Greta Thunberg

VincentHanna said:
Do I believe Sir Richard Attenborough, who has seen both the affects of man on wildlife habitats, and climate change in his 50+ years of broadcasting along with 95% of actual climate scientists or do I believe Dr Crockofshit? Tough choice.
Click to expand...
What were his views out of interest, considering he died 5 years ago (and by the way wasn't a Sir)? :D
 
VincentHanna said:
Unfortunately doing "your own research" these days just seems to be 'googling for support of your own position, without considering alternatives.'

Do I believe Sir Richard Attenborough, who has seen both the affects of man on wildlife habitats, and climate change in his 50+ years of broadcasting along with 95% of actual climate scientists or do I believe Dr Crockofshit? Tough choice.
Click to expand...

The evidence I find most compelling is glacier data - there are numerous sources and the ability to get a grasp for the progression yourself through historic photos, etc. that show concerning changes for instance https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-melting-doubled-since-2000-scientists-reveal though I don't buy their linking of it to man-made causes (which it might or might not be) - after quickly discarding localised factors they seem to have jumped to "must be due to man made causes" without actually creating a link or considering other factors outside of their immediate field of expertise.
 
Time traveller

timetravelgreta.jpg
 
VincentHanna said:
Unfortunately doing "your own research" these days just seems to be 'googling for support of your own position, without considering alternatives.'

Do I believe Sir Richard Attenborough, who has seen both the affects of man on wildlife habitats, and climate change in his 50+ years of broadcasting along with 95% of actual climate scientists or do I believe Dr Crockofshit? Tough choice.
Click to expand...

What’s the late Dickie Attenborough got to do with this?
 
The thing is science is not based around consensus so this argument that "95% of scientists back me up" is unscientific in itself, if most of the money in the scientific community comes from arguing that we're all imminently going to die from climate change then that's the direction many scientists will take to make an easy living, likewise if going against it sees your funding and career path dry up then you aren't going to commit career suicide unless you're a person with real principles. I think Climate Science has been driven more by politics than scientific community itself and it's a good way to destroy capitalism/individualism and bring in some form of socialism/collectivism. At least now we know where all of the Communists went after the USSR collapsed.
 
Capitalism (enlightened motivated self-interest) hasn't had its social cred crowning glory yet, because we've been busiest (haven't taken a working-holiday to do so), in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
RxR said:
Capitalism (enlightened motivated self-interest) hasn't had its social cred crowning glory yet, because we've been busiest (haven't taken a working-holiday to do so), in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Want to have another go at this one? I'm sure it makes sense in your head as always, but between your head and the words on the page something has gone awry.
 
Anonymous Message To Greta Thunberg
https://anonhq.com/anonymous-message-to-greta-thunberg/

We understand and sympathize with your concerns about the environment, and agree that the blame lies with many of the world’s most powerful corporations. However, you may want to be careful that you are not led astray by people who are a part of the problem, and it appears that this may be happening. Many of the powerful politicians that you met with and took photographs with, are deeply involved with many of the industries you speak out against.

Many of the policies that you are advocating for are also misguided, despite their seemingly good intentions. For example, heavy carbon taxes will not have much of an effect on the fossil fuel industry, aside from making their cost of doing business a little bit higher. The large corporations that are destroying the planet have teams of lawyers on standby for any accusations that are brought against them, and they have money budgeted specifically for dealing with all of the fines that they intend to violate.

Fines, taxes, and regulations rarely actually cause corporations to do business any differently, but these policies usually do end up hurting average individuals who were never even the intended targets of the policies to begin with. This is because the average person does not have teams of lawyers or money ready for fines.

In the case of carbon taxes, the average person driving their car will be the person who ends up paying the real cost, and it is highly possible that the corporations could make even more money under a model like this. It is also important to consider that just throwing money at a problem is not a feasible solution, especially for something like this. If billions of dollars are funneled into government coffers as the result of some type of “Green New Deal,” what happens next? There doesn’t seem to be any plan for what actually happens to the money, and when plans are actually offered, they typically fall short.

For example, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who you recently met with, announced a plan to use money from oil pipelines to plant trees. This does not seem like much of a solution, as many of the native tribes in Canada, who are not very fond of Trudeau’s government, will still be forced off of their land, which they are taking good care of, to make room for dangerous pipelines that are prone to spilling. This type of solution is not much different than the carbon tax idea, it is a small, and likely counterproductive measure that won’t actually address the problems with how humans generate and consume energy, but instead, will just shift around more money through the hands of the ruling class.

It is also important to mention that the environmental impact of war has been entirely left out of many of the recent climate change discussions. The military agencies of the world are responsible for the vast majority of the pollution on the planet, the United States government and their western allies, along with Russia and China, take a large share of the blame for this pollution.

The people who are destroying the planet have names and addresses and they are on the news every single day, but they are never held accountable. In the rare cases where they are held accountable, they usually receive a fine that seems like a large number to the rest of us, but is merely a small percentage of their net worth, so the penalties amount to nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Protecting the environment is important, but it is also important not to let people who are a part of the problem be in control of the solutions, because we run the risk of allowing them to make everything worse. If you truly do care about the future of the planet, be extremely careful of the people around you, and analyze their solutions very carefully, because you are currently surrounded by some very dangerous people who do not have the best interest of the planet in mind.
Click to expand...
 
No wonder the 'advice' was anonymous - it's author is spouting a fair dose of blamey nonsense in the mix.
 
RxR said:
No wonder the 'advice' was anonymous - it's author is spouting a fair dose of blamey nonsense in the mix.
Click to expand...

Maybe you think so, but many other people think it is true, and it is true. It is stupid to plant trees because you don't solve the problem of disgusting smell of fuels on the streets.
Heavy carbon taxes are also bad for the people.

The largest polluters in the world are not the ordinary people with their small cars. Forget it.

The largest polluters in the world are mismanaged industries, airplanes, trans-oceanic cargo ship and military operations.
 
Cars are really a very small part of it, but the public are an easier target :\

Its become pretty clear that Greta is a useful idiot to someone though.
 
Nasher said:
Cars are really a very small part of it, but the public are an easier target :\
Click to expand...

I always hear this, this is a 'small part' that is a 'small part'.... well guess what, many small changes add up to something big. People can blame big businesses but ultimately it is consumer demand that causes it.
 
200sols said:
I always hear this, this is a 'small part' that is a 'small part'.... well guess what, many small changes add up to something big. People can blame big businesses but ultimately it is consumer demand that causes it.
Click to expand...

The ordinary people can only stop using their cars but that will ultimately mean another economic disaster, and many businesses go bankrupt.
Isn't it simply easier for the automotive manufacturers to stop immediately making ICE vehicles??

It is not fair to blame everything on the demand. You have an open system suppliers - consumers which interacts all the time. The demand is only for transport vehicles and no consumer ever defines that they want it diesel or gasoline or kerosine.
This is only controlled by the petrol industry.

It's like they say - either use our dirty vehicles or go to hell because we won't give you anything else.
 
Last edited:
High concentrations of CO2 are used in greenhouses to speed up the growth of plants but the greens and climate emergency alarmists want zero emissions, if plants were to become sentient the equivalent would be like them getting together and agreeing to zero emissions on oxygen. Photosynthesis forms the cycle of life on Earth.

Do we need to cut down on other pollution? yes, do we need to reduce deforestation? yes. but the "climate emergency" scare due to CO2 is laughable, plants will be loving and thriving on any increase in CO2 and they will produce more oxygen as a result.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom