Bitcoin Forum

This girl leaves school to start his fight against global warming, but i do not agree with her way to fight. I think the right way to fight against big things like this is with a big preparation in school and not with ignorance.

I have read a lot about the topic and there are lot of extremist attacking or deffending this girl, so, what are your thoughts?

When it comes to causes, timing is everything.  She truly believes in her cause and that there is already sufficient data but world leaders are not acting on it except with rhetoric.  Why should she waste 4 years in school if the time to act is now?

How did a 16-year old girl get to speak at the UN?
What knowledge can she possibly possess in order to change world politics?

Do we want a 16-year old to guide the worlds deciosions?
Is this just a kid to target emotions in order to influence people for your agenda or is it a climate change expert who read through the literature?

-----------
My opinion is terrible.
Someone is using this girl for his interest.

I'm very impressed with her, and I think some of the criticism is outright appalling, particularly the denigration from the right wing press.
She's still a child, but the climate change movement needed a figurehead from the younger generation, a figurehead from the generation who will inherit the world that we have left them. Imagine how a random 16yo might perform in that role, and then look at how GT behaves. Intelligent, informed, outspoken when she needs to be outspoken, and utterly unafraid.
She should be lauded.

Climate change deniers are bad enough, but the extreme cases who are making some really awful and personal attacks against a child are fucking vermin. It's just ad hominem bullshit.  Not suggesting anyone on here is doing that, btw.

Those who would criticise her for not being an expert, qualified climate-change scientist are I suspect the same people who would criticise those scientists on the global-warming-is-a-hoax thread. Because fuck-anyone-who-provides-evidence-for-climate-change, right?

Sorry for ranting. I've just had enough on other threads of being the lone voice of sanity.  Climate change is real, and is happening right now. GT is the perfect figurehead.

I feel sorry for her because she is being used by those same who have brainwashed her into her opinion on global warming in the first place..
It's a damn shame..

Greta made a speech at 'climate action'

her message
'i am watching you'
says 'people stolen her childhood'
talks about 'suffering' 'dying'
mentions 'how dare you' several times

but ...
what are her solutions
what ACTIONS does she propose
her solution is...
to never forgive them
to draw a line

...
hmm not much of a proposal

her speech lacked context, just general finger pointing and blame

(P.S im really highly involved in environmental stuff)

She's so cute. But if she keeps on gritting her teeth like that, she'll wind up with a mouthful of chipped-off fangs. Of course, that might fit her better.

 :D

I think on this we're in agreement dude lol. I'm not really sure if it's staged or not but one thing you can give the girl is she's feisty. Though it's probably better if she'd stay in school. The big people she's referring to are likely not even taking this seriously.

Whether climate change is real or not, the big companies  and governments don't care and won't care unless they're directly being affected by what's happening.

Strong warnings about global warming make that justified, but seeing Greta's reaction like that, I still see the maturity of her behavior is still very emotional, and the fact that she is immature makes it a joke of extremists. not a figure like her who should be like that. Greta looks like a favorite child who is only taught to babble (in that context)

As the Foo fighter says, Just another product of today. I'm not a climate change denier and I believe everyone should work to slow down climate change.
But she's being portrayed as a messiah of climate activist while she is just a TRP material for the media. There are millions of people that are actually working to protect nature and fight against climate change but they never comes into such spotlight as this kid who's words are scripted by some grown up does.
It's like watching the movie.

My opinion is generally positive because she is very smart, however I don't believe she fully understands the picture of climate change. Neither do I understand the full picture,
however things are not as bad as they are shown in the mass media. I'd like to let you know that before industrial revolution we have been through different periods of climate
change, from very very cold and heavy snows to very very warm. You should really learn about the Little Ice Age which is a period between about 1300 and 1870. In 1100 it
was as hot as it was post 1900 and we had no industrialization.

Keep in mind there are some problems in the world: plastic, pollution, etc. which we must be aware of and minimize their risks/impacts.

However as my friend above states, how did a 16 year old girl get to speak at the UN if not sent by someone for their own interests? Nevertheless I really appreciate her success.

Yeah, she's the scare bitch of climate, put in place by the consensus of a few.

First and foremost,  I really admire her for her stance against global warming and I believe she deserves to fight for her future because it's their generation who are going to end paying the price for what we are currently doing. But as they protest they shouldn't just stop living their lives and commit wholeheartedly to this crusade even though it's a righteous cause.

I believe in global warming and I think it's a very important problem, so I partly admire her. on the other hand she's being hypocrite when sailing across the ocean with the whole crew that afterwards flies home by plane. She's good, but she's being used, I guess

This is an entirely fabricated media story, exploiting the sincere passion of an unfortunate girl, for reasons that most of the people would not even suspect. Come on, guys, in France you have had tens of thousands of people demostrating on the streets for over one year - tens of which got even killed by police - and they did not get even a fraction of Greta's media coverage. You will understand what's really at stake in this media driven story when it will be already too late.

Because the way to act isn't talking, only talking she will not stop the global warming, but with science she can contribute to stopping global warming, if she focus in develope a car who works with Hydrogen that will be a nice start, cars who send away water instead of C02 would be a nice help for the climate. But she will not understand how electrolysis to get the Hydrogen from the water works, so, how can she help this world with ignorance?

My point is, we need smart people to find a solution, and not a rage speaker who will just make us feel bad but will not help us to find a solution.

she is being used. her words push all the significant buttons that someone of her age cant articulate but a well trained speach writer can

reminds me of justin beiber, who got some initial viral fame from a small youtube video decades ago, then suddenly songwriters and producers swooped in to mold his image and write what he should sing and wear and organise tours.

i can understand the anger that she is doing it in the hopes for her voice to be heard. but her words do not get to the point. its just used as an emotional scene to get a message that a kid is getting emotional. but still doesnt get to the practical solutions

global warming and climate change are not bad things. they happen all the time. the global temperatures are never and will never be a fixed number EVER.

the message is missing critical things like the real cause for human assisted climate change. and the truth is human assisted 'carbon' atmosphere is only 0.01% of the problem.
most of the climate change is due to land changing from being natures 'sponge' absorbing water and allowing evaporation, which is due to becoming de-forested, concreted/asphalted land or dug down to bare rock. preventing the planets normal 'water cycle' from doing its natural purpose of evaporation by a bigger margin(0.5 in last 30 years) than carbon (0.01% in 150 years)

 She is only bringing publicity to the cause.  Her sole purpose is to hold some feet to the fire for promises made to reduce carbon emissions.  She may not be as intelligent as you think and there are already many, many, many people working on solutions - she just wants leaders to honour their commitments.   She ain't gonna learn charisma, passion and civil disobedience in public school.  Fortunately she already possesses those traits.  The last thing this world needs is more hydrogen tech and anyway, water vapour is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2.

The CO2 scare is a wealth redistribution scam and a centralization of political power scam..

All of the good well meaning environmentalists are wasting their efforts worrying about CO2 while their is real pollution out there to be taken care of..

What needs to be stopped?
This?
https://dailyroabox.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Air-and-Water-Pollution-High-in-India%E2%80%99s-41-tier-II-Cities-2.jpg

This?
https://cdn.downtoearth.org.in/library/large/2018-04-27/0.46628500_1524810340_ewaste-africa---wikimedia-commons.jpg

Or this? (Oh No! CO2!!)
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/74/e3/bf/74e3bffa477ba216ee523892cc1457f5.jpg




BTW Newsflash.. This climate changes...

https://i.imgur.com/XRDXTIa.png



Therefore, this poor child is being used and in 10 or 20 years she will have realized this and be embarrassed she was shilling for this scam..




https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/624/828/443.jpg

I really think she is sincere on what she believe and fighting for but feel bad for her because she is being used to push an agenda that she doesn't know about or doesn't understand.
I believe she can make a change with the right people behind her. but right now she is a puppet being used by people who want power.

Ok, let's say she is been used, maybe it's what the world needs to feel like someone is doing something, or like someone is fighting against it, but the trusth is that no one gives a fuck or no one will do something about it. At the en the human need to consume all those product and we have a high energy demand, so, people will not renuce to that just to give a couple of years more live to the planet.

