Professor Moriarty wrote: » Interesting ad hominem attacks on Greta. Great way to deflect from the core message.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » What core message? The core message has been said a million times. All we are getting in New York is a circus. A circus where thousands of rich people fly in on their private jets and in business class to tell us all we need to make sacrifices. There was a report today that something like 1% of people are responsible for a large amount of air travel. You can be sure its the same 1% that go around to the likes of Davos, the UN, etc telling us all how terrible global warming is.
manual_man wrote: » I have no problem with children wanting to do well for the environment. Kids are generally well meaning. There's certainly no harm in teachers - and parents - introducing the idea of environmentally responsibility to children(from a certain age, at least). However, there's a lot more at play. First of all, i think most people can agree that scaring our children to death is not the way to go about things. Instances of 'eco anxiety' are on the rise among children and young adults. It's not surprising when you hear people such as AOC, who are very popular with a younger demographic, saying that the world will end in 12 years if we don't take any action. This is disgraceful and irresponsible. Teaching young people about environmentally responsibility and what they themselves can do (particularly with their own consumption habits) is great. Trying to indoctrinate them with fear is not. Now, as to Greta Thunberg herself: I really have mixed views. I have nothing against the girl herself. Young people should be protected, and their concerns should be listened to. However, they are still children. I'm not comfortable with her being pushed into an adult's world as she has been. It's a fair question to ask if the adults behind her really have her best interests at heart, or if there are more nefarious motives at play. I heard her initial protest was indeed orchestrated by her parents and others (despite them having denied it at first). Also, as has probably been noted, her parents wrote about her and her sister's challenges with mental health issues in a book not so long ago. Is it really responsible for a parent to make their children's struggles so public??? I personally would say no. So i think it's myopic to immediately accuse anyone who is raising concerns as 'bullying a child' or 'being threatened by a child'. While i've seen a few distasteful remarks thrown her way, the majority of concern i've seen is not directly critical of her but rather is raising concern of the wisdom of thrusting her to the very forefront of what is a very divisive issue (at least in terms of the best way of going about addressing the issue). I think there's better ways to have this debate. Thrusting a child to the forefront of the debate and demanding that she be listened to (but not questioned) seems a bit nefarious to me. We can do better.
Tony EH wrote: » I couldn't boat across the Liffey, never mind an ocean.
begsbyOnaTrain wrote: » Well the only requirement is the ability to sh!t in a bucket. If you can do that and have a multi-million dollar boat and full crew and your Dad to keep you company, then I reckon you could do it.
easypazz wrote: » 3.6mm is from article below. Sea levels rising by 2 metres a year in a couple of hundred years. Mankind may survive to some degree, but your talk of killing off millions will be billions of people, not millions. All man made this time rather than gradual evolution. My view is that humans are the biggest rodents of all and a mass cull is required. A few billion dying is the only way to reduce emissions in a meaningful way.https://news.sky.com/story/dont-buy-coastal-properties-un-scientists-issue-stark-warning-on-climate-11819030
Professor Moriarty wrote: » She gets people talking about climate change and she keeps them talking about climate change. That's a good thing.
NIMAN wrote: » First off, this is just theory for now. Nothing else. No scientist can predict what sea levels rises will be in 200 years time. If you are willing to accept that as fact then you are their target audience. Where is all this water going to come from to keep rising 2 metres per year indefinitely? And secondly, its 200 years away, me and my kids will be long gone. Its hard to care about something so far ahead. The only thing I believe is that the rest of my life and my kids lives will probably go on as they have been for the next 50 or 75yrs, without all the doomsday stuff happening. Of course, some will believe I'm gullible for thinking this, but hey, each to their own.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » She could have done it via video link - that would have made a far more impressive statement that people don't have to travel tens of thousands of miles to talk about climate change. As others have said she offers no proposals, just repeating what scientists have told us is happening. We know the problem. Its solutions we need. And I don't believe thousands of people travelling around on the climate change circus contribute much and is certainly not leading by example. People just get cynical about these things and say well if they aren't going to make sacrifices, why should we? And emissions continue to rise. Emitting thousands of tons of CO2 to attend a gathering or similar gatherings about rising CO2 emissions is laughably ironic.
NIMAN wrote: » The only thing I believe is that the rest of my life and my kids lives will probably go on as they have been for the next 50 or 75yrs, without all the doomsday stuff happening. Of course, some will believe I'm gullible for thinking this, but hey, each to their own.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » It may go on as is in this part of the world anyway, but some of us feel like we'd like to leave a better world behind, and I don't even have kids. Some people plant broadleaf trees on their land in Ireland even though they'll never get to see them anywhere near their pomp, because they want to leave something good behind.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » It was a good publicity stunt anyway, she's headline news everywhere now.
Tony EH wrote: » You go do it then, mouth warrior. :rolleyes:
begsbyOnaTrain wrote: » I'd love to. But I lack a multi-million dollar boat, fully crewed by an experienced team. Unfortunately for me, my company make me do video calls with our lads in China It'd be class to turn up in a boat!
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » Stupid question, if the sea levels are going to rise, can countries around the world not be pumping water from the sea daily to lower it ?
Tell me how wrote: » And from a remarkable number of accounts registered in the last couple of weeks. I guess the call went out. You can practically see the old usernames from previous discussions on Peter Casey, Trump, etc. Theres a strong consistency to the viewpoints.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I don't agree. This very thread is proof positive that her trip was worthwhile.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Pity there isn't any valid science that contradicts the IPCC's research and conclusions.
Feisar wrote: » Pump it to where?
easypazz wrote: » Swimming pools as suggested earlier.
dont bother wrote: » again, just because you disagree with Peter Casey, Trump etc... what makes YOU right and those people wrong? you are a sheep
Tell me how wrote: » What I believe makes me right, in this instance, is my willingness to believe those who have dedicated an education and career to understanding the status, and issue with the climate. What makes you right and me wrong?
