Student strike for climate change

Author
Discussion

wc98

7,569 posts

79 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Perhaps your "explanation" wasn't very good.
perhaps you could help me explain it better ? just the basics on what the reduction in anthropogenic co2 will mean for the current population of the western world in regard to the things they all take for granted at the moment. explaining how if we achieve these reductions the forecast temperature reduction by 2100 will be 0.05c and how this is supposed to make a difference to the catastrophic predictions that have been made if we don't ?

garagewidow

758 posts

109 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
Randy Winkman said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
Randy Winkman said:
I don't know - have you asked them?
I think we know the answer. Although to be fair, it's not just the socialists, now it's the billionaire airline owners who are getting in on the act.

https://twitter.com/HollyBranson/status/1106238334...

I assume his fleet will be grounded tomorrow.
What have they got to do with a load of students on a march?
He and his daughter are supporting the marchers, despite having a carbon footprint bigger than most small countries.
What are the marchers supposed to do about that?
Looking up the definition of 'hypocrisy' would be a good start.

deeps

4,717 posts

180 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
garagewidow said:
Looking up the definition of 'hypocrisy' would be a good start.
Gadget and Stovey?

RobDickinson

25,238 posts

193 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Biker 1 said:
I saw a group of some 20 kids in local village this morning. As soon as it started raining, they took refuge in Costa. A while later, there was a procession of Range Rovers, Porsche Cayennes etc coming to pick the little dears up......
What should they do? Divorce their parents I guess?
This obsession on what their parents drive? Missing the point a lot. Its about getting the political will to force change so these kids have a future.

Guybrush

4,019 posts

145 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
dandarez said:
Evanivitch said:
turbobloke said:
Primary school children are being needlessly frightened about the future

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/07/keep-kids...
It's all a government distraction technique from the impending social crisis that the baby-boomers have left us with.

It's like baby boomers are trying to distract from the fact that everything is their fault; housing crisis, populist politics, rise in cost of Freddos and environmental mismanagement.

But they're focusing on the one thing that they can claim is everyone else's fault.
sleep
You really don't like baby-boomers do you?
Good.
You missed a fking great period in time! laugh
Yet most of us grew up on council estates. But you (un-informed prats) would never understand that. We weren't left piles of cash from the properties of our parents, unlike many of today's generation will be. We went without, but rarely, if ever, moaned.
Today, in comparison, is brimming to overload with the 'moaning generation of know-it-alls'.

Will you ever stop?
Probably.
When you realise life is shorter than you ever imagined. byebye
The A holes will probably vote Labour. That will ensure they don't inherit anything!

Advertisement

Randy Winkman

6,179 posts

128 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
garagewidow said:
Randy Winkman said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
Randy Winkman said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
Randy Winkman said:
I don't know - have you asked them?
I think we know the answer. Although to be fair, it's not just the socialists, now it's the billionaire airline owners who are getting in on the act.

https://twitter.com/HollyBranson/status/1106238334...

I assume his fleet will be grounded tomorrow.
What have they got to do with a load of students on a march?
He and his daughter are supporting the marchers, despite having a carbon footprint bigger than most small countries.
What are the marchers supposed to do about that?
Looking up the definition of 'hypocrisy' would be a good start.
hypocrisy
"a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time" (Cambridge dictionary)

So it applies to individuals. Not when one person says something but their mum does something else or you see other people of the same age doing something else.


Not-The-Messiah

1,161 posts

20 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
hypocrisy
"a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time" (Cambridge dictionary)

So it applies to individuals. Not when one person says something but their mum does something else or you see other people of the same age doing something else.
So these kids can ask a pressure the nation to do something but can't do the same to their parents?

Why don't they start there? They have far more control over their own actions and people around them.

They need to start with understand what they are asking for and the consequences of it. The media seem to love telling them the consequences of climate change but seem to be very quiet in telling them the consequences of tackling it.


Russian Troll Bot

19,928 posts

166 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Didn't seem overly bothered about cleaning up after themselves either


https://twitter.com/SuzanneEvans1/status/110655038...

Randy Winkman

6,179 posts

128 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
Not-The-Messiah said:
Randy Winkman said:
hypocrisy
"a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time" (Cambridge dictionary)

So it applies to individuals. Not when one person says something but their mum does something else or you see other people of the same age doing something else.
So these kids can ask a pressure the nation to do something but can't do the same to their parents?

Why don't they start there? They have far more control over their own actions and people around them.

They need to start with understand what they are asking for and the consequences of it. The media seem to love telling them the consequences of climate change but seem to be very quiet in telling them the consequences of tackling it.
Perhaps they are asking their parents. Perhaps it's not their parents but the parents of others at their schools. How do you know so much about these kids?

Guybrush

4,019 posts

145 months

Saturday 16th March
quotequote all
It would be interesting to see their (or their so called teachers') answers to how much reduction in CO2 output is required and what difference it will make and how it will be achieved. Perhaps it would help, if they had these facts in front of them: the atmosphere contains 3,000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) tonnes of CO2 and the oceans 132,000,000,000,000 (132 trillion) tonnes of dissolved CO2. (The figures vary slightly, depending on the source information.) However, CO2 only forms a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. There are at the moment, just over 400 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 molecules of other gases (i.e. 0.04%), so CO2 is considered to be a trace gas. The total human contribution to this trace gas is about 3% of this 0.04%, so 12 per 1,000,000 or 0.0012% and only part of this 0.0012% is from motor vehicles. So where's the reduction coming from and how much difference will it make?

Not-The-Messiah

1,161 posts

20 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Perhaps they are asking their parents. Perhaps it's not their parents but the parents of others at their schools. How do you know so much about these kids?
I don't know much about these kids. But if they are anything like the vast majority of people who are asking for something to be done about climate change. They don't actually and honestly understand what they are asking for and what it means.


Hoofy

68,325 posts

221 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
Russian Troll Bot said:
Didn't seem overly bothered about cleaning up after themselves either


https://twitter.com/SuzanneEvans1/status/110655038...
Whenever someone posts about rubbish being left, there's always some tt who says that the complainer should do their bit and pick up the rubbish. WTF.

smartypants

38,979 posts

108 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
Guybrush said:
It would be interesting to see their (or their so called teachers') answers to how much reduction in CO2 output is required and what difference it will make and how it will be achieved. Perhaps it would help, if they had these facts in front of them: the atmosphere contains 3,000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) tonnes of CO2 and the oceans 132,000,000,000,000 (132 trillion) tonnes of dissolved CO2. (The figures vary slightly, depending on the source information.) However, CO2 only forms a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. There are at the moment, just over 400 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 molecules of other gases (i.e. 0.04%), so CO2 is considered to be a trace gas. The total human contribution to this trace gas is about 3% of this 0.04%, so 12 per 1,000,000 or 0.0012% and only part of this 0.0012% is from motor vehicles. So where's the reduction coming from and how much difference will it make?
Problem is humans categorically believe they have an impact on the planet. They couldn't even make a dent even if they tried, and we'll be killed off before that even gets close to happening.

However... If you play on the idea, you can draw in tax dollars. smile

Randy Winkman

6,179 posts

128 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
smartypants said:
Guybrush said:
It would be interesting to see their (or their so called teachers') answers to how much reduction in CO2 output is required and what difference it will make and how it will be achieved. Perhaps it would help, if they had these facts in front of them: the atmosphere contains 3,000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) tonnes of CO2 and the oceans 132,000,000,000,000 (132 trillion) tonnes of dissolved CO2. (The figures vary slightly, depending on the source information.) However, CO2 only forms a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. There are at the moment, just over 400 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 molecules of other gases (i.e. 0.04%), so CO2 is considered to be a trace gas. The total human contribution to this trace gas is about 3% of this 0.04%, so 12 per 1,000,000 or 0.0012% and only part of this 0.0012% is from motor vehicles. So where's the reduction coming from and how much difference will it make?
Problem is humans categorically believe they have an impact on the planet. They couldn't even make a dent even if they tried, and we'll be killed off before that even gets close to happening.

