Thelonious Monk wrote: » No one actually thinks the world is going to end in 12 years. The only ones banging on about that are the everything-is-fine brigade.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » I wish this was true. There is an increasingly number of people who are scared to talk about or question these guys for fear of being labelled a heretic. How can one learn in such an environment; with fear of even asking questions?I think it is pretty well accepted that the 12 years refers to a 'tipping' point, but this is all just semantics anyway. It's a point at which irreversible damage apparently happens.
"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."
Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.
Beta Ray Bill wrote: » This is the EXACT issue It's a major problem Climate/Environment change/destruction or what ever you want to call the "Severe negative impact of humans on on this planet in terms of it's ability to support life" is definitely happening. The issue is everyone is pointing at each other to change while completely resistant to change themselves. The way I see it, there are 3 levels, and they all have issues 1: Personal level 2: Government/national level 3: Global level Personal is the likes of the tweet above; Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions... Basic sh*t like. Don't waste food or energy. Be mindful of what you buy and its impact on the environment. Make changes that make your life more energy efficient (where possible). Walk you kids to school instead of using the car. recycle what you can. Electric cars/Led lighting/solar panels etc. Obviously not everyone can make these changes but the people that can should make them.Without a doubt, collective personal changes will have the most positive impact Government Level is more policy than action, as there is very little they can do without adding taxes to force people to do X instead of Y. Investment in public transport and power generation is an area they can impact though. Ireland falls far behind on this. If you have solar panels on your house and sell back to grid you get sweet F**k all for it. Most of our transport infra is Diesel fueled. etc Investment in Wind and Solar has been very low and slow. Global is the likes of CO2 treaties and agreements on population control, etc. The reality is there is to many people in the world. By 2050 there will be 10 billion. There isn't enough space in the world to support food production for much more than that. They have F**k all impact, because as soon as there is a government change in some country, they can withdraw and then the treaty ceases to exist. Also countries like China and India (1.4 Billion people each) depend on having a population greater than everyone else to maintain their position of power.
Tell me how wrote: » ^^^ This is pretty much exactly what Greta is saying. That action needs to happen. Also, given the image which you posted, why does she get so much hate for putting herself forward doing what she can to instigate change.
Tell me how wrote: » why does she get so much hate for putting herself forward doing what she can to instigate change.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » What if I insisted on change in terms of cancer. What if I warned that if we didn't put an end to cancer, it would kill us all in 40 years. I don't know anything about cancer, diagnosing or fixing it, but I know its going to kill all of us. I don't know exactly how to cure us all of cancer, but I'm raising awareness. I will refer you to extreme cancer research not condoned by other members of the scientific community. Even some cancer scientists speak out against me. I refer to science about cancer that is obviously wrong, and insist the people listening to me are ignorant. Don't you think the general public who know far more about cancer than me will be upset with me for good reason?
Tell me how wrote: » Why does she get so much hate for putting herself forward doing what she can to instigate change.
Tell me how wrote: » That's a good example. Say a child was doing exactly what Greta has done except she was complaining that her bus driver, teacher and after school baby sitter were all smoking constantly while she and other children were in their presence. She cited reports from the WHO about the dangers of passive smoking and refused to go to school until something was done. Would you still think there was no merit to her position?
Tell me how wrote: » World Meteorological Organisation obviously knows less than many here.https://twitter.com/MetEireann/status/1176089696952356864
Veritas Libertas wrote: » If she did all that I'd say fair play, you've actually done something that has merit. In this example the idea would be to have less people smoking. In Greta's example what is the idea, we all put less carbon into the atmosphere? How? To 'stop smoking' is an easy to understand and implement instruction. To 'help the climate' is not so easy, something we have been struggling with. The example of 'cancer' there is no easy fix either.
Beta Ray Bill wrote: » A number of reasons I suppose. 1: She comes from wealth and has had a very sheltered life. (Both parents are famous in Sweden) 2: She's a kid 3: She's telling people what to do It doesn't matter whether it would be climate, mental health, economics, war, etc. The problem, for a lot of people is with "who she is" not what she's saying. These people are 1%ers telling the other (poorer) 99% what do to. Historically that has never gone down well....
topper75 wrote: » If the right to form a viewpoint is contingent on authority, there would never be any such thing as science in the first place ironically. You'd instead have a king with a sceptre and a bishop with bible in hand telling you how it is. All scientists are extrapolating from a limited data set. Most of them are going with a particular take on a correlation, and many of those in turn are assuming causation. That is all that is going on here. For example, most economists in Ireland in 2008 saw a gentle house price fall off and created graphs to illustrate their beliefs. But if you bought in 2008 the mistake was all yours.
joe40 wrote: » There will be no one answer and no one solution, but taxes to influence/change behavior are part of the solution.
Tell me how wrote: » So, given the above, why do you have a problem with her message? It does look very much like it's just because it is a child saying something and you don't like the fact that it is a child. That's your issue, not hers.
drunkmonkey wrote: » McDonalds is a prime example tax the crap out of them. They made a token effort with those horrible tasting paper straws but you still have the plastic cover over the cup. What a pointless exercise. How about no straw and no lid and quit giving me 100 plastic bags of sauce with my fries, I don't even eat it. Make businesses change their mind through taxation not the ordinary consumer they have no real control on a global basis.
joe40 wrote: » Generally agree with that post a lot of it makes sense. Surprised to see the post thanked by someone who thinks climate change is not an issue, just alarmism by a bunch of teenagers."Collective personal change" will help but human nature been what it is this on it's own won't be enough. But a teenager trying to get that message to others is positive. Collective personal change happens one person at a time. We as a society are not going to give up our Energy demand, that is a given so the only long term solutions will have to come from scientific and technological advances. There will be no one answer and no one solution, but taxes to influence/change behaviour are part of the solution.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I wouldn't worry about her, she's already had a far more interesting life than most of us
gozunda wrote: » Ah the old attack the poster (or thanker in this case). Do point out exactly where I have said that "climate change is not an issue"(sic). My comments have been quite clear with quoted examples of the rubbish that is been peddled as fact. In this case it is one teenager pushing apocalyptic doom. That other kids are lapping this up is perhaps not surprising and a case of being easily led with those mindlessly repeating her mantra of 10 years or whatever to save the earth or wtte It's a load of cockamaney horse**** and the same has been highlighted by even one of the IPCC scientists involved. That you dont agree and continue to endlessly opine that greta says this and greta says that - is completely irrelevant to the point made and to those who legitmately criticise this type of rubbish. But hey sure lets tax everyone into oblivion - that will teach them eh?
Veritas Libertas wrote: » There is a point to be made that transforming a non-emergency situation into an emergency situation can negate the bystander effect. Perhaps this is the line of reason that many of these climate 'alarmists' are taking. The problem with taking this line, is that soon no-one will believe you since emergencies are unusual and rare and involve actual threat and harm. The boy who cried wolf.
AllForIt wrote: » I'm beginning to worry about this poor girl. As has been forwarded by others on this thread.https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1176149988675596289
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
