Greta Thunberg

Do you agree with the message?

Badly formed question. I agree with some of the message but find much of it alarmist and non-scientific. I'll demonstrate.

  • We've done lots of research in different fields
  • Numerous disciplines show the planet warming
  • We can link this warming to man made causes
  • We need to reduce this or increase carbon sinks in order to maintain Earth's energy balance in our habitable ranges
  • To do this we have to fund X, stop using Y, do Z
  • Governments should be in charge of this
  • We all need to make individual efforts to stop this.
I'm with her right up until the italicised text. That's not science, its politics masquerading as science.
 
Tbf though as Hilts has said a few times on this thread, do you believe in the message?

Surely that's the most important thing.

Read my posts the last few pages.

Yes and no is the truthful answer.

My real issue is the way its become almost like a religion and a cult and if you dont agree then they can turn pretty nasty.
 
Tbf though as Hilts has said a few times on this thread, do you believe in the message?

Surely that's the most important thing.

Actually that's the least important thing. Whether I support the message or not has no bearing on my ability to criticise the delivery and subject of it. You can critically analyse positions you agree with and disagree with equally well.
 
Sure, that's one of the biggest obstacles we have on this issue - climate doesn't respect national boundaries.

I agree that climate change is exploited politically, exploited by corporations, exploited by the media and exploited by marketing executives who want good PR for their brands. And much of the news about it IS overly alarmist and taking "worst case scenario" predictions and reporting them as fact. All of this is true.

You're also correct to say that our solutions to climate change are so politicised that it's a minefield trying to separate solutions that will actually help with solutions which are using the issue to push a different agenda. Renewable energy for example is a linked but different issue from climate change that has somehow become mixed together by people like in your electric cars example.

However, the misuse of climate change by people looking to exploit it is not the fault of the data. The data has no agenda or morality, it is just raw data. And that does show a heavy correlation between human activity and the heating of the planet. It's not the science's fault that it is being used badly. The climate change phenomena is real even if it is been used for fantasy solutions.

You might enjoy these (rather long) videos about climate change. They are by a climate science journalist who has spent much of his life trying to debunk the issue and the myths spouted by both the left and right wings by focusing strictly on the science. Here, he looks at potential Governmental climate change solutions from a conservative rather than left wing mindset:






This still summates my views on Thunberg and her ilk. Watch the videos by the way as they're fantastic explanations of how right wing politics could solve climate change rather than the left wing which seems so intertwined with the issue.

They also inform about the very often stated idea that China and India aren't tackling climate change so why should we (China is the global leader in tackling climate change as the video explains)
 
Badly formed question. I agree with some of the message but find much of it alarmist and non-scientific. I'll demonstrate.

  • We've done lots of research in different fields
  • Numerous disciplines show the planet warming
  • We can link this warming to man made causes
  • We need to reduce this or increase carbon sinks in order to maintain Earth's energy balance in our habitable ranges
  • To do this we have to fund X, stop using Y, do Z
  • Governments should be in charge of this
  • We all need to make individual efforts to stop this.
I'm with her right up until the italicised text. That's not science, its politics masquerading as science.
However, if you disagree with the italicised text, then you presumably have to replace it with something, otherwise all you've done is describe a problem. So what is your proposal?

ETA: I've just noticed that you've posted some stuff earlier in the thread. I'l watch it properly tomorrow when I'm not hammered.
 
Actually that's the least important thing. Whether I support the message or not has no bearing on my ability to criticise the delivery and subject of it. You can critically analyse positions you agree with and disagree with equally well.

The problem is she and her team have probably pushed it on more in the last few weeks than anyone else, kill her message by killing her and things may move slower. People want to discredit the message via her. Al gore 1994 2019 pay 10p for a plastic bag.
 
4IT4tVq.jpg
 
We can not afford to take a chance with it. We only have this planet, currently, to run the experiment on and therefore even if there’s a small chance things could get really bad, we shouldn’t take that chance.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.