Thelonious Monk wrote: » Jimmy Garlic wrote: » That's across the board, far less of the rural middle class are cheering on their own demise however. Climate change is a substitute for religion for many who are searching for meaning in their otherwise dull lives, it has many of the components of a religion and even some of the terminology. Dogma, a priest class, slogans, sins, prophets and saints, the works. Rural folk who still go to mass despite all the paedo and oppression stuff are less likely to believe science or use common sense regarding how we are treating the earth. Who'd have thunk it. At least this climate change religion isnt based on make believe like yours.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » That's across the board, far less of the rural middle class are cheering on their own demise however. Climate change is a substitute for religion for many who are searching for meaning in their otherwise dull lives, it has many of the components of a religion and even some of the terminology. Dogma, a priest class, slogans, sins, prophets and saints, the works.
Wanderer78 wrote: » my leader!
Thelonious Monk wrote: » libtards, lol. This is like right wing bingo. Why are you offended that she's wearing an anti-fascism t shirt?
Fan of Netflix wrote: » Your leader in Antifa attire
Pa ElGrande wrote: » All politicians across the spectrum do that when it suits them because nobody is going to attack children, it makes your opponent look like monsters. Important to note that Greta is a young adult (16 years) being presented as a much younger child. This is quite deliberate image manipulation by the organisation around her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg
Fan of Netflix wrote: » Exploiting children is what the libtards do best
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Ignore Greta, she is an innocent pawn in this and is being endorsed by adults exploiting her to facilitate their business models.
Fan of Netflix wrote: » https://twitter.com/alx/status/1174758954125201408 Your leader in Antifa attire
Dave_The_Sheep wrote: » Opinions, however, are not facts. Climate change doesn't give a **** about your opinion. Scientists deal in facts. The scientific consensus* is overwhelmingly (97-98%) in favoure of the fact that climate change is man-made.
By the 1920s, eugenics was a genuine movement. As author and pediatrician Paul Offit describes in his new book, Pandora's Lab, Hundreds of colleges taught courses on the subject. It appeared in the majority of high school biology textbooks. There were fairs, meetings, and advertisements. The nationwide campaign convinced citizens and legislatures – forty-one states eventually prohibited marriage by those deemed feeble-minded or insane, and a few states even instituted policies of forced sterilization.source
Wanderer78 wrote: » Conservative newspaper slates 'socialist' movement, boring!
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Rural folk who still go to mass despite all the paedo and oppression stuff are less likely to believe science or use common sense regarding how we are treating the earth. Who'd have thunk it. At least this climate change religion isnt based on make believe like yours.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » The solution is lowering our standard of living. We cant continue as is, even if climate change is a hoax like you all say, the way we are living now means the earth will be depleted and polluted beyond repair sooner or later. Why is it so scary to every one that they may have to live with less choice of crap that we consume?
People must use less transport, eat less red meat and buy fewer clothes if the UK is to virtually halt greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government's chief environment scientist has warned. Prof Sir Ian Boyd said the public had little idea of the scale of the challenge from the so-called Net Zero emissions target.source
Sir Ian Boyd has lifted the lid on the reality of the programme. We will all have to accept big lifestyle changes – travel less, eat less, consume less. And forget about cheap imports from Asia, because these simply offshore emissions. As Sir Ian points out, this is likely to mean much higher taxes on sinful consumption. Of course, this won’t matter to Elton John and co, who can afford to pay for their indulgences.But eventually some form of compulsion or rationing will be necessary, if climate targets are to be met.
In its report, the committee said: “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”source
During the event, which itself was widely criticized for sexist and patronizing undertones, an audience member asked Mr. Trudeau which nation’s “administration he most admired.” The party leader responded: “There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green, we need to start, you know, investing in solar. There is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about: having a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted, that I find quite interesting.” Noting he was on camera, Mr. Trudeau then said: “But Sun News can now report that I prefer China.”source
Thelonious Monk wrote: The solution is lowering our standard of living. We cant continue as is, even if climate change is a hoax like you all say, the way we are living now means the earth will be depleted and polluted beyond repair sooner or later. Why is it so scary to every one that they may have to live with less choice of crap that we consume?
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Vacuum left in our lives by religion lol. So what, all you rural folk are still devout Catholics?
jackboy wrote: » Whatever about us in the west reducing our standards of living who is going to tell the Chinese,Indians and Africans to stop increasing their standards of living and go backwards. It’s not realistic.
MrMusician18 wrote: » The protests are about getting government's to take action to halt climate change. In the Irish context, the government have signaled that carbon tax is going to be a key part of their climate policy. The protests are therefore about getting the government to implement the tax. Indeed let's think about the car situation. As I have already outlined, increases in the price of fuel have demonstrably little effect on both demand and emissions. The price of fuel has increased by at least 35% since it's ten year low and emissions have increased since then. Carbon is clearly not price sensitive in the range we are currently priced in. You rightly point out, driving is already expensive therefore people drive because they have to, not because they want to. The average car, iirc is driven some 20k km. Using the kind of efficiency I get myself a carbon tax increase of 5c/l would amount to just under €55/yr. That is simply not enough to change behaviour, but a nice little boost for the government all under the green cloak. The tax would quite frankly need to be 5 to 10x that to have the desired effect of effectively pricing people out of their cars. That would of course have consequences such as increased poverty and lower economic growth. Is this what you want? To price the poor out of their cars? Standard of living is about having access to services and having money to spend on the things you want and need. A tax that diverts your disposable income away from that lowers your standard of living.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Anyone have any idea what the solutions are? The constraints are: not reduce standard of living Not rely on expensive technologies
Deleted User wrote: » your entire sell was "anyone of good faith has to agree to agree with me, anyone else i will ignore" ... most of the greta acolytes here wouldve been browbeating the proles about something else in 2009 and will be browbeating the proles about something else in 2029. there's always that percentage that needs to be on a soapbox wagging fingers at everyone else, god bless them.
Deleted User wrote: » most of the greta acolytes here wouldve been browbeating the proles about something else in 2009 and will be browbeating the proles about something else in 2029. there's always that percentage that needs to be on a soapbox wagging fingers at everyone else, god bless them.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » So we need to give up our missions as a species in to space as well now? I'm all for cleaning up our act in as far as is practical but being stupid is not part of the solution.
Dave_The_Sheep wrote: » Compelling.
alan partridge aha wrote: » Greta and your ilk, stop using phones, stop been brought to school, stop using planes, if not fu5k off and fu5k up.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)