StereoSound wrote: » Maybe I am wrong here, i don't know. Has this 16 year old kid got anything better to do then p!ss and moan and claim her human rights are violated because of climate change ? Is she just looking for attention ? I'm confused what the hell a 16 year old kid gives two sh!tes about Climate change for? She should be focusing on teenage stuff, not climate change. Crying in front of the UN about climate change and how it effects her and such. I think it's rather strange behavior from a child to be honest to take such a serious attitude in such things. Do people think because she is a kid that they should automatically listen ? Do you think climate change is real ? What were you doing when you were 16 ? I was focusing on the birds. Climate change, global warming, politics in general didn't breeze past my mind. Green house gases.... GTFO of here. I had an extra spicy curry tonight and i got some gas worth crying over...
NSAman wrote: » [HTML][/HTML] If you think the UN are the guardians of humanity,,,just try working with/for them.....
SafeSurfer wrote: » Absolutely
Eric Cartman wrote: » diesel/ heavy oil cargo ships that burn 400 tonnes of diesel a day, great way to travel. Any mention of this anywhere ?
realitykeeper wrote: » This week climate activists lost a court case against the government.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/climate-activists-lose-high-court-case-against-government-1.4023974 In other news, Judges got a pay rise.https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/judges-salary-boosts-draws-criticism-933011.html I understand the pay of Judges and politicians is linked. Hence the politicians praise the wonderful work of the judges and after a respectable time lapse the Judges pay rise will be used to justify a pay rise for politicians and meanwhile the Judges side with the government against climate activists. Things are hotting up alright. Those young people who are protesting are right to do so.
realitykeeper wrote: » Greta is very strong on this point, repeating time and again that she and other activists do not want praise or admiration, just action. I do not see her actions as a gimmick. She travels by sea (including freight ships) and not by air.
Tell me how wrote: » Really? And who do you think are trusted institutions which exist in western society today?
Tell me how wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » The majority of the counties which comprise the UN are not dictatorships. They even had a minute silence for North Korean dictator Kim Jong il. The UN is not some haven of righteousness. In is a “pit of snakes” as one writer put it. Okay, so could you answer the question. And who do you think are trusted institutions which exist in western society today? Would you describe the EU, US congress, UK Parliament similarly as individually being a 'pit of snakes'.
SafeSurfer wrote: » The majority of the counties which comprise the UN are not dictatorships. They even had a minute silence for North Korean dictator Kim Jong il. The UN is not some haven of righteousness. In is a “pit of snakes” as one writer put it.
And who do you think are trusted institutions which exist in western society today?
Eric Cartman wrote: » well a 747 uses 150,000 litres of fuel for a transatlantic flight , and a cargo ship across the atlantic would use about 7200 tonnes of heavy crude. Nobody is asking for absolute 0 but the poster who said she used cargo ships as if they were the beacon of clean travel is quite wrong.
Tell me how wrote: » Speaking of being absolutely clueless, the yacht she travelled to the states on was wind powered. She didn't hold her breath the whole time on the trip, does that invalidate her message?
lola85 wrote: » lol Jesus Christ do you know how much fossil fuels ships use? Man you climate hoax pushers are absolutely clueless. I’ve never seen such hypocrisy, but then again you are mostly kids and people who spend their days painting their face than actually contributing to society.
Capra wrote: » I'm beginning to think Greta Thunberg is a plant by ExxonMobil or Shell. I've never before seen anyone as unlikeable put forward as the spokesperson of a campaign. I watched he 5 minute speech there and it was awful. She is a horrible little tramp. How could anyone who isn't already on her side be expected to like her? Nasty, humourless, angry, etc. These are not traits that win people over to your side of the argument.
Tell me how wrote: » NSAman wrote: » Doesn’t need that much brainpower to be honest...;) UN = BS Really? And who do you think are trusted institutions which exist in western society today?
NSAman wrote: » Doesn’t need that much brainpower to be honest...;) UN = BS
splinter65 wrote: » All that’s happened is that lots of ordinarily anxious teenagers are now gripped with an irrational fear not seen since the end of the Cold War.
is_that_so wrote: » I don't doubt her sincerity but I do doubt the motives of some of those latching onto her crusade. This latest event is laudable in that it's absolutely consistent with her beliefs but still a gimmick in the real world.
Tell me how wrote: » After analytically determining the merits of the argument no doubt.
is_that_so wrote: » In fairness she has not chosen to be the head of anything. Others have done that. The school strike idea did capture the imagination of kids and that's a good thing in its own right in the sense that it may produce a generation more mindful of the need to change. But there are no guarantees of that either.
1800_Ladladlad wrote: » Trump got up and left 10 minutes in :pac::D I don't blame him.
Tell me how wrote: » That's a weak argument, they didn't need to invite her if they didn't want to. They could have just ignored her should they have disagreed, you're suggesting that this very significant organisations are so afraid of her message, that they invited her in to their meetings to speak? Doesn't make sense.
