Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Forethat said:

I think you're wrong. I'd say there's a 50/50 split. And keep in mind that the only thing they agree on is that there's NO consensus on how much (if any) the GMT increases by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But then again, if one continues to believe that only those who share your view are the respected ones and that everybody else are either stupid or has been paid off by the oil industry - the whole debate is unnecessary.

On this thread all I’ve seen is unrestrained vitriol directed towards a 16 year old girl, references to discredited tabloid TV documentaries, and speculative whataboutisms like your 50/50 comment. 

 

At every stage in history you have your self interested parties, your luddites, your self interested luddites. 

 

Add to this to the flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and those culture warriors who for them this issue is simply another front line in the war against those pinko facist communist lesbian socialists who have simply made it all up.

 

At any point in history where momentous change was on society, women’s rights, civil rights in the US, anti-segregation, slavery - you name it, anything that threatened the world view of the status quo you’d have the same types out and ranting against it. 

 

If this was a debate 100 years ago about introducing steam trains you blokes would be out on force penning letters to the editor talking up the horse and buggy industry and bemoaning this new fangled work of the devil. 

 

This debate is no different as we can see on this thread and this picture basically sums it up.

 

 

E6BA60C5-2A76-4989-96FB-8446922B4917.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Indeed. Much talk and zero practical, affordable, acceptable solutions proposed.

C'mon Greta, tell us how to solve the problem.

They want you to eat bugs and live in the pod when more nuclear reactors would probably suffice

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, sukhumvitneon said:

They want you to eat bugs and live in the pod when more nuclear reactors would probably suffice

Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.

In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms, and grew generating capacity faster than any other power type, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing the fear this one 16 year old girl has put into so many men.  She must be doing something right.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, samran said:

On this thread all I’ve seen is unrestrained vitriol directed towards a 16 year old girl, references to discredited tabloid TV documentaries, and speculative whataboutisms like your 50/50 comment. 

 

At every stage in history you have your self interested parties, your luddites, your self interested luddites. 

 

Add to this to the flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and those culture warriors who for them this issue is simply another front line in the war against those pinko facist communist lesbian socialists who have simply made it all up.

 

At any point in history where momentous change was on society, women’s rights, civil rights in the US, anti-segregation, slavery - you name it, anything that threatened the world view of the status quo you’d have the same types out and ranting against it. 

 

If this was a debate 100 years ago about introducing steam trains you blokes would be out on force penning letters to the editor talking up the horse and buggy industry and bemoaning this new fangled work of the devil. 

 

This debate is no different as we can see on this thread and this picture basically sums it up.

 

You forgot to mention those who base their entire argument on a mathematical model and refuse to admit that the earth's climate has changed erratically during its entire life due to a myriad of factors that no one fully understands?

 

One thing I've noticed is that the average climate alarmist tend to believe that some debaters - the ones they refer to as "climate deniers" - deny that the climate is changing. I don't think they deny that at all. Personally, I think they make a rather good argument when they point out that CO2 levels have been as high as 4,000ppm (compared to the 400ppm we're heading towards) and that big forests once grew on the continent of Antarctica. Which for the context of this debate is quite interesting given the number of cars and factories at the time in question. But I guess that's just a conspiracy theory.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A profane troll post has been removed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.

In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms, and grew generating capacity faster than any other power type, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

If the greens hadn't blocked the research, Melissa & Bill would be building traveling wave reactors in a few years. They want the bug breakfasts. The worst evironmental catatrophe are the "environmental" parties.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forethat said:

You forgot to mention those who base their entire argument on a mathematical model and refuse to admit that the earth's climate has changed erratically during its entire life due to a myriad of factors that no one fully understands?

 

One thing I've noticed is that the average climate alarmist tend to believe that some debaters - the ones they refer to as "climate deniers" - deny that the climate is changing. I don't think they deny that at all. Personally, I think they make a rather good argument when they point out that CO2 levels have been as high as 4,000ppm (compared to the 400ppm we're heading towards) and that big forests once grew on the continent of Antarctica. Which for the context of this debate is quite interesting given the number of cars and factories at the time in question. But I guess that's just a conspiracy theory.  

Text book strawman arguments.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bendejo said:

Amazing the fear this one 16 year old girl has put into so many men.  She must be doing something right.

 

 

Yes just amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chokrai said:

Yes just amazing. 

Her message is a threat to so many different vested interests.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...