Greta Thunberg

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by DEETEE, Aug 15, 2019.

  1. Merde Tete

    Merde Tete Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    15,653
    Likes Received:
    13,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lincoln
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Which one?

    Because after the big tech industries, the richest companies in the world are ones involved in petrochemicals. Exactly the ones to whose benefit it would be to push the viewpoint that climate change was nothing to do with human activity.

    And even if, let's suppose, climate change was just part of a natural cycle (it's not, but let's just suppose). What exactly is wrong with striving for cleaner air, cleaner water supplies, more careful use of finite resources, less wastefulness, healthier and more sustainable eating habits, etc? Environmental responsibility would still be a very worthy cause, regardless of the long-term effects on the existence of the planet.
     
  2. Merde Tete

    Merde Tete Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    15,653
    Likes Received:
    13,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lincoln
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    What sort of scam? Like the ones that told us that tobacco and leaded petrol posed serious public heath hazards, and that vaccines are safe and beneficial?
     
    Redhelen, anstonred, shenk1 and 3 others like this.
  3. RamTam

    RamTam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2018
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    1,143
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Suffolk
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    There is literally thousands of scientific papers presenting clear and definite evidence that climate change is significantly man made. The climate does fluctuate naturally but not at the rate it is currently changing. The only 'industry' attempting to affect public opinion on climate change is the deliberately misleading articles in right wing media. Virtually all of which were written by Matt Hancock (a coal baron) and James Delingpole (a notorious corporate lobbyist). Their articles typically focus on a handful of statements in scientific papers that suggest climate change isn't man made. They will deliberately ignore that the entire paper those statements came from prevents a long list of evidence that it is man made. It's (an admittedly clever) con.

    In the end, 98% of the many thousands of papers written on this subject support the hypothesis that man has had a huge affect on the current climate. To say there is a conspiracy to create that is to accuse many hundreds of thousands of independent authors, of fraud.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
  4. man

    mansfield_red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    14,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    You do realise that in terms of vested interests there's so, so much more money on the side of disproving climate change. And yet almost all peer-reviewed papers on the subject agree that it exists.

    It's true to say that the temperature has wavered slightly previously, but the rate of change has been incredibly gradual - over thousands of years. Since the industrial revolution, however, we've had change that has only previously occurred over millenia in a much much shorter time frame. So deniers say that temperature has changed previously and it's true that the amount of change has occurred previously but it's ignoring the rate of change.

    Imagine a graph of earth's temperature as a long road. For eons it has effectively been straight. It might have wavered slightly to one side or the other, but at such a slow rate that it would be basically imperceptible given the length of the road. But when you get to the last 100 years there would be a dramatic swerve.
     
    anstonred and ScubaTyke like this.
  5. Farnham_Red

    Farnham_Red Administrator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    33,657
    Likes Received:
    22,830
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Farnham
    Style:
    Barnsley
    I dont know what you do about people who take this position. There is literally volumes of evidence that mans actions are having an effect on the climate its accepted by the vast majority of experts with just a few with a different agenda who disagree

    In the same way the vast majority of experts accept the basic principles of evolution and the world is millions of years old. But there are some who think the world was created in 7 days starting on September 17, 3928 B.C. complete with fossilised dinousaurs embedded etc. Actually quite a few of the climate change deniers fit into the second category.

    Apart from anything else its common sense - if you burn loads of carbon based fuels and remove many of the trees that removed the CO2 from the atmosphere the C02 levels in the air increase - thats hardly rocket science

    it has been proved by countless experiments that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect leading to increased temperatures

    But if Red West refuses to believe this and instead sees a conspiracy I dont know how to respond

    Personally I would have thought it far more likely that the big oil and minerals companies would be conspiring to cover up the evidence for climate change rather than an unknown group brainwashing an intelligent young woman to go on a crusade with invented evidence - but what do I know
     
  6. DEETEE

    DEETEE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    10,230
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Theres some interesting and some quite predictable responses to this.

    First things first.

    Climate change. Both sides of the fence is an absolute monster of an industry.

    You only have to look at how much money washes through the hands of Greenpeace et al.

    And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

    So moving on to Greta.

    Now crossing the Atlantic on that boat takes courage. So does standing in front of some of the worlds most powerful people.

    What seems to have been forgotten is that at the end of the she is a 16 year old child with learning difficulties (not learning disabilities. Two different things)

    Therefore, she is regardless of her courage , vunerable.

