Topic: Your thoughts about Greta Thunberg - page 2. (Read 1553 times)

I agree, and while I think it's important that we bring awareness to the issue of climate change, I did not think this was the proper way to do it.
As soon as I saw Greta making her speech I couldn't help but wonder... who is this girl? and what makes her special enough to get up on that podium and speak in front of the world? If someone is to speak to the nation on an issue that important, it should be an expert in that field, not a little girl, who I would presume has some background in acting or the performing arts, reading off of a script.

I have no problem with the message she was trying to convey, and while a little extreme, it definitely caught the world's eye. However, I would presume that most sensible people watching this speech would realize that SOMEONE had to have put her there, and put her there only to target emotions and push an agenda, as you said. To me I couldn't get over the fact of how childish this seemed to play the sympathy card on such an important issue, and it in many ways de-legitimize a very real argument.

On the contrary. Although a few hundred million or billion people would die if another Little Ice Age happened, the Warmer Alarmists should be happy.

CO2 will be condensing right out of the air in Antarctica.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/

Set off some nukes in Antarctica?     

Right 100%.

Meanwhile what are we going to do about this coming Little Ice Age?

Don't forget Saudi. Big fossil fuel baddies...

My thoughts on the young lass.  Go protest where it's needed. China. India.   Not here. Go away kid.

that link was examples of saying countries are experiencing 8 months of winter or other counties of many forest fires

but the whole "need to do something" is empty without a list of "somethings" that will be effective

when a cold country is complaining that there is too much snow that its killing raindeers makes them reluctant to want temperatures to go colder.

when theres countries with flooding they are reluctant to want more water vapour.
then the countries with forest fires they want temperatures to be more colder and wetter to stop forests drying out and becoming brittle enough to spark alight easy.

so the generalised "global warming" should not be that everyne do soemthing
but country X do xx to cope with excess snow
but country Y do yy to cope with excess rain
but country Z do zz to cope with excess heat

and not everyone just do C
especially if C is not the solve all solution. and especially when countries dont know what their xx yy zz solutions can be. things really need to be pointed out and not just time wasting that A=C because -C is not the end solution

What it was really 100% about was an orchestrated attempt to change the outcome of ...

https://news.yahoo.com/un-climate-talks-unraveling-face-failure-110423955.html

And it failed.

If someone really believes that Greta did everything her own without any external "help", tell him/her to send his/her own child to the next UN meeting. Then they will find out the fuckery they have been cheering for.

Of course TIME's would choose this little bastard as their "person of the year" cover.

I can't think anyone more puppet-like this year since Hillary is history...

Excellent point. The rate of lower stratosphere energy radiation outbound is the key variable in whether a planet heats up or cools down and how fast or slow.

People by and large are clueless about this and typical "Climate propagandists" do not teach this.

If you study it you reach (at least I reach) a very firm conclusion that there is no climate crisis.


This is essentially saying, that the weeds that might have grown where a solar panel shields the dirt is a loss, and asking whether there is a net gain with the panel...


You post a number of bad policies that are currently in effect, and suggest that people debate/criticize them, but do not seem to recognize that the current policies being advocated are just as stupid and should be criticized.

The people advocating  bad ideas yesterday are the same ones promoting bad ideas today.

The only difference is now someone that criticizes them is stereotyped a "climate denier."

Another thing that most people seem to ignore is the earth's energy balance. Here is a recent article that discusses it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110729031754.htm

you can't even see why this girl has to be the one to speak to stop carbon emission and fight global warming. there are plenty of scientific person out there experience wise who can discuss things that we don't cry while listening to he stories. its not entertaining. what they should do is offer a new solution while not risking the industrialization of developing countries. enroll greta back to shoolforchristsake.

You can't destroy or create energy, you can only change its form. This means there is no such thing as renewable energy. If we use solar energy to create electricity, and then transform that into heat, then we are depriving something else of the solar energy.. If we release latent energy in coal or oil, then we are adding to the usable energy resources in the world, but not depriving other parts of the eco-system of the solar power. We need solar power to rehydrate the earth, and to create more carbon based vegetation.

I'll leave you to decide which is the better option.

I don't want to make it look like I'm caught up in the craze myself. There are aspects of climate change activism that I personally despise and believe that are very misled. For example I hate that people are calling for a ban on single use plastics, which would effectively make all grocery products more expensive. And I dislike how 'green' parties occupy seats in the EU parliament, overshadowing more important issues with their single cause parties.


I'm really curious as where the sentiment for denying climate change with such passion stems from. If this forum's members are more intelligent, then why are people here acting like coal industry executives when faced with discussion related to the issue of climate change? What's to gain from sounding like a conspiracy theorist to most people? Not to say that appeal is all that matters, but conspiracies are part of the reason that the bitcoin community gets a bad wrap from the general public.

I feel like people not fond of climate change activists should meet others in the middle and try to be more productive than just deny everything. Presently, many faulty policies are being promoted to politics only because appeals to emotion sound better for most people. There are both faults but also positives in environmental policies. If we're to deal with the issue more productively I think engagement in this discussion should focus on the negatives and try to influence how public dialogue moves forward. Denialism on the other hand, sounds very unappealing to the general public.