She is just the image who makes us feel like some one is taking care about the big problem, but is a lie.

Some Indians on twitter found from a photo that she doesn't eat bread crust.
Their vision are quite sharp.

I'd say it is hypocritical that one who wastes food claims herself a fighter for ecosystem.

 Come on.  She's saving it for the ducks.

But they are expending huge amounts of resources to fight the paper tiger CO2 when they could be fighting REAL POLLUTION like those images I posted..

But do you know why they choose to fight CO2?
Because the CO2 producers are the populations that have MONEY.. They want that MONEY..
Or, they want control over the population that HAS ALL THAT MONEY and is a more valuable and productive population in terms of MONEY...

They are either trying to control us, or our money, because if they were serious about making the world a better place, then they would be stopping and cleaning up those shitholes..


Look up US EPA Superfund sites..
We clean stuff up that happened 100 years ago when we didn't know better..
We don't litter.. You might get punched if a fisherman sees you throwing any trash in a river around here..


Funny story..
I borrowed my mom's 4X4 truck to go 2 tracking, offroading, and had a couple of idiots in the back of the truck probably half drunk..
I guess their was a trash bag in the back of the truck and one of those idiots threw it out somewhere out in the woods..
The Police showed up at my moms house and were going to charge her with littering but I told them what happened and I got a very stern warning.. Rightly so..
The police willeven come after you!!
I wouldn't do something like that on purpose for sure..

I still remember that because that guy pissed me off doing that, and he has since been excommunicated from my life for that and various other examples of ideocracy..

I don't understand how the morals on that are so different in other parts of the world..

But yeah, make me spend a ridiculous amount more money to maintain my relatively clean lifestyle so I don't produce more CO2? Yeah.. Yeah, No..


That was pretty funny about the crust and the ducks, lol..
A kid around me rips their crust off, it it just irks me if they don't atleast feed it to the dog..
Not in the trash, at the very least give it to the dog..
Maybe a "pet peeve" I have..

CO2 is plant food. If we can stop CO2 from happening, there won't be enough plants for food for humans and animals. People will die off.

The whole GW thing is simply a form of attempted population control. Greta isn't competent to think this deeply.

8)

Not only that, but she'd be greatly mistaken to think a sailboat for a month or two had a lower carbon emissions statistic than an airplane for eight or ten hours. It's necessary to figure total lifecycle costs into such a computation.

If she is teaching falsely now, shouldn't we lock her up for Climate Crimes and only feed her bread crusts?

:)

It's interesting how none of this ecofacists want to introduce CO2 emission free nuclear energy, but focus on solar and other low efficient production methods.

This girl is a pawn, and shes used by people in order to further their goals. She's being used to attempt to put climate legislation at the forefront of the world legislation. People don't understand that if the US is going to do something to fight climate change, the rest of the world has to do something in order to make it worthwhile. There would be no reason for just the US to go ahead instead of China, India, and so on getting a free pass to pollute the Earth while the US has to lose out on things.

We'll see what happens with her in the coming months / years. That's the trust test of time.

greta's mum is an opera singer
greta's dad is an actor
greta's grandad is an actor
greta's grandmother is an actress

.. such a performer. knows how to read a script and act.

oh and as for her 'school strike' antics..
in sweden once they finish junior high they can VOLUNTARILY choose if they want to go to senior highschool
so her VOLUNTARY choice not to, was not a strike.
but to then persuade other countries children to do strikes which are not allowed in other countries education systems. is her not really being honest and also making kids do things that can affct them for life because they just follow a trend. without knowing the different circumstances

its like US are free to have guns so persuading other countries that dont allow guns to illegally purchase guns 'as a protest'
its like a country where speeding at 90mph is not a crime. telling other countries to drive at 90mph 'as a protest'

if she really wanted to do something.
stop finger pointing. start coming up with solutions
realise co2 is about human/lung environment health
realise the water cycle is the 'climate change'
realise being vegan/anti-hunting is animal welfare
realise microplastics is ecological/animal welfare

and structure targets for each separate thing. rather then just scream 'something neds to change' and treating the separate categories as a single problem entitled 'climate change'

I think its sad that a socially retarded child with Asperger syndrome is being exploited to push economic cause.
Big Oil money is transitioning into new industries, if she got up in the 80s she would not have been given a microphone! Today she gets groomed up and propped up in front of an audience because timing is good, Big Money is on the move and needs a clean delivery mechanism.
Sad, she thinks she is doing good, like Jeanne d'Arc did...

Some puppet. There is no way a 16 year old kid would talk to the world leaders like this unless somebody was financing the whole act.

Not saying those "world leaders" aren't puppets themselves. They suck too. But this kid? She is a very well written script.

The world is beyond saving now.

If you want to save the world, find a way to eradicate at least half of the world population.

Thanos' way is the only way.

Excellently put :)
I think she is still a puppet, because I dont think she fully realizes what she is really being used for.
She is the best puppet money can buy atm.
I would give you merit points if I had merit points!

Eradication of the population is the only way to keep the globe healthier. No doubt in it, and the statement is true. No kid of 16 will give such speeches without any backing. This can be of financial as well as scripts to make something viral globally. We can't deny there isn't any global climate change, and the same is being talked by lots of experts around the globe. I believe this is the execution of media popularizing this 16 year old Social Activist.

Just call it for what it is.

Evil.

so can we take it you guys are volunteering as victims of this proposed 3.5 billion person genocide? No?

what should the criteria be then? I wonder if that idea, if taken seriously, would start, oh, I don't know, the biggest argument ever? And possibly the cruelest irony ever too: the fight that starts over which people should die to save the planet actually could end up in billions killed.

way to go you three ::) that's completely redefined what I thought the least classy and most repellent human being could possibly be

This girl is sick and therefore is in need for neuroleptics and special care. Instead, she's being used as a trolling tool.

Getting rid of the half of the world population is the only thing which'll save us.

Did you consider the other possibility? At all?

The other possibility is much worse worse. The other possibility is what we experience and going to experience in the future. A future where there will be only a few million wealthy people and billions of slaves. (welcome to the future I guess, looks like we are already there.) A future where no monetary policy is not going to have any effect. (wait what, isn't this what's happening right now?) A future where almost every country will have either civil unrest, wars, dictatorships, or stupid leaders... (Don't make me show you the examples of these please.) It is impossible to live like a human being in a decent country/city nowadays if you are not doing something extraordinary. Regular jobs don't cut it anymore. You either have to be rich already or steal.

Thanos was brutal and cruel. Surely killing half of the living is not a good thing but he did it to save the other half from destroying itself slowly and painfully.

I am pretty sure we will keep going with the slow and painful route anyway.

Edit: i must add. Bitcoin is the thanos of the financial system. What Bitcoin is doing to FIAT and CB's is the exact same thing what thanos did to people. That's why I support bitcoin.

oh, but you should be one of the enlightened ones that gets to live?

the arrogance and ignorance of this viewpoint is breathtaking. I'm gonna show some compassion here, and say that you don't deserve to lose your life, despite your position.

Maybe though, instead of being so fatalistically unimaginative, you might consider that this is not the first time that someone has concluded that mass-killing is the only option for world peace :D And, that they always said "this time, it's different, there really are just too many people".

And, that they were always, always wrong. You're wrong too, and you won't be the last, sadly. I'm just glad that others are busy coming up with solutions while you wring your hands fantasizing about murdering people you think are beneath you (I assume that in the continued spirit of this cowardly tradition that you intend to get someone else to do your murdering for you? ::) )

she doesnt need to have preperation those that use her as an icon have already a lot of education

Like what?

Show me one solution to our current problems? I am listening. Nobody can solve this mess. It will only go worse and worse like It has always been going. Overpopulation is a problem. In fact it is the biggest problem.

Tell me how you are going to convince people to not make more than 2 kids please. I'd like to hear. What? You said education? Good luck with that. I am sure billions of Indians and Chinese people will like your ideas.

