Topic: Your thoughts about Greta Thunberg - page 4. (Read 1553 times)

For some strange reason, she is not protesting China too.

Greta, Go To China And Protest About Climate Change To The World’s Biggest Emitter



And here is Greta's excuse:

https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1176525238206640136

How convincing is this you think?

I didn't say she's getting paid. I just said her not taking the awards doesn't mean she's not getting paid.
I mean, how the hell does a 16-year old child get to lecture the leaders of the United nations?
It's only to push someones agenda.
A child is the best to plead to emotions, but certainly she can't possess any knowledge on the subject.

We're basically in agreement. You've described various aspects of the hydrologic cycle.

Incidentally climate alarmists often assume the Earth is a black body radiative body, but it is not, due largely to the water cycle. Non equilibrium thermodynamics.

Sorry about that, I fixed it.

but you skipped the book deals and the 5 day paid holidays curtesy of Ted Talks and such
and yes her mother does get income from the books before you even consider denying it. not every penny goes to charity
only the POSSIBLE excess 'profit' after taking their 'costs' (trips around the world and food and accommodation)

in short she is not self funding from savings she/family accumilated prior to 2018. she is funded by book deals and conferences after 2018
and she is not actually striking as sh gets school permission and does stuff on school breaks

yet she wants other kids to strike against schools wishes(facepalm)

 I believe I already addressed those very things in this very thread.  She does not get paid.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53279951
   I'm done here.

Ted Talks:
gretas facebook: Feb 11th
book income .. oh and hmm striking from school.. wait.. she said sh got permission from school
oh and her summer 2018 strike.. yep school holidays.meaning no school anyway

.. and as my point illustrated she also in her facebook post said climate change is black and white. emissions reductions is the black and white solution

.. sorry but its more complex than that

 Sure, nicotine is a natural insecticide; of course with climate change (whatever the cause) a reality, we will have to worry about those same vectors coming to new areas where the population doesn't have natural immunities.  I'm not a doctor but I don't recommend smoking as a "protective" barrier against these insects.  Perhaps we can convince them to smoke instead.

That's what's going to happen not because we can't handle people here but because it's good for the survival chances of our species.
Space colonization is going to improve the lives of human beings in unimaginable ways, it's going to be 1492 no.2
Asteroids contain more resources of some mineral than we have on the entire planet.

And about the population, we just said with 7 billion people, each person the planet has 8000 m2 of space for himself.
We could easily sustain 70 billion and by the time the planet reaches even 10 billion, we'll already be colonizing planets (see SpaceX).
The Earths population will take thousands of years before it become a 'sustainibilty' problem and by that time it won't be a problem because of techonologial improvement.


This is extremely dangerous.
What if they overproduce and eat too much CO2 causing a mass extinction?
Plants need CO2 to survive.
No CO2= no O2


Doesn't mean she's not getting paid.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, it's possible that smoking could have created a net positive for society, by way of reducing disease carrying vectors such as flies and mosquitos in areas where people congregated.

It's in the 20th century, as people now live much longer, that lung cancer has came to be of concern.

your example is perfect.
a few minds say smoking is bad but large public consensus thought smoking was good by enlisting alot of doctors who attributed their names to limited science and so public opinion..
because more were swayed to the limited science reports than the few minds that have been saying its bad

and thats how cigarettes became ok in governments eyes
it wasnt until decades later people started to wis up
we are still stuck in the 'more doctors smoke camel' era metaphorically

carbon dioxide is a concern for human health but water is a concern for climate.
its like when people talk about climate change then go on a tangeant about microbeads poisoning fish.
carbon is the microbead in that analogy

its far easier to handle the water cycle to cause more of a climate impact than carbon
and then separately handle carbon for the human health impact.

but yea. the argument will go on about 'things need to change' but years later after report and report are made all thats changed is the number of reports and debates.
untill the UN can actually start to come up with hard rules of tree's per populus area and water usage per farm and % of land permitted to be used. things wont change

some countries are already trying to make their couple decade old national strategies for other things appear as 'climate change' strategies to then pretend they are promoting climate change

some have said the whole 'farming quota' of the EU which sole purpose was to not have a food over supply (cheap food) are now making it a 'climate change' purpose. just to tick a fake box that they done something. although nothing really changed

because the whole finger pointing is just 'show you done "something" in a report' not actually 'do X'

take london. instead of actually cutting down on car manufacturing they just closed off traffic in certain area's whereby the closed off area becomes carbon reduced. but the result is more carbon on the other roads that have become more jammed up due to diversions which is not a combined net reduction. just a move it away from certain sensors to fake positive results

