Greta Thunberg, Worse than Plague

by Simon 60 Replies latest social humour

Simon

I agree with about 99% of what you said in this thread. I do need to clarify something you said.
I think Anony Mous' reply above explains it best. You likely generate some electricity you need on a bright sunny day, but will never be able to depend on it 100%. You simply need far more panels than most people have space for, to create the power that the average house needs.
If you are a very below-average consumer of electricity (maybe you heat and cook with gas and don't have many electrical appliances) then sure, it may work and will probably reduce your bill. But it's not a viable solution for all and you're still consuming oil and gas for heating in that case, you're only looking at one type of power source.
Is everyone going to have an acre of solar panels and wind turbines? No. Even if they did, they'd still struggle on a cloudy still day. Renewables are nice to have to make people feel better but the amount of power they supply is tiny compared to what is used.
People who imagine they are living off renewable power, maybe even driving an electric car, are IMO deluding themselves because they are not, really, non-dependent on oil and gas. People who truly live completely off the grid live very differently.
Don't get me wrong, I think reducing usage by self-generating is an important and valuable thing - I'd love the new Tesla solar roof for example. But that reality isn't here and available yet and for the foreseeable future it will only ever reduce bills, not remove reliance.
recovering

Simon are you denying that we need to be cognizant of environmental issues.? You do not have to agree with a particular persons methods, however to deny scientific evidence of pollution is not wise. How do you explain the destruction of our coral reefs for instance. How do you explain the direct correlation between air pollution and increased rates of lung cancer?
LoveUniHateExams

@Recovering - I don't think Simon or anyone else on this thread is denying scientific evidence of pollution. Just read his last post carefully - he says reducing Carbon emissions is an important thing.
I think I can identify three main issues with Greta Thunberg and her backers:
1. People generally don't like being lambasted by a 16 year old kid.
2. People are maybe wary about the politics of Thunberg's backers. From where I'm standing, it looks like Greta Thunberg and her backers are radical Left, Marxist or Cultural Marxist types. I'm very happy for people to prove me wrong.
3. People are wary of this narrative that Thunberg is trying to spin, e.g. 'you stole my childhood!' <--- it doesn't pass the sniff test for a lot of people.
snugglebunny

My BIL whose a professor specialising in the disposal of nuclear waste, informed me that last Christmas Day, just as all the ovens went on to cook our turkeys, the year's highest demand on our energy supplies of electricity and gas, our wind generated electricity supplied just 0.4% of the UK's demand.
Simon

Simon are you denying that we need to be cognizant of environmental issues?
No, where have you seen me say anything like that? I'm all for a clean environment but that is a slightly different issue to whether we are changing the climate and whether the effects of climate change are catastrophic or not.
You'll struggle to find hard evidence of anything being worse than it was 100 years ago. Most things are better, there's just more "alarmism" now.
You do not have to agree with a particular persons methods, however to deny scientific evidence of pollution is not wise. How do you explain the destruction of our coral reefs for instance. How do you explain the direct correlation between air pollution and increased rates of lung cancer?
Correct, we should try to pollute as little as possible, but it's the climate change hoaxers that are the ones denying science.
One way to reduce pollution is to source products and energy from ethical and responsible producers. Would it make sense to try to put those out of business knowing that any capacity will be made up by more polluting versions? That's why Greta is bad for the environment - the only people who want to shut things down only want to shut down the cleanest producers. They ignore the real problem, which makes me believe they are not really concerned about it at all - they seek publicity more than solutions.
the year's highest demand on our energy supplies of electricity and gas, our wind generated electricity supplied just 0.4% of the UK's demand
Yeah, same here in Canada - the amount of power these installations produce is laughably inadequate for anything but publicity stories. They are simply not a solution and there are no improved versions coming down the pipelines - solar panels are close to as efficient as they will get, wind-turbines have their own ecological footprint that make them questionable, and neither produce a reliable supply of energy.
Simon

