11–20 of 98 posts
Unfortunately, we've built and set in motion a machine that we are no longer in control of, and there is very little we can do. Look at all the environmental damage and habitat destruction (our habitat) that went into this conference as an example.
Science suggests otherwise. Have you read the IPCC report?
Yes, climate change will cause issues. Then again, the last glacial maximum was fairly recent, only ~20k years ago. Climate change has happened and will happen. And the world won't end. Either the Earth's systems will adapt, or we'll find a technological solution. Or maybe everyone will simply move to Canada, Russia, Greenland and Antarctica.
I'm all for solutions, but at the end of the day, people will keep on living and I suggest this girl do the same (then again, she's probably being bankrolled by someone so maybe she is actually living her dreams).
sarcasm And yes, of course, global warming is the biggest existential threat to humanity. Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness, open defecation, and other trivial issues aren't really the ones Governments' should prioritize, it should be protecting humpback whales and ecosystems! sarcasm
Realize there are finite amount of resources any Government can direct towards any problem. If all attention and resources go to global warming (which is open ended problem as compared to poverty), then we will end up with disastrous consequences, both to humans and to the planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much noone is doing "quite well". The goals of the Paris agreement are not within reach with the current measures. We need to half our emissions every 10 years! Saying "I like it warmer" just shows how poorly informed you are. Are you ok with all of the world's coral reefs dying? That's what were are going. These reefs are home to 25% of all species in the oceans!
> The goals of the Paris agreement are not within reach with the current measures Are you interested in reduction of global emissions or in the goals of the Paris agreement? Decide and then inform yourself about the difference. The Paris agreement is responsible for China and India emitting CO2 recklessly, because it treats them as developing nations and their goals are defined in terms of GDP while "ours" aren't. A…
> the world becomes greener and more fertile
That's not what the science says. Some areas may see improvements, but globally harvests will go down and we will see a lot of refugees and hunger as a result.
The EU and USA are really doing quite well. She should be telling the rest of the world it's not enough: https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Fossi... I like it warmer though, where's my lobby? ;-)
"I like it warmer though, where's my lobby? ;-)" You have a ton? They kind of dwarf climate change lobbyists in size and influence? They've been wildly successful at breaking the Paris agreement?
Would you kindly elaborate on that, what exactly did "they" break? Can you point me to some TV interviews or documentaries on MSM showing their superior influence compared to "climate change activists"?
Was her message to (failing to) act imply actual technical steps and commitment to reduce certain variables in certain years or increase taxes? I am confused here. sarcasm And yes, of course, global warming is the biggest existential threat to humanity. Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness, open defecation, and other trivial issues aren't really the ones Governments' should prioritize, it should be protecting hum…
Most of which get worse w/climate change
Was her message to (failing to) act imply actual technical steps and commitment to reduce certain variables in certain years or increase taxes? I am confused here. sarcasm And yes, of course, global warming is the biggest existential threat to humanity. Poverty, hunger, addiction, homelessness, open defecation, and other trivial issues aren't really the ones Governments' should prioritize, it should be protecting hum…
It's interesting to see how some factions are now claiming that Greta is merely a puppet, following some hidden power's agenda. That's obviously nonsense. Listen to her! All she asks is that the politicians listen to the scientists.
Please. She's a 16 year old child with no evidence of any particularly exemplary understanding of climate change or its impact on the world. She clearly has support from people with deep pockets, and the fact that they've chosen an approximately average child to deliver this message shows that they're elevating appeal to pathos over logos. You may agree with what she's advocating for, but that doesn't change the fact that this is literally propaganda, and choosing such a condescending messenger is going to turn off a lot of the people whose minds you're trying to change - and rightly so, I don't think adults should allow themselves to be shamed by children into making decisions.