Greta Thunberg. Saviour of the planet, or what?

theclaud

It's teeceegawnmaaaad
Location
Swansea
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
'Seibt is in the pay of the Heartland Institute'. Oodathortit?
It's just such a pathetically transparent move.

"Oh I know, this'll be good, let's find someone roughly the same 'spec' to be the poster girl for our twisted ideas, we can even try to make out its some kind of cat-fight, to distract the credulous.. "

I hope there's lots of people rushing to defend her against being exploited as a puppet mouthpiece for a dark agenda driven conspiracy.

Just how low can they sink??
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
Yes far more hopeful.

Young women are far better off hanging out with, and supporting each other, in their shared goals.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/17/climate-science-deniers-environment-warning

Why so much resistance to re-greening our shared planet ??

It's almost as if some people don't wish to see a decent future, for the generations to come, what's that about ??
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
This is so heartening to see, even in the short time I've been on the planet, we have come so far as women.

In the face of not inconsiderable push-back.

This scenario would have been impossible fifty years ago - you go girls :okay:
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
Reading that report about her other interests she certainly seems like a nice girl :dry:
Hmmn so she gets paid an 'average' German salary to tell other rich western teenagers not to worry its fine, and that in twelve years time they will still be 'casually' taking pictures with their iPhone 18's.

And you know what she's probably right
(alt right even)

At least Greta has the sense, and grace to acknowledge her Northern European privelege, and point out that her slightly less fortunate sisters in the global south are already suffering as a direct result of climate change.
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Senior Member
Like i wrote before, if you silence any criticism from scientists, who know what their talking about but just don't or don't fully fit in your alarmist propaganda.. the only winners are the extremes. While if you really want to meet those climate targets the best way yo do this is to go with measurements that are more in the middle (liquid hydrogen for cars and Nuclear power for example) The Netherlands is i would'nt say ahead but at least much on point with all those climate things but EU's calculation based system puts is almost in the last place in terms of cleanishness, according to the same criteria it's impossible to really improve unless nuclear power is used, simply because solar power including wind-turbines do not supply enough energy for the current demand, let alone the increased demand caused by battery cars. Strangely enough this seems to go unnoticed the same way that cutting down complete forests to claim your powering clean biomass power plants seemed to go unnoticed about 10 years ago.... oh yeah the scientists pointing that out more than 10 years ago are on the far left list of scientists systematically being excluded and branded ''climate deniers'' although if you read the whole ipcc reports most of their findings are confirmed somewhere in those pages.
 
Like i wrote before, if you silence any criticism from scientists, who know what their talking about but just don't or don't fully fit in your alarmist propaganda.. the only winners are the extremes. While if you really want to meet those climate targets the best way yo do this is to go with measurements that are more in the middle (liquid hydrogen for cars and Nuclear power for example) The Netherlands is i would'nt say ahead but at least much on point with all those climate things but EU's calculation based system puts is almost in the last place in terms of cleanishness, according to the same criteria it's impossible to really improve unless nuclear power is used, simply because solar power including wind-turbines do not supply enough energy for the current demand, let alone the increased demand caused by battery cars. Strangely enough this seems to go unnoticed the same way that cutting down complete forests to claim your powering clean biomass power plants seemed to go unnoticed about 10 years ago.... oh yeah the scientists pointing that out more than 10 years ago are on the far left list of scientists systematically being excluded and branded ''climate deniers'' although if you read the whole ipcc reports most of their findings are confirmed somewhere in those pages.
You seem to be howling at the moon: an almost incomprehensible unstructured rant entirely lacking facts or verifiable examples.

The reality is that climate denial is given publicity massively beyond its scientific credibility - your claims are 180 degrees wrong.
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
You seem to be howling at the moon: an almost incomprehensible unstructured rant entirely lacking facts or verifiable examples.

The reality is that climate denial is given publicity massively beyond its scientific credibility - your claims are 180 degrees wrong.
Well there are a few salient points amongst the incoherence.

Certain sections of the biomass 'industry' have indeed been coopted unhelpfully, and not undertaken in the spirit in which they were intended.
This needs sorting.

Plus yes of course we do need to reduce our energy usage, overall, both with new tech, but also boring old using less, and being less wasteful

There are also many opportunities to naturally sequester more carbon.
Not just through planting and maintaining trees well, but also managing our soils, and seabed well too.

Anthropogenic climate change is pretty much unarguably 'proven' although there will always be a few refuseniks.
As I've said before I'm always surprised how few 'scientific' deniers have been bought and paid for by the oil industry.

I think they realise the game is up.
 
Top Bottom