1. People generally don't like being lambasted by a 16 year old kid.
I don't think her age is an issue. If she was some prodigy that has studied the science and was knowledgable about it I'd be more than happy to listen to her. She isn't. Watch her not-publicised moments and she is clueless, she needs a script.
2. People are maybe wary about the politics of Thunberg's backers. From where I'm standing, it looks like Greta Thunberg and her backers are radical Left, Marxist or Cultural Marxist types. I'm very happy for people to prove me wrong.
Exactly. It's clearly political, that's all it is. She's only attacking western countries, not the ones that are responsible for the vast majority of pollution.
3. People are wary of this narrative that Thunberg is trying to spin, e.g. 'you stole my childhood!' <--- it doesn't pass the sniff test for a lot of people.
Anytime someone parades or uses kids for a message, whether it's todo with immigration or for this scam, it's to turn it into an emotional issue. If there was hard science to back things up they wouldn't need to do that. The fact that they do tells you everything you need to know about how factual the cause really is.
Look at the behavior of people who promote the climate hysteria. Obama is a perfect example - he says one thing, but then invests millions of $ of his own money on a beachfront property. That isn't the action of someone who actually believes that rising sea levels are imminent and going to wash it away.
When groups predict that Manhattan Island will be underwater in 10 years but sign a 20 year lease on a building there, it's hard to take the claims seriously.
Look at what people do and the choices they make, not at what they say.
redvip2000

Well if you agree with Greta, that the situation is so dire, the Coronavirus has done far more than she ever has to reduce pollution.
Well sure.. The reality is that the Coronovirus is a lot more scary than Greta.
For all intents and purposes, humans are great at reacting to immediate threats that are tangible, and where you can see the impact, but we are terrible at reacting to things which are slow in being manifested.
You can see this in every aspect of our lives. Smokers are ok with each puff of cigarettes they take, even as it helps them inch closer to cancer. After all, they get up everyday and feel ok, they can eat, go to work, enjoy their lives, all is seemingly well. But as soon as pain hits, and they feel the impact, now it's "all hands on deck", immediately stop smoking, change their diet, and do everything they can do reverse it. Why didn't they do it when they had the chance?
It will be the same with climate change. You get up, it's cold outside, how could there be climate change? You can still eat well, watch tv, go out, take vacations, buy a new car... so you kick the can down the street.
But once the oceans rise enough that some cities become unlivable and causes massive displacement of population, or when weather patterns change, and once fruitful growing areas slowly become deserts, then you can bet that even the most delusional skeptic will have to bow down to science, and beg government to implement policies that will reverse the course the history at a time when it'll be too late to do it.
redvip2000

I don't think her age is an issue. If she was some prodigy that has studied the science and was knowledgable about it I'd be more than happy to listen to her.
And yet, you and others don't listen to the entire science community that DID study science and IS knowledgeable.
I guess the key is to get the conservative propaganda apparatus to finally agree with science so that ideology-driven skeptics can also get on board.
Simon

And yet, you and others don't listen to the entire science community that DID study science and IS knowledgeable.
No, the "problem" is I look at the science too much. When you do, you discover a gap between evidence and conclusions. You discover readings being arbitrarily altered to produce the conclusion required (for funding). You discover headlines promoting a study that is then quietly revoked (but still referenced by future claims). You discover very little science at all, even basic shit like "how warm is it" seems open to interpretation.
Don't dare call me a science denier for pointing out the lack of science and fraudulent studies.
But once the oceans rise enough that some cities become unlivable and causes massive displacement of population, or when weather patterns change, and once fruitful growing areas slowly become deserts, then you can bet that even the most delusional skeptic will have to bow down to science, and beg government to implement policies that will reverse the course the history at a time when it'll be too late to do it.
Have any predictions in the last 40+ years of climate hysteria ever come to pass?
Have any of the models ever been remotely accurate even?
If your theory doesn't match the data, your theory is wrong. If you change the data so you can pretend your theory was right, that's not the scientific method.
Tip: start with an open mind and begin with the "97% of climate scientists agree ..." claim. Dig into the origins, then ask why there is such a big gap between the claim and the reality and what is done on the basis of the claim (hint, it involves taking money off people).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw
Pistoff

"Have any predictions in the last 40+ years of climate hysteria ever come to pass?
Have any of the models ever been remotely accurate even?"
Yes, all of them are coming true, and faster than predicted.
Try reading neutral papers on sea level rise, temperature rise and loss of ice cover, then come back and tell us all will be well.

Greta Thunberg, Worse than Plague

Share this