What we did is the guarantee of what we are going to do. What makes you think the current system which created all this mess can also solve it? It cannot.

The truth has always been ruthless. (Just like bitcoin) It is all fun and games until someone blows up a nuke on some country. I feel we are close.

over population is not the problem

buying land and having goverments subsidise it so people cant farm or build on it, and then make people have to cram together in cities makes it appear like over population

did you know in many countries there are LESS school chairs, less hospital beds than previous years. thus making it appear like schools and hospitals ar over crowded.

if you take the stats of the size of earths land. and subtract the inhabitable amount

2 acres/8k metres a person or 8acres/32kmetres for a family of 4
far more than people need to live and grow thir own food on
there are ways to turn salt water into clear water and use the salt byproduct to be used for many things.

there are solar panels to generate electric and LED lights that can emit more of the needed light wavelength than the sun to grow plants meaning plants can grow UNDER a roof of solar panels sustainably

for instance a 2metre shade caused by a solarpanel only needs 24 watts of red/blue light to shine on the plants.
thus if you have only 7 hours of daylight a 300w sp can light up 6 'floors' of plants below it for 14 hours

thus its like having 32km of land covered with solar panels with equivalent of 256km of plant growing

The entire earths population can fit in the Grand Canyon.

There was a good video I saw on YouTube, you can watch it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_iNRGac_uM

It's called 'What if Everyone lived in just one city'.

At the density of Singapore, the entire world population would fit in the state of Texas&Oklahoma.

but thats cramming people in one location. without calculating the extra space needed for electric, food and clean water production(your example is just the housing)

no one denies people can be densly crammed into small area's. but the myth wasnt the people. it was the land neded for food/energy and water production, plus workspace and product manufacturing.

however people needing a single story house for 4 and land for agriculture is possible without issues
then if you layer people ontop of each other because its possible to grow plants multilayered(stackd ontop of each other) reduces the square metres needed

i think she is wasting her time!

as long a commercialism continues so too will climate change, both are linked.

does she and the people around her really think a 16 year old schoolgirl can convince
us to basically revert back to the stone age in order to save the planet. everything
we do is affecting climate change [whether you believe in CC or not]

I'm amazed at how she has all of a sudden appeared in the media and how she has b
been pushed forward at such a young age.

Greta is a puppet. Her purpose is to make the western middle class to be quite agreeable to reduce their life standard and to increase the taxes for the middle class at the same time.

in sweden her family are famous/popular. so she got some screen time.. then it went viral

its the same as 'harmione granger' (emma watson) become an ambassador purely because she was a well known face.
if she never starred in harry potter she would not have got the same viral fame for her opinions

as for greta.
if she never had actor parents/grandparents. no one would have known her name or cared.

..
anyways
gretas message is.. but should not be 'do something or ill hate you'
but should be.. do this, this and this and the world will thank you

she totally misses the point by not saying what the 'something' should be.

its like a kid asking a parent to make them dinner...
.. but after making the dinner the kid says 'i didnt want that, it nasty'
atleast tell your superiors what you want so they dont waste their time

I see her the same way as Mother Theresa - a fraud. I'm not saying climate change is not real but the timing really makes one suspicious. She just came out of nowhere and then next thing you know she's at the UN. The "don't insult your target market" commonsense also eluded her same way it did Gillette.  ;D

The whole drama about her getting stuck somewhere in South America was also hilarious.

Singapore doesn't produce food&electricity?

 Not so much food.  Around 90% of their food must be imported.

singapore does currently..
but if you cram the world population into the space of singapore like the video suggests about living space to sleep use bathroom and watch tv. a space of singapore does not include sustainable farming/electric generation space
the video was purely about the housing space required


my point is that each person if evenly spaced apart with their own allotment of land to grow food, have a solar farm and a desalination system has 8000metres of land per person which adequetely fits into the 'habitable land' amount.
meaning no issues

i then went on to say that because of technology and research its possible to instead of have a one floor house per person but an apartment block of people stacked ontop of each other.. maybe 6 floors high with use of LED red/blue light to grow plants and then solar farm on the roof. that means the population can grow 6x larger. without 'overcrowding'

then knowing that plants can be grown 'indoors' using LED and solar if the 6x population reached a tipping point then using the other inhabitable land can occur meaning 12x population again without over crowding

then if that reached a tipping point then just stack up the 6 floor apartment block to be 12 floor apartments by having solar on the sides and not just the roof
=24x population

and thats a 24 block apartment per 8000metre area.. 24 people per many hundred of metres apart distance to the next apartment block allowing for 192BILLION people total..
means still not over crowded

the main point is this
there is no need to cram everyone into a single megacity when 24 people per few hundred metres can total 192billion population that can live sustainably

70% of e-waste is toxic landfills, first step to combat out of control waste is to reuse.
He's trying to save this planet and all the courts could do is throw him in jail.
https://youtu.be/Uv_zBYlZJR8
A legal farce by the "microsoft" guys.

If the entire world population can fit into basically Texas, you could use a couple more states for the food etc. It would be impossible to use up all 50 states.

Besides, there are entire oceans which can sustain people. If overpopulation was actually a problem we would start living on the oceans or make land from them as the Netherlands does.

Antarctica would be an option as well.
By the time that would happen we would also start colonizing other planets (Tesla is supposed to start a colony on Mars in 10 years).

again for emphasis
you dont ned to squeeze everyone into sigapore or texas.
you dont then have to dedicate other stats for farm/solar land.

EACH PERSON GETS TO HAVE 8000m of space and can have people spread out and live at a nice distance apart from each other

there is NO REASON to turn just texas into a megacity

Living on the oceans... starting to colonize planets... to sustain 8 billion people? Are you mad? Will you still think same when the population reaches 20 billion?

I would rather prefer the way of Thanos than feeding billions of unnecessary mouths. He definitely makes more sense.

That's if I had to choose between these options.

The one which makes the most sense is teaching people to make kids not more than they could afford to feed but like I said, we already failed there.

Agent Smith was also right. Human are like virus. We won't be able stop till we kill our host. THE EARTH.

The world has a shrinking population, fertility rate of 2.1 is needed to sustain current population Europe has 1.6 Japan 1.4.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZPTaV-RcQ

‘One Child Nation’
https://youtu.be/RdkHA_-xryk

People could stop polluting with toxic chemicals and littering.. Other than that their is no problem..
CO2 is not a problem..

CO2 is part of the problem, but we have other problems like the NOx and anything that produce heat... Another big problem is the production competition between china and USA, this was the main reason of USA leaving the Treaty of Paris. By doing this USA claim that they don't give a fuck the ambient, they just want to be productive like china.

CO2 is the cure for the problem. More CO2 in the atmosphere produces more plants, because it is plant food. We need more food to survive. However...


In World First, Scientists Reprogram Bacteria to Exist Solely By Consuming CO2 From the Air (https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/272602-2019-11-30-in-world-first-scientists-reprogram-bacteria-to-exist-solely-by.htm)




8)

 Problem solved.  Now we just have to keep the bacteria in check...

Once they eat up all the available CO2 in the atmosphere, they will have to learn how to eat other carbon to survive. They might start on cellulose, and eat all our forests. No more wood. It would be like weaning them off CO2, and back onto a sugar-like compound.

BTW, the sugars, starches, and various forms of cellulose are all made from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, often with as few other chemicals added in.

Since there are oil eating microbes, and metal eating microbes, maybe we could train some to build our cars for us, and convert the pollution back into fuel. :D

8)

plants love carbon. they thrive at a 300-2000 parts per million atmosphere
we are at 400 parts per million
going back to 300 like stupid science wants actually harms plant growth.

what science is not telling people is that WATER has decreased in the atmosphere percentile by ALOT more than 100 parts which has been the real climate change cause.

less water and less carbon kills plants and creates wasteland, deserts
we should not be trying to remove carbon and letting land continue to dry out and have nothing to evaporate the heat away from the surface

we need to accept that water content of the atmosphere needs to increase and realise carbon is not about heat control, but lung and land health.

in short more plant growth solves the issues.

