Greta Thunberg

[southeastpete]

2 minutes ago, SneakyD said:

If you don't know how it's going to change, why are you so sure it won't be an improvement for you and your area?

I’m not sure, I’m that I couldn’t provide any evidence. Can you provide evidence it will be?

but I look at what is happening, and it doesn’t look good, and it’s the speed with which we change things. Loom at the speed the natural world changes, 1000’s of years for minute changes. Then look at the speed with which we are making changes, too fast for the planet to manage with coping mechanisms. 

Like i said, I’m not after an argument, and I don’t really think that any amount of politicians meeting, even if they all make and keep to the agreements, would change anything now. But I can’t believe that humans aren’t responsible for a rapid change (by rapid I’m talking  environmentally rapid, or hundreds of years) 

10 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

A sweeping generalisation, which isn't accurate.

Sorry,

a lot of the scientific evidence points toward...

[Houseplant]

My prediction is that climate change, man-made or otherwise is going to kill off millions of primarily poor people in low-lying, developing countries. That is happening right now for a variety of other reasons. Do we care? Yes, a bit, but not enough to actually do anything meaningful about it. Most will give up plastic bags and straws, but not cars, holidays abroad or the right to have children. Developed nations have the resources to adapt to environmental changes. Coastal land will be lost and there will be changes to our way life. Life will get harder and more expensive, but in general, we will just keep ticking along for a very long time. 

[southeastpete]

8 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

The question really is, do you believe the issue has been hijacked by some highly skilled social media manipulators who are blowing this young lady in front of our kid and grandkids daily 24/7 on social media.?

Is it a good and noble cause or is it the hard left testing out their software? If there is another election the social media war targeting the young will be massive.

We old **** haven't got a clue whats really going on. All those kids on the bus in the mornings staring into their phones are like lambs to the slaughter and the loony left have realised it 

Yea, I also believe this is true. People in general will believe all sorts of tripe they read on the internet, especially social media, and it’s undoubtedly being used for political and commercial gain

[Vince Green]

Burning carbon doesn't cause climate change in itself because its a natural cycle and it self heals. Back in the 70s when climate change was first aired it always came with an agenda and that agenda was usually a bit bordering on the loony fringes and promoted by people it was hard to take seriously.

Then came climate gate when scientists were proved to be conspiring to falsify data because they were making money out of it. Lecture tours, flash hotels, first class flights etc.

I'm not as convinced as you are

[Gordon R]

Quote

when all the scientific evidence is pointing towards it. 

Quote

 

Sorry,

a lot of the scientific evidence points toward...

 

Earlier it was all the evidence - slightly later, the evidence is reduced to "a lot". Has there been a change in scientific opinion in between posts? It is in fact quite a lot, but that isn't what you said. I merely pointed out the inaccuracy of your first post - and it was inaccurate.

Most agree that we damage the planet, but show me the person who doesn't contribute to the damage and I will show you a flying pig. 

 

[SneakyD]

1 minute ago, southeastpete said:

I’m not sure, I’m that I couldn’t provide any evidence. Can you provide evidence it will be?

but I look at what is happening, and it doesn’t look good, and it’s the speed with which we change things. Loom at the speed the natural world changes, 1000’s of years for minute changes. Then look at the speed with which we are making changes, too fast for the planet to manage with coping mechanisms. 

Like i said, I’m not after an argument, and I don’t really think that any amount of politicians meeting, even if they all make and keep to the agreements, would change anything now. But I can’t believe that humans aren’t responsible for a rapid change (by rapid I’m talking  environmentally rapid, or hundreds of years) 

I haven't said that it would be better (though for the record I would welcome  a few degrees increase in temperature in my location).

As you seem to desire enormous changes in peoples quality of life and possibly even quantity of life.  I think the burden of proof lies very much with you.  And as you have already said that you haven't got a clue what kind of change is coming, I don't think self imposed poverty and depopulation is something I am prepared to sign up to just yet.

[southeastpete]

14 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Earlier it was all the evidence - slightly later, the evidence is reduced to "a lot". Has there been a change in scientific opinion in between posts? It is in fact quite a lot, but that isn't what you said. I merely pointed out the inaccuracy of your first post - and it was inaccurate.

Most agree that we damage the planet, but show me the person who doesn't contribute to the damage and I will show you a flying pig. 

 

I was just being general as you pointed out and didn’t think as I typed all, as above I apologise profusely for my mistake 🙄

and its not about not contributing, i think it’s about limiting contribution, which I personally think shouldn’t be aimed at a personal level, but a national/global level. But as I’ve already stated, won’t ever happen so what the hell, let’s all burn depleted uranium and cut down the rest of the amazon....

why do people mind when other shoot woodcock and hares in late numbers? There’s been ice ages etc before and species always have gone extinct, so why would it matter if we shoot animals of low numbers?

10 minutes ago, SneakyD said:

I haven't said that it would be better (though for the record I would welcome  a few degrees increase in temperature in my location).

As you seem to desire enormous changes in peoples quality of life and possibly even quantity of life.  I think the burden of proof lies very much with you.  And as you have already said that you haven't got a clue what kind of change is coming, I don't think self imposed poverty and depopulation is something I am prepared to sign up to just yet.

I don’t desire enormous changes

in quality of life, or for people to live in poverty.

and I don’t think the burden of proof lies with me or you. The only proof is in the future, when neither of us will be alive. I just stated what I believe, I’m not trying to push it on anyone, just saying I can’t see why you wouldn’t think humans are having a negative impact. Its fine that you don’t, just like it’s fine that I do.... But yes I think that a massive reduction in population i think would benefit the planet, but can’t see any reasonable way for that to occur. I’m not saying it must happen or anything, but that I believe it would benefit the plant if there were less humans. We have kind of massively overtaken the planet from where we began...

Edited September 23, 2019 by southeastpete

[Vince Green]

Just now, Gordon R said:

Earlier it was all the evidence - slightly later, the evidence is reduced to "a lot". Has there been a change in scientific opinion in between posts? It is in fact quite a lot, but that isn't what you said. I merely pointed out the inaccuracy of your first post - and it was inaccurate.

Most agree that we damage the planet, but show me the person who doesn't contribute to the damage and I will show you a flying pig. 

 

James O'Brian the biggest left wing agitator in radio used to shut down anybody who had a different view to him on climate change by saying "99% of all scientists believe climate change is man made"

How could he possibly know? has he asked them all? I am a scientist, I have a science degree, nobody has ever asked me. I deeply resent him using me (even by default) to build his fake statistics.

the thing is, I am more than happy to debate the issues, I don't think I am unreasonable but I don't want to be prevented from taking my mother to her hospital appointment in London by a load if kids who have skipped school to sit on a pink bloody boat holding up traffic for six hours and thinking its great fun.

[SneakyD]

3 minutes ago, southeastpete said:

 

I don’t desire enormous changes

in quality of life, or for people to live in poverty.

a massive reduction in population i think would benefit the planet, but can’t see any reasonable way for that to occur. I’m not saying it must happen or anything, but that I believe it would benefit the plant if there were less humans. We have kind of massively overtaken the planet from where we began...

This planet has been billions of years before we showed up and is very likely to be here billions of years after we are gone. 

To believe that we are either a benefit or or a detriment to the planet, is in my view self aggrandising.  But to indulge you, who do you believe should die or not reproduce, in order to bring this benefit to the planet?

If you truly do not desire enormous changes in people lifestyles, then what is the purpose of your posts on this topic?

Are they just designed to signal your virtue?

 

[Sako7mm]

My brother is autistic. If anyone tried to manipulate him, for example by brainwashing him into acting as a spokesperson for their own beliefs, I would treat it as a safeguarding issue. How a naive schoolgirl with a learning disability can be allowed to be exploited in this way is just beyond me.

 

[southeastpete]

5 minutes ago, SneakyD said:

This planet has been billions of years before we showed up and is very likely to be here billions of years after we are gone. 

To believe that we are either a benefit or or a detriment to the planet, is in my view self aggrandising.  But to indulge you, who do you believe should die or not reproduce, in order to bring this benefit to the planet?

If you truly do not desire enormous changes in people lifestyles, then what is the purpose of your posts on this topic?

Are they just designed to signal your virtue?

 

There’s plenty of people who should die and plenty who should not reproduce, but that’s not so much to do with this topic. 

As ive tried saying a few times, I’m not after an argument, and I’m not trying to push my view upon you or anyone else. I’m not trying to say I or my view is virtuous. I maybe wrong, you may be wrong, we both may be wrong, but we will both be dead before we find out. 