    Its documented that she doesnt understand all what the scientists are telling her but repeats what they tell her.

    Shes been asked several times off the cuff questions and has been struggling to formulate a reply.

    So theres already the issue of who is feeding her the information and how accruate it is.

    You only need to look at people with similar personality traits. One being a famous ex poster. He would take on an opinion treat it as gospel fact and repeat it ad naseum.

    Essentially a potential grooming angle.

    I would say a bit like the Begum thread where it was argued that she was 16 and manipualted into joining IS.

    Whats the difference between a child getting groomed by religous fanatics and one getting groomed by climate fanatics?

    Then theres the financial aspect.

    Discounting her former promoter/manager/agent who has made a fortune off the back of fetching her into the public eye who else is there using her as a cash cow.

    Look no further than Extinct Rebellion and its splinter organisations.

    This is the organisation that the donations are going to.

    Having seen a couple of interviews with one of the leaders of the same he appears to make me look rational.

    Which is no mean feat.

    At what point do you decide that someoe has crossed the boundary between being passionate about protecting the world and becoming a zealot to the cause?

    Also, taking a look at some of her 'backroom' staff.. who funds them. Well Bono is in there. So is the Gates Foundation. And for the tin hat types so is the Open Foundation (Mr G Soros) amongst others.

    So essentially the 'Elite'.

    The same people who preach we are destroying our planet and shouldnt drive our cars while they nip to the corner shop in their private jet.

    Now lets look at this sailing trip.

    Getting on that boat takes ********. Regardless of who you are.

    Now its written its a 'Carbon Neutral' voyage.

    Which is a very loose term. Creating carbon generates a foot print 16 times greater than like for like steel production.

    Lets also remember her team and the boats return crew are all taking flights to the states. ..

    So rather than fly a sail crew over the Atlantic to sail the craft home wouldnt it have been better if Greta flew and tje boat etc remained in europe?

    Also, it cannot generate enough energy from its solar panels so the batteries have to be maintained by other sources.

    I wonder of those engines have been powered up yet?

    So the message. Well if you exclude the fire and brimstone approach of we are all going to perish is actually a good one.

    We only have one planet and we shouldnt be ******* it up.

    Yet rather than direct this at the places that have the greatest carbon footprints eg China it seems that this message is being portrayed by the rich, the elite toward us the plebs.

    You know the type of people that a number of posters on here seem to find disgusting etc.

    Cut down on xyz while we jet off to warmer climes.
    Dont worry though. Weve donated a wad of cash to off set our foot print.

    Climate change is the new religion. Like the dawning of Christianity or Islam.

    Woe betide those who dont believe.

    This is just my opinion on how I see things. I dont force you to read it or agree. You might think I'm mental who cares?

    Just as long as my spellings ok
     
    cudeth red likes this.
  7. churtonred

    churtonred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    10,743
    Likes Received:
    16,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dingle. No, really!
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    So your bottom line is that climate change isn't good but anyone who tries to do anything about it is likely being manipulated by the likes of George Soros and anyway it's other countries that should be taking action rather than us.
     
    ScubaTyke, TitusMagee and John Peachy like this.
  8. Redhelen

    Redhelen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2018
    Messages:
    34,746
    Likes Received:
    40,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Thing is its very hypocritical of the west to preach to China etc when we gave benefitted massively from industrialisation. IT'S a tricky situation and sometimes I wonder if it's used as an excuse to push prices up. The fact remains there are enough resources to benefit everyone in the world. We just dont use them in the best way that we could.
     
  9. John Peachy

    John Peachy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    16,735
    Likes Received:
    16,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    The littlest hobo
    Location:
    Leeds, United Kingdom
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Just WOW.

    Listening to scientists & factual information is wrong & is like following religions ...

    Bananas.
     
    ScubaTyke, churtonred and pompey_red like this.
  10. Tek

    Tekkytyke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2005
    Messages:
    7,369
    Likes Received:
    4,609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Italy
    Style:
    Barnsley Dark
    Someone else summed it up succinctly here several weeks ago... Science is brilliant. It is the intepretation and conclusion drawn from the results that is sh*t.
    I am not a climate change denier. I do question, however, many of the conclusions drawn as to the solutions on offer.
    For example ....Stop eating meat!!. Now lambs are reared on terrain totally unsuitable for crops... Salt marshes, moorland etc and are still, by far the most efficient way of converting non edible (for humans) vegetation i.e. grass, into edible protein and fats . As for cows producing methane, that is a drop in the ocean compared to humans who vastly outnumber herds of animals (many graze on unfertile regions e.g. African Australian scrubland and provide protein nutrients for the population otherwise not available.

