grab more and more control over people and make them significantly poorer. You see it in the EU with the wealthier economies subsidising poorer ones and on the world stage with countries giving aid to Africa etc, plus the unlimited movement of people from poverty stricken countries to wealthier countries.

It's either going to end up with everyone being poor with a small elite of super wealthy and a world governmental system that exercises almost total control to manage them, or at some point you need to let nature take its course (sounds cruel I know) in the countries that don't have the means to support their rampantly growing populations even with massive worldwide aid efforts.

What the radical left will usher in is a return to serfdom for the majority of the worlds population which will make Tory austerity look like Christmas everyday, that is where the "climate emergency" drive will ultimately end up.
 
If, by “radical left” you mean communists; they don’t have a good record on being environmentally friendly.

The Soviets, in particular one Joseph Stalin, were pretty good at reducing their own population mind you.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You are really into nicknames aren't you? With all that life experience behind you, you should know that only reflect badly on yourself, right?
Click to expand...

What are you blathering about now?

I have already stated what has experience got to do with being told to do something if what they are telling you are correct?
Click to expand...

To use the cancer/doctor/janitor example used by another poster, I would absolutely take exception with a janitor trying to give me advice about my cancer treatment. I've got a doctor to give me expert advice, I don't need someone who has absolutely no expertise trying to lecture me on the subject. That doesn't mean I refute the fact I have cancer.

You keep saying left wing journalist, again, what is political allegiance got to do with anything about climate change?
Click to expand...

I said it again because you referenced it, hence I responded to the point. Do you not understand how conversations work? You cannot accuse me of repeatedly mentioning it when you're pursuing that subject.

But again, your inability to read and understand is the issue here. I didn't originally talk about left wing journalists in the context of climate change facts or evidence, but of Greta Thunberg's relevance to the debate. The point I made is that she has no relevance outside of a bubble of leftist journalists who want to push her front and centre.

The political allegiance of a journalist has no relevance to the facts, but it does have a great deal of relevance as far as their opinions go. Which, if you can read is exactly what I highlighted in bold: I don't care about their OPINIONS. That statement was originally about their views of Greta, but is also true of their opinions on ANY issue.
 
Schlong&Stable said:
What are you blathering about now?



To use the cancer/doctor/janitor example used by another poster, I would absolutely take exception with a janitor trying to give me advice about my cancer treatment. I've got a doctor to give me expert advice, I don't need someone who has absolutely no expertise trying to lecture me on the subject. That doesn't mean I refute the fact I have cancer.



I said it again because you referenced it, hence I responded to the point. Do you not understand how conversations work? You cannot accuse me of repeatedly mentioning it when you're pursuing that subject.

But again, your inability to read and understand is the issue here. I didn't originally talk about left wing journalists in the context of climate change facts or evidence, but of Greta Thunberg's relevance to the debate. The point I made is that she has no relevance outside of a bubble of leftist journalists who want to push her front and centre.

The political allegiance of a journalist has no relevance to the facts, but it does have a great deal of relevance as far as their opinions go. Which, if you can read is exactly what I highlighted in bold: I don't care about their OPINIONS. That statement was originally about their views of Greta, but is also true of their opinions on ANY issue.
Click to expand...

Let's get back to how it began.

This all started because you did not like being told by a 6 year old what to do as you see a young girl "with no life experience" talking on a podium. The problem isn't her, she doesn't know who you are, we don't know who you are. The problem here is the people having the problem with her (you). I can't do anything for you having a problem hearing what a 12 year old is saying, that is purely down to you.
 
FoxEye said:
You're doing your damnedest to become a parody of yourself, like humbug has done.

How far left do you have to be, btw, not to be called a Nazi? Do you have to be .. Owen Jones's ..? I'm sure it's great work if you can get it.
Click to expand...
To the left of Farage would be a start and then to the left of the Tories and the Libdems.
 
explicit4u said:
As for population levels, they’re perfectly sustainable if we can sort out the distribution. Obese westerners and a starving ‘3rd world’ hints that it’s a distribution problem not a population problem. Although admittedly some are growing at unsustainable levels, but that should level out.
Click to expand...

According to the UN it's possible there will be double the number of people on the planet by 2100. Normally this leveling out only happens with more of a middle class, usually a middle class forms from a baby boom. I don't think the world can afford a baby boom to be honest.

I think small scale conflicts and mass migration will be the story of the next 100 years. I feel quite privileged to have lived in this time of relative comfort.

Channel 4 news did a great piece on declining bio diversity last night which is good to see as climate change always seems to get talked about but never the fact that species are dying at unprecedented rates and arable land is disappearing fast.
 
Last edited:
MookJong said:
According to the UN it's possible there will be double the number of people on the planet by 2100.
Click to expand...

If we halved emissions that we produce today by that time. We would still be at current emissions standards. Can you imagine 120 million people in the UK in 100 years. Hopefully my children can go to Australia or something!
 
Her fame won't last that long... People (the media) will soon become bored of her predictions and warnings.
 
explicit4u said:
As for population levels, they’re perfectly sustainable if we can sort out the distribution. Obese westerners and a starving ‘3rd world’ hints that it’s a distribution problem not a population problem. Although admittedly some are growing at unsustainable levels, but that should level out.
Click to expand...

The more "obese westerners" give in aid to keep poor people from starving the more those poor people procreate at their current high birth rates and the more aid needs to be given in the future, eventually it will reach a point where westerners are far poorer and less able to give aid and the poor people they were giving aid are no better off either just a lot more numerous.

If we want to help in places like Africa then it's self sustaining infrastructure they need, not handouts. What you're describing is basically world socialism and the end result of that will be that everybody except a tiny few suffers in poverty.
 
Wasn't there an advert saying "give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, teach a man to fish & you feed him for a lifetime" so why are the UK still giving money to many other countries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom