Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DrTuner said:

It's got to be true if Sudan Academy of Sciences says so. 

 

Actually first time I saw such a list. Not impressed.

Is that all u got?

Wheres your list?

TV members will surely be considered in high regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You go girl hold their feet to the fire make them face what’s happening so all of us can start making responsible changes and grow into a more sustainable world I’m proud of you kiddo!

And first of all make her shut up. 

Small point that needs clarifying. It was Greta's parents that filled her head with confusion, hate and panic, ergo they "stole her dreams". Textbook child abuse really. When she gets bored of this cl

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Is that all u got?

Wheres your list?

TV members will surely be considered in high regard.

* My neighbours cat

* The dead rat he was carrying

* Random somchai

 

They are in 100% consensus that CO2 isn't killing them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Here here. I am certain someone stole my dreams.

im sure your dreams are a bit morr time limited than hers. Not to mention more self serving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

* My neighbours cat

* The dead rat he was carrying

* Random somchai

 

They are in 100% consensus that CO2 isn't killing them.

Well your research aligns with your arguments and conclusions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WhatupThailand said:

Is Climate Change like Gender Change, where if you say so, it has to be True.

No its backed by scientific consensus. Not by personal belief.

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

beside that, consensus is a thing for democracies, science dont do consensus,

science check a theory against data, and if data dont match the theory,

the theory is discarded.

It's been about more about politics and not science ever since Gore got into it. Probably before that too but not as popular. Now it's almost fully politics. And money, of course.

 

My proof? Science doesn't have feelings. Greta's show was all about emotion. Sells better.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rabas said:

No, it is not particularly good to produce more CO2 at this time. We are already producing a lot. However, you must separate short term from long term effects. Historically (100s of Myears) I'm convinced the Earth is running low on CO2. This is why we are now deep in a multi million year ice age and why the freeze ups are getting worse.

Here you say, it's not good. That is, the production of more CO2.    

14 hours ago, rabas said:

Then use fossil fuels as needed to recirculate CO2 at optimum levels.

How are they "optimum" levels? Is that an assumption or what really makes more it optimal?

On 10/20/2019 at 2:30 PM, rabas said:

Did you read the article you posted? It's nonsense. He lists all the companies producing fossil fuels. Duh. OTOH, energy consumption is universal. No wonder people don't trust activists.

Now, back to my OP followed by your, again, nonconstructive yet confusing comment. Followed by a further mix or cluster of typing. Pretty chart there too. He, Lee Camp in that opinion piece was also advocating the need for reductions in using fossil fuels thus the reduction in CO2.   You later go on to say "it's not particularly good.." That, Greta Thunberg is doing such that as she too thinks there needs to be a reduction in fossil fuels.

 

I've been around a beer and falangs enough to know when someone is arguing for an argument's sake. I don't think your completely inaccurate but surely either without a clear stance and/or strokin it.

 

 

 

My post was #2080 with a great opinion piece by Lee Camp from Truthdig.com

 

Edited by Solinvictus
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 2:21 PM, RideJocky said:

 

Why don’t you quit trading with them?

 

Do the customers not bear any responsibility?

 

 

You're right customers contributing to the demand and market for such production need to become better aware. However, I would say this is quite shallow and lacking of the overall bigger picture. (Smells of corporate talking points, IMO) Which is there needs to be not only more regulations but in fact the companies themselves are the culprits. They produce them. Sure, you could argue both ways and we could continue that. But I believe our faith in good governance along with our tax dollars should be used for the betterment of society not the decay.

 

My take away point is simply saying the customers bear all the responsibility is short-sided if unthoughtful regarding the bigger picture not to mention how to deal with it. The poor can't be to blame for the wealthys' greed coupled with unregulated capitalistic cannibalism, ultimately hurting our environment.

 

My post was #2080 with a great opinion piece by Lee Camp from Truthdig.com

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

 That is, the production of more CO2.    

How are they "optimum" levels?

 

greenhouse owners say optimum co2 levels are 1500 ppm,

after that its diminishing returns.

below 200 ppm plants no longer grow and if co2 fall below 150 ppm plants die.

note that at the bottom of last ice age, atmospheric co2 fell to 180 ppm,

a historic low and very close to wipe out life on earth surface.

and due to the continuous sequestration of co2,

it can be expected that if we humans do not intervene and recycle co2

back into the atmosphere where it belong,

next ice age will drop below 150 ppm co2 and end life on earth surface,

that is, the plants and every specie above in the food chain, like you for example

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

 

 

My take away point is simply saying the customers bear all the responsibility is short-sided if unthoughtful regarding the bigger picture not to mention how to deal with it. The poor can't be to blame for the wealthys' greed coupled with unregulated capitalistic cannibalism, ultimately hurting our environment.

 

 

i'd say each human should do what in is his ability to recycle the vital co2

back into the atmosphere where it belong.

it goes without saying that wealthy people have a greater ability

and therefore responsibility to recycle co2 back into the atmosphere,

simply because fossils cost money to recycle.

 

no one is blaming the poor for not recycling enough, they do what little they can

for if for no other reason to stay alive.

 

"unregulated capitalistic cannibalism" wut mighty ?

it was the various forms of shell life forms in the sea that took the vital co2 with them

into their grave over millions upon millions of years, that eventually

led to the risk of extinction of life on earth.

if you want to blame anything on hurting environment, blame those life forms,

and praise sheer fluke that is the human discovery that

recycling fossils back into the atmosphere can be done at a profit,

or it wouldnt have been done at all

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 6:42 AM, Solinvictus said:

I like your post until this quote. I would respectfully disagree. My reasoning is due to the poor outnumbering the rich. The poor will benefit from the new 'industry' or 'market' along with other 'green' new services/jobs. Halting or slowing long established sources of dirty pollution will be of course hurt some and who are they? The wealthy. 

The poor are set to get poorer. Poor people work in factories or suchlike ( sweatshops in LOS etc ). All those jobs are going to disappear with AI / robotics. 3D printing is going to eliminate millions of factory jobs.

 

People working will be those like mechanics, electricians, plumbers etc and those in services like medical. Apprenticeships were destroyed long ago in NZ, so to get qualifications, one has to be wealthy enough to be able to afford the education. I assume it's the same in many western countries.

 

How will the poor benefit from green technology? Everything will be built in automated factories and delivered by self driving trucks.

  • Like 1
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...