Plants use CO2 for photosynthesis but at the same time they need light for that process... and with tons of CO2 in the air is hard for the sunlight to do his work:


The main problem with CO2 is the source. We are taking the oil from under the ground and we are burning it sending it to the air, so, where is the equilibrium in that equation? If we want an equilibrium between fuel, plants, and CO2, we should make biodiesel from the plants who already consume CO2 to grow up.

The equilibrium question is a good question. One thing we can see for sure is that attempted doing of anything by mankind won't result in natural equilibrium. Attempted fixing will be just as bad as attempted not-fixing. How do we know? The global warming people are almost entirely unwilling to realize that the lack of sunspots is bringing us into a cooling of the earth.

In other words, we are so warped that we can't see the good through the vale of our delusional desires.

8)

carbon offset carbon neutral carbon blah blah blah has nothing to do with climate change
all the carbon mumbo jumbo is just about air quality to plant and humans. NOT the global temperature

just so you know. in the UK before considering car exhausts, cow farts, truck exhausts,, industrial and residential chimneys. .. instead just concentrating on the 'carbon offset' to offset only the domestic aeroplane flights in the UK .. the UK would need to plant more tree's and more forests than there is actual land. yep even if they demolish all cities and bring it back to grassland to then plant tree's on. there wont be enough tree's to carbon offset just the domestic flights in the UK

but guess what. the UK is not raining black tar. we are not living near tar rivers and tar pits...
so carbon is not the big enemy

however just concentrating on global warming.. WATER is what people should be concentrating on not carbon
however just concentrating on human/plant health.. WATER and carbon is what people should be concentrating on
however just concentrating on ground/soil health.. WATER and nutriants is what people should be concentrating on

whats the common thing people scream about in climate change
its never "ahh its raining tar"
its
"ahh its too hott we need it to rain"
"ahh theres so much rain we need it to stop"
water water water

water is the key to it all. not carbon

We can't completely deny that we are making this world bad day by day but I feel she is doing all this for fame nothing more.And all these involves politics who knows she is preparing for his president career. ???

Makes sense. They don't want someone unpredictable and not a complete puppet like Trump to be elected ever again. After losing to Trump and all the other crap she pulled, Hillary is out of the picture. They are raising their own puppet president.

um, that's smog. Smog is not CO₂


CO₂ is a tiny, tiny molecule, it doesn't change visibility whether it's 0% of the atmosphere or 100% (it is currently 0.04%)

And because it's so small as a molecule, it behaves fluidly when emitted, so it diffuses rapidly into the air. So even if it was visible, it would disperse exceptionally quickly. In fact, think about so-called "dry-ice", which is that fake smoke technique that was used in 1980's movies and pop music videos; that effect is achieved by releasing CO₂ stored at high pressure and low temperature into the surrounding air, creating a smoke-like effect. And it quite obviously diffuses into the air and becomes invisible only centimeters away from the point where it is released, just put "dry-ice" into a youtube search to see this if you don't know what I mean (you need specific lighting to really make this work, a mostly dark studio set and then concentrated lighting from the sides to give the sublimating CO₂ a highlight, so it shows up well on-screen)

smog is what you can see in that photo, and it's made up of waste gases like sulphur dioxide and most importantly, heavy particulates from diesel exhausts and industrial furnaces. Smog just hangs in the air for hours and days, because it's mostly large molecules that are in effect solids. It doesn't behave like a gas, because it isn't a gas.

Smog is not a greenhouse gas, or a gas at all, and is not even a scientific term (because it's composed of many different solids and gases). "Smog" is just the term that city-dwellers came up with to describe the phenomenon, which was new in the 19th-20th century.

The Truth about CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

the extreme funny about carbon is this
0.01% change in 150 years has been said to have raised the temperature average by 2 degree

yet venus which is closer to the sun, meaning more heat radiation is 95% carbon. which mathimatically should mean 9500x hotter, right?

nope venus is just 600 degrees which is 40x .. yep 40x not 9500x

what people still not getting is that water vapour is the bigger differentiator of temperature
ic is water
rain is water
clouds ar water
larg aireas of trees are called rain forests and not carbon forests for a good reason

the image above of asia with SMOG is not carbon. but water vapour and other chemmical mix
its dirty mist/fog emphasis on fog=smog

the water cycle of the planet has been affected far more than the carbon cycl and its exactly this water cycle that is changing the temperatures

no one cries danger of raining oil(carbon) they cry danger of hail stones and snow(water ice)
no one cries danger of carbon droughts or carbon floods. its water droughts and floods

water is the real concern of climate change. not carbon

Venus is not comparable in any sense with the Earth. It has a layer of sulfur dioxide in it's atmosphere which reflects sunlight.

even you are not mentioning carbon.. you are saying its about sulphur..
meaning even you agree carbon doesnt even come to the equation

and funny part. if your saying that venus is not 9500x hotter than earth due to high sulphur cooling the planet. is like saying we need to pollute the atmosphere with more sulphur

sorry but water is a bigger differentiator than carbon and sulphur. our planet has abundance of it but its in the wrong places. we need to science the crap out of how to rejuvenate the water cycle because just taking out carbon wont do much and would actually make plants not flourish. and adding sulphur will make the atmosphere more acidic which is more dangerous.

water is the safe medium which we can actually do something with

No, Venus has a very deep atmosphere. On the surface, the pressure is almost to the point to liquify the carbon dioxide. The outer layers of sulfur dioxide act act to change visible light to IR, then that is trapped below. I'm just saying there are no valid comparisons, Venus to Earth.

your over thinking it to try making it seem like carbon is the problem and water has no impact.. and hinting sulphur is a solution
missing the whole point entirely

again
if high carbon high sulphur emissions are the cause of a 2dgre increase... then venus with a high carbon high sulphur are not causing a 9500x impact like math suggest should be happening


the reason is that over 150 years when they done ice core and tree ring studies they were only looking at carbon. yep when the chemically analysed ice core they actually deducted h2o out of the equation like it had no impact

to dumb it down
its like saying that studying teeth health revealed stained teeth cause lung cancer because many smokers have stained teeth so so the correlation is visible and it must be the stained teeth thats the cause, because they excluded the smoking from the equation or simply didnt study it or include it in reports

other things is that most studies are actually based on ground level atmosphere from the last 150 years. because its carbon at ground level that gets frozen into ice an sucked into tree's meaning the studies are not really indicating the upper atmosphere numbers

upper atmosphere numbers only began becoming measured less than 50 years ago
so trying to say upper atmosphere must have ben 0.03% 150 years ago but now 0.04% is also a false number

because they had no number for upper atmosphere composition 150 years ago

This is all wrong!  We're supposed to be discussing our thoughts on climate warrior Greta Thunberg; while she may be from Venus and you from Mars, that shouldn't act as a segue into this extraneous banter.
Speaking of extraneous.  Have you heard Greta's mother's voice?  Wow!

 https://youtu.be/xE9Pl3mqRbo?t=132

I like to listen to scientists, but I hate listening to teenagers who think they know everything.
I have yet to understand how so many people are listening to her.
I do believe that climate change is real, I've seen it, but there are plenty of more qualified speakers about the subject.

 Lots of qualified people are boring as shit - as if there is a qualification for holding world leaders' feet to the fire. Maybe you haven't even heard what she's said.  None of it requires a qualification aside from being qualified to speak.  Anyway, if you understood why people were listening to her, you'd likely be one of them.  For some reason, she's popular and people want to follow her.  Seems like she's a born leader.  Not a bad accomplishment for a 16 yr old.

I watch the full video and say just what I told before, we are taking the fuel from under the floor and sending it to the atmosphere. But the forget to talk about the NO(x) who are an important part of the global warming, isn't just CO2 the problem.