However... If you play on the idea, you can draw in tax dollars. smile
Do you not believe that humans can pollute rivers and seas with chemicals or the atmosphere with CFCs?

Diderot

3,912 posts

131 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
smartypants said:
Guybrush said:
It would be interesting to see their (or their so called teachers') answers to how much reduction in CO2 output is required and what difference it will make and how it will be achieved. Perhaps it would help, if they had these facts in front of them: the atmosphere contains 3,000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) tonnes of CO2 and the oceans 132,000,000,000,000 (132 trillion) tonnes of dissolved CO2. (The figures vary slightly, depending on the source information.) However, CO2 only forms a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. There are at the moment, just over 400 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 molecules of other gases (i.e. 0.04%), so CO2 is considered to be a trace gas. The total human contribution to this trace gas is about 3% of this 0.04%, so 12 per 1,000,000 or 0.0012% and only part of this 0.0012% is from motor vehicles. So where's the reduction coming from and how much difference will it make?
Problem is humans categorically believe they have an impact on the planet. They couldn't even make a dent even if they tried, and we'll be killed off before that even gets close to happening.

However... If you play on the idea, you can draw in tax dollars. smile
Do you not believe that humans can pollute rivers and seas with chemicals or the atmosphere with CFCs?
He’s talking about the evil tax gas, not pollution.

Randy Winkman

6,179 posts

128 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
Diderot said:
Randy Winkman said:
smartypants said:
Guybrush said:
It would be interesting to see their (or their so called teachers') answers to how much reduction in CO2 output is required and what difference it will make and how it will be achieved. Perhaps it would help, if they had these facts in front of them: the atmosphere contains 3,000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) tonnes of CO2 and the oceans 132,000,000,000,000 (132 trillion) tonnes of dissolved CO2. (The figures vary slightly, depending on the source information.) However, CO2 only forms a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. There are at the moment, just over 400 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 molecules of other gases (i.e. 0.04%), so CO2 is considered to be a trace gas. The total human contribution to this trace gas is about 3% of this 0.04%, so 12 per 1,000,000 or 0.0012% and only part of this 0.0012% is from motor vehicles. So where's the reduction coming from and how much difference will it make?
Problem is humans categorically believe they have an impact on the planet. They couldn't even make a dent even if they tried, and we'll be killed off before that even gets close to happening.

However... If you play on the idea, you can draw in tax dollars. smile
Do you not believe that humans can pollute rivers and seas with chemicals or the atmosphere with CFCs?
He’s talking about the evil tax gas, not pollution.
But what he said was "Problem is humans categorically believe they have an impact on the planet. They couldn't even make a dent even if they tried, and we'll be killed off before that even gets close to happening." I think it would be a bit odd if the explanation was that he doesn't actually believe that except in this one case. The statement would then have no meaning.

smartypants

38,979 posts

108 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Do you not believe that humans can pollute rivers and seas with chemicals or the atmosphere with CFCs?
Define “pollute”?


smartypants

38,979 posts

108 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
I’ll define it for you....

Make it different to what we perceive to be best for the environment.

And that assumes we know what is best.

Diderot

3,912 posts

131 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
smartypants said:
I’ll define it for you....

Make it different to what we perceive to be best for the environment.

And that assumes we know what is best.
And even more stupid is the belief that humans can control the climate.

RobDickinson

25,238 posts

193 months

Sunday 17th March
quotequote all
Diderot said:
And even more stupid is the belief that humans can control the climate.
Science is pretty damned certain we are significantly affecting the climate.

Now how science works is if you can prove otherwise get of your arse and do it , until then its the best information we have and should act on it.