[JohnfromUK]

5 hours ago, Sako7mm said:

How a naive schoolgirl with a learning disability can be allowed to be exploited in this way is just beyond me.

Exactly; from what I have read she is a puppet of her parents who are lefty 'anti capitalist' types.

On climate change, my own view is that we do need to reduce the pressures on nature;

• Population control - long term aim to reduce
• Deforestation - control and try to increase forest (which is currently our best method of carbon 'capture').
• Carbon release - work to reduce carbon burning for energy (reduced flying, better insulation, etc.)

N.B., whilst the UK can set a reasonable example - the issue is a world scale issue - and the BIG problems are not here in the UK.

Some things never get mentioned - but are BIG carbon wastes.  An example is the entirely artificial exercise of "Bitcoin mining" which uses vast quantities of electricity and produces nothing!

Edited September 24, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[Newbie to this]

Just to be clear. My views on humans affecting climate change, is that it is a farce.

My comments about overpopulation and deforestation, were pointing out that IF and it is a big IF we do play any part, then these 2 things are what contribute. Our CO2 contributions through all our travels and factories etc. pales into insignificance against sea plant life etc.

But as John has pointed out by deforestation we are taking away the planets natural way of removing CO2.

A carbon TAX is just that, a way to charge us more money, nothing else and will do nothing to stop/change something which is a natural occurrence. 

[hodge911]

I.M.O

you can sum her up in 1 word 

PUPPET

Both of her parents are reportedly "eco activists" ?

So I personally think they are playing puppet with their daughter to have more publicity than they could drum up themselves

Edited September 24, 2019 by hodge911

[wymberley]

I think that for she and whoever it is pulling her  strings their fifteen minutes are nearly up.

[Newbie to this]

[sportsbob]

A Fox news reporter was ripped into for saying she was mentally ill, I decided to google " Thunberg mental " and Wikipediea amongst others makes for an enlightening read.

[Danger-Mouse]

48 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Nice to see them supporting a terrorist organisation.

 

[Rewulf]

The theatrics of her speech are stomach churning.

I can imagine her being coached for hours on end to get it right.

In the end its just all TOO dramatic, which makes it look, even to the casual observer, utterly fake.

[Scully]

16 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The theatrics of her speech are stomach churning.

I can imagine her being coached for hours on end to get it right.

In the end its just all TOO dramatic, which makes it look, even to the casual observer, utterly fake.

This, which is exactly why I turned it off. Totally theatrical. 

[oowee]

9 hours ago, southeastpete said:

There’s plenty of people who should die and plenty who should not reproduce, but that’s not so much to do with this topic. 

As ive tried saying a few times, I’m not after an argument, and I’m not trying to push my view upon you or anyone else. I’m not trying to say I or my view is virtuous. I maybe wrong, you may be wrong, we both may be wrong, but we will both be dead before we find out. 

Welcome to a place of climate change deniers and promoters of child troll's.

There are two ways forward. We ignore it (or pay lip service to the issue) and use science and engineering to try to deal with the issues. We find some global solution which is likely to require dramatic cuts in consumption, highly unlikely given the impact on individuals. 

Personally like most people, I make small changes where its easy to do so and the rest I wait to be pushed. Carbon Capture Containment and Usage looks promising particularly if it could be linked directly to a carbon use tax.

 

[SpringDon]

16 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The theatrics of her speech are stomach churning.

I can imagine her being coached for hours on end to get it right.

In the end its just all TOO dramatic, which makes it look, even to the casual observer, utterly fake.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. Prior to watching the “performance” I thought a 16 year old addressing the un was pretty impressive stuff but that?

And the sound bite “how dare you”? They are obviously very pleased with it but it makes no sense to me at all.

[Old farrier]

And if she doesn’t get her way will we see her having a tantrum and throwing the toys out of the pram? 

 

[SpringDon]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

<snip>

Personally like most people, I make small changes where its easy to do so and the rest I wait to be pushed. 

<snip>

 

How about the uk finds some way of reducing industrial output, reducing reliance on imported food and reducing population? Take about a month, I reckon.

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

How about the uk finds some way of reducing industrial output, reducing reliance on imported food and reducing population? Take about a month, I reckon.

75% ? 4 worlds down to 1.