Is fun to see how people from green peace are saying how good is CO2, I don't believe them, this just couldn't be good:

I think this is a need vs deserve question. With the minimal air time important discussions receive on media, we need something pompous and ridiculous for people to get the message. A pre-teen girl getting all the air-time by tacking politicians and pulling noteworthy publicity stunts is a good way to trick the media. If she wholeheartedly believes in what she preaches, I'm all for it. But I'd be really sad if I learned that it wasn't an honest effort on her part and it was instead orchestrated by other people under the hood.

Othe than that, since I agree with the message, I think that the ends justify the means. Greta hasn't done anything harmful or unethical except maybe to be rude towards a few presidents here and there and pretend to be more emotional than she actually was for the camera. But if that's what's going to make people listen, I'm all for it. I'm thankful that I see her work allowing scientists to talk more publicly about climate change. So I also think that OP's concerns are covered. What else could such a young girl do? She tells us to listen to science, she isn't a post doc herself though (at least not yet).

Well, just lets leave Venus aside, you don't get it on that.

Re water, and the water cycle, the hydrologic cycle.

The effect of Co2 diminishes exponentially as more is added, (with each doubling of Co2) so it ACTUALLY matters less and less.

The water cycle contains within itself not just water vapor, but all cloud phenomena, thus controls the portion of inbound sunlight which is reflected out to space. Hence as you suggest, it is all powerful.

water vapour is not just about the cloud layer. its also the ground level evaporation that takes heat with it

EG
put a puddle of oil on the ground  and beside it a puddle of water.  the water takes the heat away from the ground much faster

rain forests are called such because the ecological effects have more of a water impact than a carbon impact


climate change is about water cycle and carbon sulphur and other toxins is the lung/life health of animals and plants
its why in a smoggy city vs a country field even though carbon has alot higher result in the city, the temperature is not to the same degree higher. however people can breathe easier in the country than the city

anyways
until greta and major population actually get to a point and come up with solutions people like greta are just finger pointing while getting rich on sponsored tours and paid guest speakers. which isnt actually going to solve the issue

 Do you actually follow current events or do you just like to argue so much that you don't need facts?  It's quite clear that Greta hasn't taken money from anyone.  She has refused prize monies that came with awards and is donating the proceeds from her book to charity as well.  This young lady is principled...

 Her words (https://www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/as-the-rumours-lies-and-constant-leaving-out-of-well-established-facts-continue-/773676963000126/): "I am not part of any organization. I sometimes support and cooperate with several NGOs that work with the climate and environment. But I am absolutely independent and I only represent myself. And I do what I do completely for free, I have not received any money or any promise of future payments in any form at all. And nor has anyone linked to me or my family done so.
And of course it will stay this way. I have not met one single climate activist who is fighting for the climate for money. That idea is completely absurd.
Furthermore I only travel with permission from my school and my parents pay for tickets and accommodations."

 ...and she's genuine.

Her Point is very clear, imo.

- Humanity is facing an existential crisis due to climate change.

- The younger you are, the more you will be affected by climate change.

- Not enough is being done.

- Policy makers need to stop dismissing the scientific consensus on climate change.


I think she's trying to make a difference by getting her own generation fired up and educated about climate change.  And it seems to be working.  Long term I could see it making a difference if each passing generation has fewer and fewer climate change deniers.


Side note:  The whole "let me explain to you why climate change is real/not real" followed by an analogy of a puddle or something is garbage.  Go find the top scientists that have written about climate change, from "this is a really big deal, we need to do something now" (Reports from IPCC, NASA, UN, etc) down to "nothing we can do/it wasn't our fault/NBD" and compare the credentials, peer review, links to lobbyists or lawmakers.

But she is doing this for next generation people or her own benefits? That was the biggest question behind her climate change revolutionary things.

 
 For the record, the red-quoted text should be attributed to franky1.  This is not something I typed nor do I agree with it.

  For the record, the red-quoted text should be attributed to franky1.  This is not something I typed nor do I agree with it.

my point is this

*scientific consensus was that smoking was healthy for people.
yep even science isnt clear
yep show a group of scientists a limited info report and they will see a correlation of info A =B but them reports have excluded
for many decades science was saying smoking was ok

heres an anlogy
numbers show high correlation that stained teeth/decay vs lung cancer.. summarising: bad dental care = lung cancer
where as its not showing that its smoking that causes the dental issues which causes the lung cancer
so the report concentrates on tellng people to go to a dentist regularly. not mentioning stop smoking

history shown many times that toothdecay=heart disease (facepalm to them pre-historic narrowminded scientists)

*climate change is real but the message is just 'do something'. yet not really saying what the "something" is
EG asking to stop dismissing something is just words and and thoughts.
i can say for someone to research x,y,z but even if they end up researching it. it just becomes knowledge in their head and words coming out their mouth. still the actual "something" has not changed the environment it just changed thoughts and words
her demands lack substance. and just finger pointing
if she said plant X tree's per populace number
open X renewable power plants then thats substance

but saying 'do something' 'do agree to change it' where the agreement just is numbers and not plans/actions' is empty

anyone can say they agree to reduce something by X% but without being forced into HOW and without forced into a penalty for failure makes the agreement meaningless and makes the demanding of an agreement empty and all just words
its like the old addige 'better to ask for forgiveness after than ask permission first'

to actually get climate change to occur there needs agreements of actual action of tree's planted. renewable power generation investment in actual solutions and not just a empty agreement to do 'something'

i have read through the paris agreement and even if every country agreed to it. i can see many many 'get out' clauses that actually means countries can be following the agreement but actually not do any work apart from filing reports and doing minimal actions. there is no actual hard requirements.
yep countries can declare they cannot change due to national debt or other excuses and still be treated as following the paris agreement by just reporting their limitations at the 5year 'stocktake'

so again asking countries to do something when the 'do something' is just agreeing to agree. is empty of substance

 What you state above ("*scientific consensus was that smoking was healthy for people.") has NEVER been true.  You must be confusing false advertising with science

 “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”

 Since the early 1950's, the consensus has been that cigarette smoking leads to fatal illness but due to almighty profit, cigarette companies waged an offensive against the scientific community and the unsuspecting smoker. 
 Tobacco was introduced to Europe from the "New World" in the late 16th century and by the early 17th century (1602 I believe), Dr Eleazar Duncon penned a letter about the ill-effects of smoking tobacco.  There are many reports from the 17th and 18th century linking smoking to ill health as well.

 Where on earth did you find that little nugget of untruth?

your example is perfect.
a few minds say smoking is bad but large public consensus thought smoking was good by enlisting alot of doctors who attributed their names to limited science and so public opinion..
because more were swayed to the limited science reports than the few minds that have been saying its bad

and thats how cigarettes became ok in governments eyes
it wasnt until decades later people started to wis up
we are still stuck in the 'more doctors smoke camel' era metaphorically

carbon dioxide is a concern for human health but water is a concern for climate.
its like when people talk about climate change then go on a tangeant about microbeads poisoning fish.
carbon is the microbead in that analogy

its far easier to handle the water cycle to cause more of a climate impact than carbon
and then separately handle carbon for the human health impact.

but yea. the argument will go on about 'things need to change' but years later after report and report are made all thats changed is the number of reports and debates.
untill the UN can actually start to come up with hard rules of tree's per populus area and water usage per farm and % of land permitted to be used. things wont change

some countries are already trying to make their couple decade old national strategies for other things appear as 'climate change' strategies to then pretend they are promoting climate change

some have said the whole 'farming quota' of the EU which sole purpose was to not have a food over supply (cheap food) are now making it a 'climate change' purpose. just to tick a fake box that they done something. although nothing really changed

because the whole finger pointing is just 'show you done "something" in a report' not actually 'do X'

take london. instead of actually cutting down on car manufacturing they just closed off traffic in certain area's whereby the closed off area becomes carbon reduced. but the result is more carbon on the other roads that have become more jammed up due to diversions which is not a combined net reduction. just a move it away from certain sensors to fake positive results

In the 17th and 18th centuries, it's possible that smoking could have created a net positive for society, by way of reducing disease carrying vectors such as flies and mosquitos in areas where people congregated.

It's in the 20th century, as people now live much longer, that lung cancer has came to be of concern.

That's what's going to happen not because we can't handle people here but because it's good for the survival chances of our species.
Space colonization is going to improve the lives of human beings in unimaginable ways, it's going to be 1492 no.2
Asteroids contain more resources of some mineral than we have on the entire planet.

And about the population, we just said with 7 billion people, each person the planet has 8000 m2 of space for himself.
We could easily sustain 70 billion and by the time the planet reaches even 10 billion, we'll already be colonizing planets (see SpaceX).
The Earths population will take thousands of years before it become a 'sustainibilty' problem and by that time it won't be a problem because of techonologial improvement.


This is extremely dangerous.
What if they overproduce and eat too much CO2 causing a mass extinction?
Plants need CO2 to survive.
No CO2= no O2


Doesn't mean she's not getting paid.

 Sure, nicotine is a natural insecticide; of course with climate change (whatever the cause) a reality, we will have to worry about those same vectors coming to new areas where the population doesn't have natural immunities.  I'm not a doctor but I don't recommend smoking as a "protective" barrier against these insects.  Perhaps we can convince them to smoke instead.

   Do you have evidence that she is being paid?  Don't hold out on us.

 
 

Ted Talks:
gretas facebook: Feb 11th
book income .. oh and hmm striking from school.. wait.. she said sh got permission from school
oh and her summer 2018 strike.. yep school holidays.meaning no school anyway

.. and as my point illustrated she also in her facebook post said climate change is black and white. emissions reductions is the black and white solution

.. sorry but its more complex than that

 I believe I already addressed those very things in this very thread.  She does not get paid.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204459.msg53279951#msg53279951
   I'm done here.

but you skipped the book deals and the 5 day paid holidays curtesy of Ted Talks and such
and yes her mother does get income from the books before you even consider denying it. not every penny goes to charity
only the POSSIBLE excess 'profit' after taking their 'costs' (trips around the world and food and accommodation)

in short she is not self funding from savings she/family accumilated prior to 2018. she is funded by book deals and conferences after 2018
and she is not actually striking as sh gets school permission and does stuff on school breaks

yet she wants other kids to strike against schools wishes(facepalm)

Sorry about that, I fixed it.

We're basically in agreement. You've described various aspects of the hydrologic cycle.

Incidentally climate alarmists often assume the Earth is a black body radiative body, but it is not, due largely to the water cycle. Non equilibrium thermodynamics.

I didn't say she's getting paid. I just said her not taking the awards doesn't mean she's not getting paid.
I mean, how the hell does a 16-year old child get to lecture the leaders of the United nations?
It's only to push someones agenda.
A child is the best to plead to emotions, but certainly she can't possess any knowledge on the subject.

For some strange reason, she is not protesting China too.

Greta, Go To China And Protest About Climate Change To The World’s Biggest Emitter (https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonlack/2019/11/26/greta-go-to-china/#72c638335153)



And here is Greta's excuse:

https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1176525238206640136

How convincing is this you think?

she knows what she is doing  , i at her age didnt know anything except going to school , she is a courageous girl protesting for better world to leave in future  , global warming should be controlled before it gets out of control

I'm very agree about her campaign to reduce climate change, but i think she is need learn to know more about world needed, like produce and distribution.

I think, she will change her mindset in the future :)

@fabiola! she’s definitely from the future sent back to warn the humans about the destruction we’re going to bring on ourselves if we don’t take global warming seriously. I’ll second that at her age all I cared was about my sleep, never did I even once bothered to see what global warming was and what are it’s effect.

in my honest opinion she is just finger pointing and doing viral meme frowny faces.
she is not really packing a punch that actually strikes her opponents

the paris agreement is too flimsy and has too many clauses and appears as if by 2050 all a country has to do is say ''oops sorry'

Greta for president... NOT!      ;D

I wish the China myth would just go away.  They have 1/5th of the world's population.  I've even heard some people complain about India which is even more absurd.  People in India barely have water and you're asking them to cut back.  

https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/co2-emissions-per-capita.png
They have very little work to do relative to countries like the US.  Keep in mind this graphic also leaves out Russa, a lot of the small Northern European countries, American-style Asian countries, and gulf states that are all among the highest emitters in the world.

I agree we can't observe the total emissions, it's important to view it per capita.
We can't expect countries with a billion people to have the same emissions as countries with a 100 million.
Still, however, I don't see how this temperature rise correlates with any human activity.
The ice mass was significanlty lesser thousands of years ago then it is now.

Right! That's why we find mammoths, etc., frozen in the ice of Siberia. GT is being duped (or paid) into talking like she is.

8)

She's sponsored by Soros and is a massive hypocrite.

 "Product of the Year"

climate does not care about how many people are affected. its about the land mass that freezes or heats up. whether people are standing on it or not

if anything emissions should be measure per square mile to then work out which country is causing the most environmental damage(lung health)
same goes for the water cycle. how much rainful per area needs to be measured and ways to increase it in area's and ofcourse to make it snow more in the north/south pole to replenish the STANDARD summer melts

Nasa does a pretty good job of breaking down what's going on with climate change and why they think it's extremely likely that humans are playing a significant role.  They also directly address your point about the ice mass thousands of years ago.   

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

lol evidence won't work here

No, they don't. They know as little as anyone else.

All the CERTAINTIES are in the minds of TRUE BELIEVERS.

Well one thing's sure now. That stunt of hers, or whoever placed here in that position, got her Time's person of the year award. That should get her and the people behind her more attention for what they're advocating, which in should be climate change. Though there's a lot of things I'd prefer that she be doing at that age than going up against adults and big corporations. Hands down for the piercing eyes that looked really determined, though.

The fact that a clueless child manipulated for dark political agendas can now be elected "person of the year" is proof enough that mainstream media has even gone lower than rock bottom to the macabre underground realms of black propaganda  :),

and intelligent people should be extremely discerning and critical about where they get their information & education these days...

Obviously, there are two camps concerning global warming: believers and non-believers. Both camps have their convictions and support from science. I think that in either case, it's good to raise this issue on a global level. It's better to have clean air and water, it's better to leave fossils underground and use clean sources of energy, etc. So whoever brings these topics to light is doing a good thing. So Greta Thunberg has my support although I don't like the way she does things :)   

so nasa had balloons with atmospheric sensors 100,000 to 800,000 years ago to know what was actually in the stratesphere(above cloud layer)
.. nope
well they could have built time travel and just not admitting it.. but i doubt it

they only know what was POSSIBLY in the tropisphere (below cloud level) where RAIN and gravity pulls elements to the ground which then dont re-evaporate and thus left to settle.
thus they disregard water amounts. disregard oxygen and other things.

heck the change from 1850-1960 results are they done icecore drills for the pre 1960 numbers and then done tree ring studies and more recent technology sensor studies.
but the funny part is the technology sensor studies have number manipulated. they even admit such by knowing no day is equal due to rain and humidity so they tweak the numbers to try and make it a straight comparison to a standard sunny day even on rainy days.

so dont take the results as true accurate results of reality

I learned an interesting fact today. The Time Person of the Year is decided by One Person.

Everyone knows that there is cyclic climate change on timescales that are orders of magnitude greater than the one we are talking about right now.  It doesn't really matter what things were like that long ago.  What matters most is whats happening, how it will affect us humans living today, and what we are going to do about it.

Bringing up the reliability of historic data is a red herring.  It would be like, in the midst of the plague, bringing up the fact that people have always died from infections. 

Poll Finds Most People Would Rather Be Annihilated By Giant Tidal Wave Than Continue To Be Lectured By Climate Change Activists

https://babylonbee.com/news/poll-finds-most-people-would-rather-be-annihilated-by-giant-tidal-wave-than-continue-to-be-lectured-by-climate-change-activists

I honestly can't understand why there seems to be an abnormally large percentage of climate change deniers in this forum, especially when compared to the average population. What is it that makes bitcoin enthusiasts scream and shout when they hear about climate change?

firstly climate change is real. but the term 'global warming' is not accurately described. too many people think every latitude of the planet will see a couple degree increase. which it wont

some will get colder and wetter some will get dryer and hotter. hense climate change is the better term

as for the causes and the measurements.
well if you take an icecore reading. or a tree ring measure. science is not including the water measure. they instead pick the carbon and measure the carbon and then come up with a correlation based on just the limited scope of what they are testing

other things like how scientific were readings 150 years ago. did they have people travelling the world making measurements of the temperature every day at different latitudes. were they using fair math or tweaked maths. eg were they deducting X% depending if it was a stormy day or summer day to try to make al results appear as a comparison of 365 'sunny days'

whe i see these science reports show that in 1969 they changed their measuring method. and suddenly at that same point the numbers change radically.. then it makes me wonder how come the 'smog' of londons industrial age in the 1800'snot be much higher carbon than todays less smoggy london

and yea. im talking about tropisphere( ground to cloud measures) because they definitely did not have satellites before the 1960's to actually measure the ozone

and in the 19th century they didnt have thermometers and temperature sensors that were decimal point accurate.

..
anyway climate change is real but if you take the science into its context and then look at the real results of real climate change its the water cycle thats of concern
wet or dry land =water.. not carbon.
no one is crying that its raining oil. or that deserts are made of coal dust

ht or cold is snow vs cloudless sky. no one is saying wow its a hot day because the clouds are black wth charcoal

the ozone layer is O for oxygen₃
the amount of carbon is not even 1% of atmosphere content. its ~0.04% and was 0.03%(still not 100% accurate)150 years ago
yet the water cycle has a bigger spread and a bigger impact on the weather.
trying to blame carbon for why it snows or not. trying to blame carbon for if its windy or not.
trying to presume carbon emmissions far surpasses the water evaporation effect. is narrow minded based on limited testing of just one particular substance of their choosing.

carbon emissions is environmental. but more so to do with plant growth and human lung health. not the climate

Much of what you say is in your word "seems."

Forum writers instruct each other so that they find out the answers. After looking at the statistics for global warming, GW and global cooling are just normal things that have happened for thousands of years.

They hype about GW isn't the same for various locations. While GW has been happening a little worldwide for the last 3 decades, the rate of GW has been slowing down. We are headed for GC, and maybe ice age.

What the population seems to think is based on advertising to the population. Forum writers often want truth... not just follow-the-crowd ideas, that are manipulated by some jokers who are trying to take over the world for their own benefit.

Greta is Soros funded - https://www.infowars.com/surprised-greta-thunbergs-coach-a-soros-bill-melinda-gates-operative/. She is doing it for money, even if she really believes it. Greta isn't known to be in this forum. But, she seems to shout and scream way more than anyone who makes sense here in the forum.

The question is, where are you? Do you believe, or do you know? Check the global warming statistics to see that GW isn't really a danger, but is a normal cycle in the climate operations of the Earth in the solar system.

8)

Maybe Bitcoin Talk members are a bit more intelligent, and a lot less gullible than the general public. Of course climate changes, and nobody can deny that, it's the reasons for the change that are important. For example, consider the relationship between CO2 and temperature. A rise in CO2 levels tends to follow a rise in temperature, and not to precede it, and the time span is about 200 years. This is statistically true if you go back over a few thousand years. Then there is the cows farting rubbish. The truth here is that the first stomach of a ruminant is used to ferment the grass ,and the animals live off the products of this fermentation. This is converted into protein and other essentials that are an important part of the ecosystem. Feeding the cows with protein directly messes this up. We need more ruminants, not fewer as the new initiative seems to be demanding.

I'm thinking of using a new slogan - "Help fight climate change - eat a vegan today". :)

I don't want to make it look like I'm caught up in the craze myself. There are aspects of climate change activism that I personally despise and believe that are very misled. For example I hate that people are calling for a ban on single use plastics, which would effectively make all grocery products more expensive. And I dislike how 'green' parties occupy seats in the EU parliament, overshadowing more important issues with their single cause parties.


I'm really curious as where the sentiment for denying climate change with such passion stems from. If this forum's members are more intelligent, then why are people here acting like coal industry executives when faced with discussion related to the issue of climate change? What's to gain from sounding like a conspiracy theorist to most people? Not to say that appeal is all that matters, but conspiracies are part of the reason that the bitcoin community gets a bad wrap from the general public.

I feel like people not fond of climate change activists should meet others in the middle and try to be more productive than just deny everything. Presently, many faulty policies are being promoted to politics only because appeals to emotion sound better for most people. There are both faults but also positives in environmental policies. If we're to deal with the issue more productively I think engagement in this discussion should focus on the negatives and try to influence how public dialogue moves forward. Denialism on the other hand, sounds very unappealing to the general public.

We could be talking about how China is leapfrogging investing in renewable energy by instead building nuclear power production plants. Nuclear power also has zero emissions but the uneducated public's sentiment drives bad decisions around it. For example in Germany, electricity prices shot up within a year due to decommissioning of nuclear power plant.
Or we could talk about how banning single use plastics could act as inflation by making every single grocery item more expensive to end consumers overnight.
Maybe we could talk about how burning trash with new technologies is now more efficient and saves more energy than recycling certain kinds of them.
Or perhaps we could talk about how recycling materials costs more than burring them, and for certain materials also produces more emissions.
Or to talk about how "recycling" plants in some countries simply forward what they collect to Asian countries where the materials are likely dumped in open fields or rivers...

Instead of that, many people critical of how climate activism proceeds, instead spend their time attacking a teenage girl. Disregarding that by doing that, people at the other end of the horseshoe just get what they want and they become  even less likely to listen.

You can't destroy or create energy, you can only change its form. This means there is no such thing as renewable energy. If we use solar energy to create electricity, and then transform that into heat, then we are depriving something else of the solar energy.. If we release latent energy in coal or oil, then we are adding to the usable energy resources in the world, but not depriving other parts of the eco-system of the solar power. We need solar power to rehydrate the earth, and to create more carbon based vegetation.

I'll leave you to decide which is the better option.

you can't even see why this girl has to be the one to speak to stop carbon emission and fight global warming. there are plenty of scientific person out there experience wise who can discuss things that we don't cry while listening to he stories. its not entertaining. what they should do is offer a new solution while not risking the industrialization of developing countries. enroll greta back to shoolforchristsake.

Another thing that most people seem to ignore is the earth's energy balance. Here is a recent article that discusses it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110729031754.htm

Excellent point. The rate of lower stratosphere energy radiation outbound is the key variable in whether a planet heats up or cools down and how fast or slow.

People by and large are clueless about this and typical "Climate propagandists" do not teach this.

If you study it you reach (at least I reach) a very firm conclusion that there is no climate crisis.


This is essentially saying, that the weeds that might have grown where a solar panel shields the dirt is a loss, and asking whether there is a net gain with the panel...


You post a number of bad policies that are currently in effect, and suggest that people debate/criticize them, but do not seem to recognize that the current policies being advocated are just as stupid and should be criticized.

The people advocating  bad ideas yesterday are the same ones promoting bad ideas today.

The only difference is now someone that criticizes them is stereotyped a "climate denier."

Except that there are many charts and much science that show climate change to be a small thing... and something that happens on a regular basis that often extends for thousands of years in one direction or another. So why all the focus on it now? There isn't anything that anyone can do about it, no matter how hard they try.

8)

If someone really believes that Greta did everything her own without any external "help", tell him/her to send his/her own child to the next UN meeting. Then they will find out the fuckery they have been cheering for.

Of course TIME's would choose this little bastard as their "person of the year" cover.

I can't think anyone more puppet-like this year since Hillary is history...

What it was really 100% about was an orchestrated attempt to change the outcome of ...

https://news.yahoo.com/un-climate-talks-unraveling-face-failure-110423955.html

And it failed.

that link was examples of saying countries are experiencing 8 months of winter or other counties of many forest fires

but the whole "need to do something" is empty without a list of "somethings" that will be effective

when a cold country is complaining that there is too much snow that its killing raindeers makes them reluctant to want temperatures to go colder.

when theres countries with flooding they are reluctant to want more water vapour.
then the countries with forest fires they want temperatures to be more colder and wetter to stop forests drying out and becoming brittle enough to spark alight easy.

so the generalised "global warming" should not be that everyne do soemthing
but country X do xx to cope with excess snow
but country Y do yy to cope with excess rain
but country Z do zz to cope with excess heat

and not everyone just do C
especially if C is not the solve all solution. and especially when countries dont know what their xx yy zz solutions can be. things really need to be pointed out and not just time wasting that A=C because -C is not the end solution

My thoughts on the young lass.  Go protest where it's needed. China. India.   Not here. Go away kid.

Don't forget Saudi. Big fossil fuel baddies...

Right 100%.

Meanwhile what are we going to do about this coming Little Ice Age?

Set off some nukes in Antarctica?     ;D

On the contrary. Although a few hundred million or billion people would die if another Little Ice Age happened, the Warmer Alarmists should be happy.

CO2 will be condensing right out of the air in Antarctica.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/

I agree, and while I think it's important that we bring awareness to the issue of climate change, I did not think this was the proper way to do it.
As soon as I saw Greta making her speech I couldn't help but wonder... who is this girl? and what makes her special enough to get up on that podium and speak in front of the world? If someone is to speak to the nation on an issue that important, it should be an expert in that field, not a little girl, who I would presume has some background in acting or the performing arts, reading off of a script.

I have no problem with the message she was trying to convey, and while a little extreme, it definitely caught the world's eye. However, I would presume that most sensible people watching this speech would realize that SOMEONE had to have put her there, and put her there only to target emotions and push an agenda, as you said. To me I couldn't get over the fact of how childish this seemed to play the sympathy card on such an important issue, and it in many ways de-legitimize a very real argument.

Would have to agree here.

She's without a doubt a little girl that probably does have these opinions about Climate Change, yes. But who propped her up to give her this stage, this isn't something that people her age are typically able to do by herselves.

How is she able to be taking off from school and travelling the world for this long. She's obviously being supported by left wing groups to be able to do this, and all her ideas and speeches weren't all made by herself. She's a puppet, and she's being used to spread ideas.

And she just becomes the Person of the year...


I don't know what to think now, she is been used as a marketing product.

The backstage authorities specially gave Greta Thunberg to us to discuss and argue whether she was right or not. But the bottom line is that you need to look at the root of the problem, and not what is shown on TV.

This girl makes me think what I was doing when I was of her age. I appreciate her concern and her PR too to raise her voice against behemoth like Trump and put her point across international platforms. She has her research right when she states her points to support her speech and is a good orator.

Anyone can agree that environment will be more toxic due to what we have done in the past and we shall start worrying about it. The only we can do is to regulate what we are doing at home not to contribute the destruction of the environment.

To whom should Greta address these issues? If they seek China to agree with it, the countries from EU and US has to pull out the manufacturing companies that contributes the haze in Asia.

I mean it's cool that she cares, assuming it's not just something for attention. But I just can't take the strong opinions of most teenagers too seriously since in general they are lacking so much

The sad thing is, most of us would be tempted to care in the same direction she does, if we were funded like she is. No funding, we go to the next best thing. Our morals.

8)

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/12/16/times-commie-nag-of-the-year-can-go-pound-sand-n2558014

Clearly Greta Thunberg is being exploited by her cynical puppetmasters, but equally clearly she’s a tiresome, bizarre Marxist scold whose exploitation of the hapless dummies who buy into the climate change hoax is part of what is an increasingly violent plot to undermine capitalism and freedom. Recently, the cretins at TIME, which shockingly still exists in 2019, named her “Person of the Year.” That’s appropriate, since 2019 has been a very annoying year.

In 2029, after the world hasn’t ended but her usefulness has, she’ll be a Jeopardy question and probably shacked up with an unemployed performance artist named Björn in an Oslo suburb. Fun fact: “Greta Thunberg” is Swedish for “Cindy Sheenhan.”

But today, we’re all supposed to fall over ourselves over Pippi Longnagging – at least that’s what our betters command – yet it’s unclear why. Teenagers are notoriously ignorant, and ones spewing recycled Marxism are the worst of all. But the idea is not that this tiresome truant is some visionary thinker. The idea is to leverage her youth and awkwardness to keep you from speaking the indisputable truth that she’s a weird brat who presses for an ideology that butchered 100 million people in the last century. And now, she is hinting she wants to run up that score.

Trump mocked her and a zillion pearls were clutched. How dare you…criticize the Luddite pest who presumes to tell you how to live, leveraging the full benefit of her nearly 17 years of experience to explain to you how stuff should be. How dare you!

Oh, shut-up. Pound sand, you scowling urchin.

The kid is a fanatic, and though that’s no fault of her own – she’s a victim of her pinko exploiters – she is still spewing bloodstained poison.

Bloodstained poison, really? Isn’t she just a nice Eastern Norwegian who wants a better world with love and hugging? Or is she yet another aspiring fanatic ready to kill for the kreepy kommie climate kult?

The other day, this malignant muppet “told cheering protesters … 'we will make sure we put world leaders against the wall' if they fail to take urgent action on climate change.” Now, maybe her English is bad, or maybe she’s just ignorant, but then again the murder of opponents is the Marxist way. Marxist? St. Greta? Well, let’s take a look at what was carved on the tablets she recently brought down from Mount Socialism:...

There are numerous things Trump did and are commendable in my own personal view, but his way of addressing Greta has been very undiplomatic for a head of state no matter how you look at it. I get that America has a lot to lose from slowing down its industry for environmental purposes and it makes good sense to stall more even if the entire world calls for measure to protect the planet. And maybe even Trump truly, deep down from the depths of his heart, honestly doesn't believe in climate change and global warming. But I think it'd be safe to say that calling a girl names isn't the way to go. And that's without any exaggeration. In my view, his stance would deserve to be scrutinized even more.

If his goal is dismissal at least remain silent IMO. It'd help save face.

directly or indirectly many other countries are also involved , no one thinks about climate and environment ,what you have did is blaming others for the cause every one should take responsibility towards environment ,

I think everyone should let everyone else take responsibility for the environment... at least when it comes to climate change.

8)

She must be suffering now with all the Christmas markets
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fredice.tv%2Fa%2Fi%2Fn%2F17%2F12200348-GermanChristmasCover.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

But the tactic of raising up a child as a shield, angling that no one will criticize the child, is quite transparently only a tactic.

Did you see that? This is like a wolf wearing a sheep's wool. This is why you just can't trust anyone  who just suddenly get the spotlight without big monster behind it and they are willing to take down world leaders. Imagine destroying a country because of a lie that being spread. Climate change isn't even real at all. The lies behind it are known to the big leaders and which is why Trump just mock her for believing one something.

grinch who stole christmas
"turn off the lights we already have 8 months of winter. we need it to be 10 months."
"25% more winter or i push you to the wall and get out the firing squad"

I like her audacity to come at international stage, face the behemoth like Trumps and also raise hot concern of climate change. I don’t how true her facts are but indeed she is supporting a very important cause and deserves an honor for raising her voice on behalf of youth of the world. 10 on 10 on her oratory skills and 20 on 10 for her mocking trump through twitter.

Kudos to the girl to come out on world stage & stick to her point inspite all the backslashes and mockery even by behemoths of the world. She indeed talks about the topic which is need of the hour and is needed to be addressed to save our planet for future generations. Beside her war with trump on twitter , I compliment her on her oratory skills , her speeches are all the time supported by facts and numbers. Stay strong ,Greta !

Justin Sun also took part in appreciating a woman who was claimed to be a "poster child" by several crypto communities, by giving a donation of $ 1 million. I agree with what he did, but that does not change the fact that Justin is still limited to a true business opportunity seeker so far, this step also raises the pros and cons in the tron ​​community.

https://i.imgur.com/FFdOCW6.png

Around here it's summer that's been pushed to the wall by winter.

She's doing what needs to be done - popularizing such a crucial and urgent topic (and, of course, backlash would be inevitable at this point)