Greta Thunberg is Simpal Cindy?
Discussion
From what I've read about Greta's environmental concerns she wants -
No more building any building of any description.
Fossil fuels must stay in the ground, where she says they belong.
Universal veganism.
Don't buy or wear new clothes.
Remain within "planetary boundaries".
As regards the last point, allow me to start the ball rolling. Greta's failed to see the "bigger picture" - namely the photograph of planet Earth taken from Apollo 8. It's been said that it's the one that started the whole ecological movement.
Discuss.
No more building any building of any description.
Fossil fuels must stay in the ground, where she says they belong.
Universal veganism.
Don't buy or wear new clothes.
Remain within "planetary boundaries".
As regards the last point, allow me to start the ball rolling. Greta's failed to see the "bigger picture" - namely the photograph of planet Earth taken from Apollo 8. It's been said that it's the one that started the whole ecological movement.
Discuss.
Langweilig said:
From what I've read about Greta's environmental concerns she wants -
No more building any building of any description.
Fossil fuels must stay in the ground, where she says they belong.
Universal veganism.
Don't buy or wear new clothes.
Remain within "planetary boundaries".
As regards the last point, allow me to start the ball rolling. Greta's failed to see the "bigger picture" - namely the photograph of planet Earth taken from Apollo 8. It's been said that it's the one that started the whole ecological movement.
Discuss.
I wonder if she included, I want the `snip' in her list of `wants' to save the planet?No more building any building of any description.
Fossil fuels must stay in the ground, where she says they belong.
Universal veganism.
Don't buy or wear new clothes.
Remain within "planetary boundaries".
As regards the last point, allow me to start the ball rolling. Greta's failed to see the "bigger picture" - namely the photograph of planet Earth taken from Apollo 8. It's been said that it's the one that started the whole ecological movement.
Discuss.
Langweilig said:
From what I've read about Greta's environmental concerns she wants -
No more building any building of any description.
Fossil fuels must stay in the ground, where she says they belong.
Universal veganism.
Don't buy or wear new clothes.
Remain within "planetary boundaries".
As regards the last point, allow me to start the ball rolling. Greta's failed to see the "bigger picture" - namely the photograph of planet Earth taken from Apollo 8. It's been said that it's the one that started the whole ecological movement.
Discuss.
That is like saying a Parrot thought what to say then said it.No more building any building of any description.
Fossil fuels must stay in the ground, where she says they belong.
Universal veganism.
Don't buy or wear new clothes.
Remain within "planetary boundaries".
As regards the last point, allow me to start the ball rolling. Greta's failed to see the "bigger picture" - namely the photograph of planet Earth taken from Apollo 8. It's been said that it's the one that started the whole ecological movement.
Discuss.
Randy Winkman said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm not sure the calling of a child "retard" and all the slightly creepy photos are going after the shadowy figures manipulating this poor young girl who you all seem so concerned about.
Exactly. I get the impression that most people who are "concerned" about her just want her to shut up.vikingaero said:
Helicopter123 said:
GoodCompany said:
Personally, I don't understand why so many middle aged men (and they almost all are) get so angry when a young person tries to do the right thing, such as protecting the environment in which we all live?
You can be your last carbon credit if it was right-leaning people doing the same you'd be about to hear just how appalling the woke find it from space, but as we see for example, jokes making light of child abuse in this very thread, no hypocrisy is too far...
jagnet said:
I think most people would support her aims of moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels and the desire for a clean environment irrespective of AGW theories. She's definitely not the first to want that and the West began the process long before she was born. The problem is her hysterical claims that humanity is facing an existential crisis, that we must cut CO2 emissions at an improbable rate, that her childhood has been stolen from her and that her generation are suffering from the actions of previous generations.
Her arguments are:
1) humanity is facing an existential crisis due to climate change
Is humanity really facing an existential crisis? Even if you side with the AGW argument, a degree or two of warming does not an existential crisis make.
For decades we've been given predictions of doom, of ice free polar caps, of children not knowing what snow is, etc etc and yet they stubbornly refuse to happen.
"Snowdon will be snow-free in 13 years, scientists warn" (The Independent, 18th January 2007). 13 years is just about up, how's that prediction going?
Claims that the end is nigh are nothing new but we're still here, as is the planet.