We could be talking about how China is leapfrogging investing in renewable energy by instead building nuclear power production plants. Nuclear power also has zero emissions but the uneducated public's sentiment drives bad decisions around it. For example in Germany, electricity prices shot up within a year due to decommissioning of nuclear power plant.
Or we could talk about how banning single use plastics could act as inflation by making every single grocery item more expensive to end consumers overnight.
Maybe we could talk about how burning trash with new technologies is now more efficient and saves more energy than recycling certain kinds of them.
Or perhaps we could talk about how recycling materials costs more than burring them, and for certain materials also produces more emissions.
Or to talk about how "recycling" plants in some countries simply forward what they collect to Asian countries where the materials are likely dumped in open fields or rivers...

Instead of that, many people critical of how climate activism proceeds, instead spend their time attacking a teenage girl. Disregarding that by doing that, people at the other end of the horseshoe just get what they want and they become  even less likely to listen.

Maybe Bitcoin Talk members are a bit more intelligent, and a lot less gullible than the general public. Of course climate changes, and nobody can deny that, it's the reasons for the change that are important. For example, consider the relationship between CO2 and temperature. A rise in CO2 levels tends to follow a rise in temperature, and not to precede it, and the time span is about 200 years. This is statistically true if you go back over a few thousand years. Then there is the cows farting rubbish. The truth here is that the first stomach of a ruminant is used to ferment the grass ,and the animals live off the products of this fermentation. This is converted into protein and other essentials that are an important part of the ecosystem. Feeding the cows with protein directly messes this up. We need more ruminants, not fewer as the new initiative seems to be demanding.

I'm thinking of using a new slogan - "Help fight climate change - eat a vegan today".

Much of what you say is in your word "seems."

Forum writers instruct each other so that they find out the answers. After looking at the statistics for global warming, GW and global cooling are just normal things that have happened for thousands of years.

They hype about GW isn't the same for various locations. While GW has been happening a little worldwide for the last 3 decades, the rate of GW has been slowing down. We are headed for GC, and maybe ice age.

What the population seems to think is based on advertising to the population. Forum writers often want truth... not just follow-the-crowd ideas, that are manipulated by some jokers who are trying to take over the world for their own benefit.

Greta is Soros funded - https://www.infowars.com/surprised-greta-thunbergs-coach-a-soros-bill-melinda-gates-operative/. She is doing it for money, even if she really believes it. Greta isn't known to be in this forum. But, she seems to shout and scream way more than anyone who makes sense here in the forum.

The question is, where are you? Do you believe, or do you know? Check the global warming statistics to see that GW isn't really a danger, but is a normal cycle in the climate operations of the Earth in the solar system.

firstly climate change is real. but the term 'global warming' is not accurately described. too many people think every latitude of the planet will see a couple degree increase. which it wont

some will get colder and wetter some will get dryer and hotter. hense climate change is the better term

as for the causes and the measurements.
well if you take an icecore reading. or a tree ring measure. science is not including the water measure. they instead pick the carbon and measure the carbon and then come up with a correlation based on just the limited scope of what they are testing

other things like how scientific were readings 150 years ago. did they have people travelling the world making measurements of the temperature every day at different latitudes. were they using fair math or tweaked maths. eg were they deducting X% depending if it was a stormy day or summer day to try to make al results appear as a comparison of 365 'sunny days'

whe i see these science reports show that in 1969 they changed their measuring method. and suddenly at that same point the numbers change radically.. then it makes me wonder how come the 'smog' of londons industrial age in the 1800'snot be much higher carbon than todays less smoggy london

and yea. im talking about tropisphere( ground to cloud measures) because they definitely did not have satellites before the 1960's to actually measure the ozone

and in the 19th century they didnt have thermometers and temperature sensors that were decimal point accurate.

..
anyway climate change is real but if you take the science into its context and then look at the real results of real climate change its the water cycle thats of concern
wet or dry land =water.. not carbon.
no one is crying that its raining oil. or that deserts are made of coal dust

ht or cold is snow vs cloudless sky. no one is saying wow its a hot day because the clouds are black wth charcoal

the ozone layer is O for oxygen₃
the amount of carbon is not even 1% of atmosphere content. its ~0.04% and was 0.03%(still not 100% accurate)150 years ago
yet the water cycle has a bigger spread and a bigger impact on the weather.
trying to blame carbon for why it snows or not. trying to blame carbon for if its windy or not.
trying to presume carbon emmissions far surpasses the water evaporation effect. is narrow minded based on limited testing of just one particular substance of their choosing.

carbon emissions is environmental. but more so to do with plant growth and human lung health. not the climate

I honestly can't understand why there seems to be an abnormally large percentage of climate change deniers in this forum, especially when compared to the average population. What is it that makes bitcoin enthusiasts scream and shout when they hear about climate change?

Poll Finds Most People Would Rather Be Annihilated By Giant Tidal Wave Than Continue To Be Lectured By Climate Change Activists

https://babylonbee.com/news/poll-finds-most-people-would-rather-be-annihilated-by-giant-tidal-wave-than-continue-to-be-lectured-by-climate-change-activists