SafeSurfer wrote: » Acid rain has been extensively and expensively debunked. To state that overreaction is preferable to under-reaction in the same post in which you state that “nuclear winter didn’t happen Thankfully” is literally laugh out loud funny. Nuclear winter didn’t happen precisely because at times such as the Cuban missile crisis, politicians didn’t panic and didn’t over-react.
IamtheWalrus wrote: » Do the deniers think we should sit by and watch our biodiversity die? The figure I kept hearing in David Attenborough’s Netflix series was 90 - nearly every ecological element had decreased by 90%, from forestation, coral, wildlife. That’s quite a big loss regardless of what’s behind it. Something’s not right.
Roger_007 wrote: » What's behind it is something that Attenborough never seems to acknowledge: that the exponential increase in the human population is responsible for most of the changes that he talks about. He advocates the restoration of the eco system back to a point in time when the human population was less than 1 billion, (it is now approaching 8 billion). He never explains how the ever increasing global population is to be fed and housed and provided with acceptable modern lifestyles while at the same time restoring productive land back to 'the wild'. He also advocates the elimination of herbicides, insecticides and artificial fertilisers from food production, returning to 'sustainable farming methods'. In other words he wants most of the human population to starve. (At least that would address the population problem).
Feisar wrote: » Ah but he sounds good delivering those sound bites!
Tell me how wrote: » We've really jumped the shark when people are suggesting Attenborough is talking nonsense. If you watched his shows, you'd realise the amount of times he references the impact of humans on natural habitat and the growing demand for land for human use is negatively impacting that available for animals. Once again, ye think it is reasonable to discount everything someone says if they can't provide a 5 step plan to fix everything without impacting on living practices, travel habits or population numbers.
Feisar wrote: » Oh no Attenborough is dead right however it's a pointless soap box exercise. We are running out of planet and there's nothing that can be done about it.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I agree, we are too greedy to change. I just don't understand why anyone trying to fight against the current tide is ridiculed so much. They're not harming anyone are they? Greta etc.
jimgoose wrote: » Possibly somewhat tangentially, but that young one isn't a great advertisement for the vegan diet either. She looks about eight, most sixteen year old girls around here at least are six-foot Valkyries with incredible features and legs up to their ears.
KyussB wrote: » Since the thread is full of vast majority denialists, I take it the new Current Affairs section of Boards has been a fuckup that few venture to? (unless they want to be in an echo chamber) Boards is definitely not representative of general views - what you're reading here is a mostly hijacked discussion, turned into an echo chamber, tbh.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Jesus. Now talking about her looks? She looks perfectly fine and healthier than many of the fat teenagers i see around my area going to school who no doubt eat meat every day.
jimgoose wrote: » I'm not talking about her looks. I'm talking about the fact that she is far smaller and lighter than most Western 16-year-old girls, and has the face of a toddler. And any fat teenage girls you see are not thus from eating meat, I can assure you.
Greta is eleven years old and has gone two months without eating. Her heart rate and blood pressure show clear signs of starvation. She has stopped speaking to anyone but her parents and younger sister, Beata. After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside her closest family. When she wants to tell a climate researcher that she plans a school strike on behalf of the environment, she speaks through her father.source
Pa ElGrande wrote: » To be expected due to the complications she has experienced. She would be a difficult girl to live with in any family, so I suspect there is probably some relief that she has a cause to pursue that is not self destruction.
jimgoose wrote: » Apparently it was she who decided that Svante Thunberg's household would become vegan and give up air travel when she was nine or ten. I give up... :pac:
99problems1 wrote: » Why did she take a photo of her smiling looking into new york? Did she forget the planet is dying, the oceans rising, the icecaps melting, the trees burning. The whole thing is a sham to make this kid feel important because she's disabled.
Stevieluvsye wrote: » Eeeek, edit your post. I got a warning yesterday
99problems1 wrote: » And this is the kid we're all supposed to listen to...the kid governments and the EU have given air time to to speak about climate change etc.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Greta is the victim in this. She simply parrots the narrative she has been given so they have no problem giving her airtime, it suits their corporate image as being "woke" while in parallel they discuss climate finance. The EU parliament did not allow her to speak because because “kids belong in schools” and likely they don't want the Greens or other socialist types gaining political traction on the back of that.