2) that the current generation of adults is responsible for climate change
The current generation, the generation before that, and the one before, and so on have each in turn been making massive improvements to the environment and to pollution thanks primarily to continuing technological advances built on the back of fossil fuels. Pollution existed long before fossil fuels and whilst they in turn have created pollution of their own, continued use of them has allowed us to clean up our environment to a degree unimaginable to inhabitants of cities 200, 500, 2000 years ago. Gone is the need for stepping stones in the street a la Pompeii to avoid treading in human waste, gone is the stench of Paris in the late 1800s caused by "the daunting volume of all organic matter produced, consumed and excreted by nearly a million Parisians — uneaten foodstuffs, animal hides, carcasses, dung, all human body fluids and solids", gone are the smogs of London that in 1952 killed between 8 and 12 thousand people. Our cities in the West are now cleaner and healthier than they ever have been. Her generation will in turn take that baton and continue to improve things, it's nothing new.
3) that climate change will have a disproportionate effect on young people
As will the benefits from the technological advances that fossil fuels have brought them such as lives free of hardship, penury and premature death. Global deaths from natural disasters have been declining over the last 100 years thanks to technology that would not exist without our use of fossil fuels.
4) too little is being done about the situation
All too easy to demand that "more must be done" without any consideration for the negative consequences of such actions. But then when you're 16 you don't need to concern yourself with the details, you don't need to provide answers, only stamp your feet and demand action. What would be the consequences if we did as she wished, how many people would die from cold and cold related illnesses? What of the poverty that would result and of the needless deaths as a consequence of that - her generation really would feel the effect of that.
Were it not for fossil fuels then population levels would be much much lower as would life expectancy. Were it not for fossil fuels there's a good chance Greta would never have been born, and even if she had then she may well have never reached her 5th birthday.
Were Greta lucky enough to survive to 16 there's a good chance she wouldn't be able to read or write and her life would be one of continuous struggle and hardship, working every daylight hour just to earn enough to eat. Much like the 3 billion people currently alive that live on less than $2.50 per day, but for whom she and her fellow activists would deny access to cheap energy to help lift them out of that poverty, all in the name of CO2.
Greta continues to ignore the most polluting countries whilst berating those that have done the most to switch to renewables. She berates previous generations for stealing her childhood whilst ignoring the position of privilege and wealth that she has been born into thanks to their efforts, one where she has never had to choose between fuel and food. She preaches to the converted and believes that it's making a difference. She creates discord between generations where there should be none. She creates anxiety and distress amongst her generation who she claims to stand for. She is not open to debate but would rather her critics be silenced.
She is a self absorbed, naive child that that can't see the sustainable wood for the trees. She is being used by others (including her parents) for political and financial gain. I pity her but that does not give her or those behind her a free pass when it comes to being criticised, parodied, mocked or satirised.
Perfect, except for the final paragraph; she absolutely must be criticised, parodied, mocked, and satirised, so that she wakes up to reality, and to discourage other onanists.Her arguments are:
1) humanity is facing an existential crisis due to climate change
Is humanity really facing an existential crisis? Even if you side with the AGW argument, a degree or two of warming does not an existential crisis make.
For decades we've been given predictions of doom, of ice free polar caps, of children not knowing what snow is, etc etc and yet they stubbornly refuse to happen.
"Snowdon will be snow-free in 13 years, scientists warn" (The Independent, 18th January 2007). 13 years is just about up, how's that prediction going?
Claims that the end is nigh are nothing new but we're still here, as is the planet.
2) that the current generation of adults is responsible for climate change
The current generation, the generation before that, and the one before, and so on have each in turn been making massive improvements to the environment and to pollution thanks primarily to continuing technological advances built on the back of fossil fuels. Pollution existed long before fossil fuels and whilst they in turn have created pollution of their own, continued use of them has allowed us to clean up our environment to a degree unimaginable to inhabitants of cities 200, 500, 2000 years ago. Gone is the need for stepping stones in the street a la Pompeii to avoid treading in human waste, gone is the stench of Paris in the late 1800s caused by "the daunting volume of all organic matter produced, consumed and excreted by nearly a million Parisians — uneaten foodstuffs, animal hides, carcasses, dung, all human body fluids and solids", gone are the smogs of London that in 1952 killed between 8 and 12 thousand people. Our cities in the West are now cleaner and healthier than they ever have been. Her generation will in turn take that baton and continue to improve things, it's nothing new.
3) that climate change will have a disproportionate effect on young people
As will the benefits from the technological advances that fossil fuels have brought them such as lives free of hardship, penury and premature death. Global deaths from natural disasters have been declining over the last 100 years thanks to technology that would not exist without our use of fossil fuels.
4) too little is being done about the situation
All too easy to demand that "more must be done" without any consideration for the negative consequences of such actions. But then when you're 16 you don't need to concern yourself with the details, you don't need to provide answers, only stamp your feet and demand action. What would be the consequences if we did as she wished, how many people would die from cold and cold related illnesses? What of the poverty that would result and of the needless deaths as a consequence of that - her generation really would feel the effect of that.