my point is this

*scientific consensus was that smoking was healthy for people.
yep even science isnt clear
yep show a group of scientists a limited info report and they will see a correlation of info A =B but them reports have excluded
for many decades science was saying smoking was ok

heres an anlogy
numbers show high correlation that stained teeth/decay vs lung cancer.. summarising: bad dental care = lung cancer
where as its not showing that its smoking that causes the dental issues which causes the lung cancer
so the report concentrates on tellng people to go to a dentist regularly. not mentioning stop smoking

history shown many times that toothdecay=heart disease (facepalm to them pre-historic narrowminded scientists)

*climate change is real but the message is just 'do something'. yet not really saying what the "something" is
EG asking to stop dismissing something is just words and and thoughts.
i can say for someone to research x,y,z but even if they end up researching it. it just becomes knowledge in their head and words coming out their mouth. still the actual "something" has not changed the environment it just changed thoughts and words
her demands lack substance. and just finger pointing
if she said plant X tree's per populace number
open X renewable power plants then thats substance

but saying 'do something' 'do agree to change it' where the agreement just is numbers and not plans/actions' is empty

anyone can say they agree to reduce something by X% but without being forced into HOW and without forced into a penalty for failure makes the agreement meaningless and makes the demanding of an agreement empty and all just words
its like the old addige 'better to ask for forgiveness after than ask permission first'

to actually get climate change to occur there needs agreements of actual action of tree's planted. renewable power generation investment in actual solutions and not just a empty agreement to do 'something'

i have read through the paris agreement and even if every country agreed to it. i can see many many 'get out' clauses that actually means countries can be following the agreement but actually not do any work apart from filing reports and doing minimal actions. there is no actual hard requirements.
yep countries can declare they cannot change due to national debt or other excuses and still be treated as following the paris agreement by just reporting their limitations at the 5year 'stocktake'

so again asking countries to do something when the 'do something' is just agreeing to agree. is empty of substance

  For the record, the red-quoted text should be attributed to franky1.  This is not something I typed nor do I agree with it.

 
 For the record, the red-quoted text should be attributed to franky1.  This is not something I typed nor do I agree with it.

But she is doing this for next generation people or her own benefits? That was the biggest question behind her climate change revolutionary things.

Her Point is very clear, imo.

- Humanity is facing an existential crisis due to climate change.

- The younger you are, the more you will be affected by climate change.

- Not enough is being done.

- Policy makers need to stop dismissing the scientific consensus on climate change.


I think she's trying to make a difference by getting her own generation fired up and educated about climate change.  And it seems to be working.  Long term I could see it making a difference if each passing generation has fewer and fewer climate change deniers.


Side note:  The whole "let me explain to you why climate change is real/not real" followed by an analogy of a puddle or something is garbage.  Go find the top scientists that have written about climate change, from "this is a really big deal, we need to do something now" (Reports from IPCC, NASA, UN, etc) down to "nothing we can do/it wasn't our fault/NBD" and compare the credentials, peer review, links to lobbyists or lawmakers.

 Do you actually follow current events or do you just like to argue so much that you don't need facts?  It's quite clear that Greta hasn't taken money from anyone.  She has refused prize monies that came with awards and is donating the proceeds from her book to charity as well.  This young lady is principled...

 Her words: "I am not part of any organization. I sometimes support and cooperate with several NGOs that work with the climate and environment. But I am absolutely independent and I only represent myself. And I do what I do completely for free, I have not received any money or any promise of future payments in any form at all. And nor has anyone linked to me or my family done so.
And of course it will stay this way. I have not met one single climate activist who is fighting for the climate for money. That idea is completely absurd.
Furthermore I only travel with permission from my school and my parents pay for tickets and accommodations."

 ...and she's genuine.

water vapour is not just about the cloud layer. its also the ground level evaporation that takes heat with it

EG
put a puddle of oil on the ground  and beside it a puddle of water.  the water takes the heat away from the ground much faster

rain forests are called such because the ecological effects have more of a water impact than a carbon impact


climate change is about water cycle and carbon sulphur and other toxins is the lung/life health of animals and plants
its why in a smoggy city vs a country field even though carbon has alot higher result in the city, the temperature is not to the same degree higher. however people can breathe easier in the country than the city

anyways
until greta and major population actually get to a point and come up with solutions people like greta are just finger pointing while getting rich on sponsored tours and paid guest speakers. which isnt actually going to solve the issue