    Climate cyclical change is happening far more rapidly than previous events and no doubt due in part to human activity. However unless we have a mass extermination* of half the World population there is little we can do unless we suddenly develop a clean effective solution suitable to meet all needs and let's face it wind wave and solar will not cut it! Yes we could do far more but if we remove all the reports and conclusions arising from vested interest (from both sides usually containing proposed solutions -again often commercially driven) a real practical answer remains beyond our grasp and regular summits with 'leaders' pontificating will not fix that.

    *Wars, disease, high infant mortality and lower life expectancy prior to medical advances and improvement in conditions for most of the World population used to take care of this... The irony is we as a species are victims of our own erm.... 'success? We also consider the planet we know as status quo where it is in constant change. Planet Earth will still exist long after we, as a species become extinct for whatever reason.
    Call me fatalist but that is how I see it.
     
  11. Dalestykes

    Dalestykes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    6,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    There’s been some depressing threads on here recently but this is up there with them.

    Is it possible to create a separate part of the Board where all discussion about whether mankind is responsible for the intensification of the warming of the planet; whether the moon landings took place and whether the earth is flat, can be conducted by the insane?
     
  12. Jam

    Jamo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    6,192
    Likes Received:
    6,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Nah, they're useful for being able to identify the morons among our support.

    One of my favourite things about this girl is how much she makes the right-wing middle aged gammons foam at the mouth.
     
  13. Gravy Chips

    Gravy Chips Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,376
    Likes Received:
    5,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Web Designer
    Location:
    Tarn Centre
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I have Aspergers and don’t consider it to be a learning difficulty at all. In fact we usually come out with the highest grades, we just have fewer friends in the process because we’re not great with social cues.

    Many of the world’s most important historical figures have been on the autistic spectrum, and one of the common traits is to be stubborn and harder to manipulate. If we feel passionately about something there’s not much changing our mind without a lot of evidence.
     
  14. Dalestykes

    Dalestykes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    6,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    "Have fewer friends." You've come to the right place here Bud.
     
  15. cudeth red

    cudeth red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    1,553
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    van driver
    Location:
    cudeth
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Long live gammons
     
  16. John Peachy

    John Peachy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    16,735
    Likes Received:
    16,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    The littlest hobo
    Location:
    Leeds, United Kingdom
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I've cut down on the amount of meat I eat, as much from a health perspective as from saving the planet. A lot of people in the UK seem to be doing the same. I still eat chicken quite a bit, which is by far the most sustainable source.

    In terms of wind, solar & tidal I'd suggest as an island I feel we should not have withdrawn government support for these.
    On a simple business perspective, importing oil & with diminishing oil and natural gas reserves ourselves we at the mercy of countries that are hardly our friends, like Saudi, Russia, Iran, etc & with a falling exchange rate as a result of Brexit, these imports will get far more expensive, making sustainable options far more attractive. Scotland is already way ahead of England on this, admittedly they have fewer people, but Scottish Power, which I use are fully generated by sustainable sources & are selling to many in England. We will need oil for some time, but moving in this direction makes perfect sense.

    I think to simply give up & let large corporations have free reign to profit from the planet's destruction is just madness. Massive amounts of financial & military power are on the other side of the balance, so I applaud brave people who are willing to stand up & raise people's awareness.

    As a 54 year old man, i guess it isn't going to affect me, but my brother's kids & my friends kids face a dark future if nothing is done about it.
     
    ScubaTyke and churtonred like this.
  17. John Peachy

    John Peachy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    16,735
    Likes Received:
    16,017
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    The littlest hobo
    Location:
    Leeds, United Kingdom
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Well said. Many of the world's most creative people are on the "spectrum",. They are brilliant as they solve problems in different ways.
     
  18. bright red

    bright red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,017
    Likes Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Let’s just say you are correct in denying climate change from human activity ( if it makes you feel clever) then do you have any objection to switching to renewable sources of energy anyway? Fossil fuels are clearly finite and pollute the air at the very least. It must make sense in any circumstance to look for alternative forms of energy generation. If that makes a new industry it’s all the better for economic growth.
     

Share This Page