Were it not for fossil fuels then population levels would be much much lower as would life expectancy. Were it not for fossil fuels there's a good chance Greta would never have been born, and even if she had then she may well have never reached her 5th birthday.
Were Greta lucky enough to survive to 16 there's a good chance she wouldn't be able to read or write and her life would be one of continuous struggle and hardship, working every daylight hour just to earn enough to eat. Much like the 3 billion people currently alive that live on less than $2.50 per day, but for whom she and her fellow activists would deny access to cheap energy to help lift them out of that poverty, all in the name of CO2.
Greta continues to ignore the most polluting countries whilst berating those that have done the most to switch to renewables. She berates previous generations for stealing her childhood whilst ignoring the position of privilege and wealth that she has been born into thanks to their efforts, one where she has never had to choose between fuel and food. She preaches to the converted and believes that it's making a difference. She creates discord between generations where there should be none. She creates anxiety and distress amongst her generation who she claims to stand for. She is not open to debate but would rather her critics be silenced.
She is a self absorbed, naive child that that can't see the sustainable wood for the trees. She is being used by others (including her parents) for political and financial gain. I pity her but that does not give her or those behind her a free pass when it comes to being criticised, parodied, mocked or satirised.
Protect the environment in which we live, well yes but that's naive and far too general in this context, almost as though an excuse for her political puppeteers is needed. Going back to a medieval existence in the west and holding developing nations in poverty isn't 'doing the right thing' and won't protect the environment - there are existing communist states which play the climate game better than Greta and they aren't interested except in saying one thing and doing another. What a surprise that Greta isn't throwing tantrums in China or Russia.
China has just announced that coal power will be their basis for maintaining energy security with decarbonisation a minor consideration. How dare they.
China has just announced that coal power will be their basis for maintaining energy security with decarbonisation a minor consideration. How dare they.
Climate change has been going on for millions of years.
When the ice melted in the Ice age, there were no cars or Jumbo jets as far as I am aware.
Things go in cycles....
That's not to say I enjoy breathing in polluted air, anything that can be done to eliminate it has to be looked at.
Stalybridge, Cheshire 1950's.
When the ice melted in the Ice age, there were no cars or Jumbo jets as far as I am aware.
Things go in cycles....
That's not to say I enjoy breathing in polluted air, anything that can be done to eliminate it has to be looked at.
Stalybridge, Cheshire 1950's.
Wacky Racer said:
Climate change has been going on for millions of years.
When the ice melted in the Ice age, there were no cars or Jumbo jets as far as I am aware.
Things go in cycles....
That's not to say I enjoy breathing in polluted air, anything that can be done to eliminate it has to be looked at.
Stalybridge, Cheshire 1950's.
Indeed.When the ice melted in the Ice age, there were no cars or Jumbo jets as far as I am aware.
Things go in cycles....
That's not to say I enjoy breathing in polluted air, anything that can be done to eliminate it has to be looked at.
Stalybridge, Cheshire 1950's.
So much has already been done, fortunately, that the situation now - according to the USA EPA, UK BRE and IAQUK - is that indoor air is many times more polluted than outdoor air and with pollutants just as nasty. Surely this should now be a political priority, for two reasons: firstly because indoor air quality is worse than outdoors, and secondly we spend on average 90% or more of our time indoors. Unfortunately for our health, the government finds it easier to demonise and tax mechanised private transport, and indoor air as a topic doesn't offer an obvious route to marxism for attention-seeking extremists.
Wacky Racer said:
Climate change has been going on for millions of years.
When the ice melted in the Ice age, there were no cars or Jumbo jets as far as I am aware.
Things go in cycles....
That's not to say I enjoy breathing in polluted air, anything that can be done to eliminate it has to be looked at.
Stalybridge, Cheshire 1950's.
Why do people keep misunderstanding what the actual issue is and that it is not the natural cycle so much as the accelerated effect caused by humans? Do you not understand that a cycle can be affected unnaturally and thereby create issues that could otherwise be avoided altogether in terms of severity or delayed to a point when it might be mitigated in terms of consequence? When the ice melted in the Ice age, there were no cars or Jumbo jets as far as I am aware.
Things go in cycles....
That's not to say I enjoy breathing in polluted air, anything that can be done to eliminate it has to be looked at.
Stalybridge, Cheshire 1950's.
CC is not about the natural cycle! It is about what we are doing to disturb it!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff