Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

And that's all that needs to be said about the remarkable Ms Thunberg.

Remarkable things make you want to make a remark about them, yet you claim that there is little that needs to be said about Ms Thunburg?

You cant spell oxymoron without moron.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I take it that means scientists that tell you what you have been conditioned to hear rather than those who challenge your preconceptions?

Generally when you cite something in a post, or put up a YouTube video, you extract the relevant quote or summarize the arguments in your own words, rather than just shit random links/videos into the thread that nobody bothers looking at - in this case an entire book....

It doesn't make your arguments look more authoritative or credible - it just makes it look like you're trying to appear that way, in order to keep pushing bullshit.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Generally when you cite something in a post, or put up a YouTube video, you extract the relevant quote or summarize the arguments in your own words, rather than just shit random links/videos into the thread that nobody bothers looking at - in this case an entire book....
It doesn't make your arguments look more authoritative or credible - it just makes it look like you're trying to appear that way, in order to keep pushing bullshit.

^^^^ Still not convinced this is not AI bot speak. Your comments continue to make no sense whatsoever.

Anyways as said no idea what you are on about. Regardless of these types of attacks - I have found Pa's comments, although fairly long generally both interesting and informative. I've even watched some of the videos linked and they are all relevant afaik. But hey there we go ....

Professor Moriarty

KyussB wrote: »

Generally when you cite something in a post, or put up a YouTube video, you extract the relevant quote or summarize the arguments in your own words, rather than just shit random links/videos into the thread that nobody bothers looking at - in this case an entire book....

It doesn't make your arguments look more authoritative or credible - it just makes it look like you're trying to appear that way, in order to keep pushing bullshit.

Book is from 2012 and the science in it is from the 80s and 90s (when the author was active in science). Since the book was published, the author seems to have fallen off the planet. Would be great if some science from this century were put forward as an argument against climate change and its impending consequences. Hasn't happened yet on this thread but we live in hope.

KyussB

Ya the tack seems to be, when he can't find sources that aren't easily shown as descreditable - he just goes for completely obscure/unknown sources.

Professor Moriarty

KyussB wrote: »

Ya the tack seems to be, when he can't find sources that aren't easily shown as descreditable - he just goes for completely obscure/unknown sources.

Yeah. I was going to start dropping in links to books and youtube videos supporting climate change activism as 'ripostes' but then I thought I couldn't be arsed.

drunkmonkey

Some good news from Susan Breen(PBP) on newstalk. We've got 11yrs now before Doomsday. Futures looking a lot better than it was last week.

sk8erboii

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Book is from 2012 and the science in it is from the 80s and 90s (when the author was active in science). Since the book was published, the author seems to have fallen off the planet. Would be great if some science from this century were put forward as an argument against climate change and its impending consequences. Hasn't happened yet on this thread but we live in hope.

Yeah there's literally no information on this Krug guy aside from being mentioned in a book detailing how certain scientists were bribed by corporations in the 70s/80s to write misinformation on environmental impact of pollution.

Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway

lleti

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Some good news from Susan Breen(PBP) on newstalk. We've got 11yrs now before Doomsday. Futures looking a lot better than it was last week.

Did she say what date in 2030 it was? Hopefully it's after the world cup!

rafatoni

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Some good news from Susan Breen(PBP) on newstalk. We've got 11yrs now before Doomsday. Futures looking a lot better than it was last week.

heard it, very embarassing stuff really.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Ya the tack seems to be, when he can't find sources that aren't easily shown as descreditable - he just goes for completely obscure/unknown sources.

Odd that those who simply repeat such bizarre phrases as 'Oligarchy-Libertarians Anarcho-Capitalism-Koch' - without as much as a citation or reference can keep a straight face whilst criticising others who do provide sources no?

Curiouser and curiouser further down this rabbit hole we go ....

KyussB

You have a history of being wilfully thick in this thread, just to draw things out as long as possible. For example, your responses to the woman at AOC's town hall meeting, being a member of a Trump-supporting cult - visibly not genuine, just making an act of drawing things out.

The Koch's are notorious oil oligarchs in the US, who are the main funders/proponents of the Libertarian cult in the US, and their huge network of think-tanks putting out all varieties of economic propaganda - based on Anarcho-Capitalism i.e. Right-Wing Libertarianism, free-market-everything basically - and most especially, they have decades and decades of notoriety, in funding/promoting all sorts of denialism on environmental/health controversies.

Their link to this thread, is that a huge amount of what ElGrande is posting, links directly back to the Koch-funded think tank network, to their propaganda outlets - in fact, sk8rboii above through the Merchants of Doubt book, has even linked the last guy that ElGrande linked, as someone who was used in a very similar vein, cited by Libertarian propaganda magazines like Reason, promoting denialism about acid rain.

If you bothered reading up on any of the terms you list from my posts, or any of the sources I and others regularly pick apart in the thread, that you often backslap - you would find this out for yourself. You don't though, because you're not a real 'skeptic' - you will uphold sources that promote your view of things, to the point of tediousness - and make generally unfunny, very poor attempts at mocking anything you disagree with - with a bit of rabid red-baiting thrown in, if people start pointing out that we need massive government investment to arrest climate change.

any thoughts on why greta is being platformed as some righteous prophet despite consistently stating outrageous and unhelpful things about the planet ending in a decade, her childhood having been ruined by politicians doing the democratic will of their electorates and that she can see carbon in the air.

we can dance around her autism, but it until recently would have been held as a mental health issue and not a fashionable personality trait. she is far too young too young and far too vulnerable to have been running her own protests this past few years and the fact that her guardians have pushed her onto a world stage is a disgrace

the fact that media and politicians have supported it is a disgrace.

thats this thread. the ravings of kyuss about political fantasy ideology and the frankly bewilderingly tolerated ad-hom lazy insults from gretafanatics has taken it a long long way but nobody has come close to addressing the issues above

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You have a history of being wilfully thick in this thread, just to draw things out as long as possible. For example, your responses to the woman at AOC's town hall meeting, being a member of a Trump-supporting cult - visibly not genuine, just making an act of drawing things out.The Koch's are notorious oil oligarchs in the US, who are the main funders/proponents of the Libertarian cult in the US, and their huge network of think-tanks putting out all varieties of economic propaganda - based on Anarcho-Capitalism i.e. Right-Wing Libertarianism, free-market-everything basically - and most especially, they have decades and decades of notoriety, in funding/promoting all sorts of denialism on environmental/health controversies.Their link to this thread, is that a huge amount of what ElGrande is posting, links directly back to the Koch-funded think tank network, to their propaganda outlets - in fact, sk8rboii above through the Merchants of Doubt book, has even linked the last guy that ElGrande linked, as someone who was used in a very similar vein, cited by Libertarian propaganda magazines like Reason, promoting denialism about acid rain.If you bothered reading up on any of the terms you list from my posts, or any of the sources I and others regularly pick apart in the thread, that you often backslap - you would find this out for yourself. You don't though, because you're not a real 'skeptic' - you will uphold sources that promote your view of things, to the point of tediousness - and make generally unfunny, very poor attempts at mocking anything you disagree with - with a bit of rabid red-baiting thrown in, if people start pointing out that we need massive government investment to arrest climate change.

'Anarch-capitalism-right wing- Koch-Trump-oil-oligarch -Libertarian-cult- backslap...'

Nope sorry - you can repeat that ****e till the cows come home - it ain't going to make any
more sense than it did originally and still no sources I see. Oh well.

Btw referring to posters as 'wilfully thick' is not only deeply ironic - it is sewer level stuff. You may find this helpful...

https://i.imgflip.com/30ghuj.jpg

Quantum Erasure

I'm moving to Poland lads, seems like it''ll be one of the least affected areas,

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

any thoughts on why greta is being platformed as some righteous prophet despite consistently stating outrageous and unhelpful things about the planet ending in a decade, her childhood having been ruined by politicians doing the democratic will of their electorates and that she can see carbon in the air.

we can dance around her autism, but it until recently would have been held as a mental health issue and not a fashionable personality trait. she is far too young too young and far too vulnerable to have been running her own protests this past few years and the fact that her guardians have pushed her onto a world stage is a disgrace

the fact that media and politicians have supported it is a disgrace.

thats this thread. the ravings of kyuss about political fantasy ideology and the frankly bewilderingly tolerated ad-hom lazy insults from gretafanatics has taken it a long long way but nobody has come close to addressing the issues above

The key word in discussion of both of the above parts in bold come back to science.

Exploring/Testing/Measuring/Comparing/Understanding in a transparent manner so that others can understand what was done, why, how and what we learned.

The fact that some either wilfully ignore that concept or just don't understand it is the disgrace.

CinemaGuy45

Like Greta I also have ASD so I really do not think this should be mentioned over and over again to try and get people hoodwinked and afraid to call BS on her little crusade.

I find the climate change alarmists to be tree hugging morons and the only way to deal with them is to ridicule and laugh and them.

The following picture is fake but I would say it has caused a fair bit of annoyance.

lleti

It's all about that witty poster!!!

You'd think this lads time would be better spent out planting trees than drawing caricatures of Leo?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

'Anarch-capitalism-right wing- Koch-Trump-oil-oligarch -Libertarian-cult- backslap...'

Nope sorry - you can repeat that ****e till the cows come home - it ain't going to make any
more sense than it did originally and still no sources I see. Oh well.

Btw referring to posters as 'wilfully thick' is not only deeply ironic - it is sewer level stuff. You may find this helpful...

https://i.imgflip.com/30ghuj.jpg

So you want sources now?

New Yorker

If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. This seven-hundred-and-four-page tome doesn’t break much new political ground, but it shows the extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence that Charles and David Koch have exerted to cripple government action on climate change.

If I thought you'd read it, I'd buy the book and send it to you.

The Guardian

How the Koch brothers built the most powerful rightwing group you've never heard of

Funding Insight

Rolling Stone magazine places them second on a list of politicians and execs blocking progress on climate change, exposing David Koch's claims that global warming is good: "The Earth will be able to support enormously more people," he says, "because a far greater land area will be available to produce food."

Only just saw this post now,

gozunda wrote: »

Odd that those who simply repeat such bizarre phrases as 'Oligarchy-Libertarians Anarcho-Capitalism-Koch' - without as much as a citation or reference can keep a straight face whilst criticising others who do provide sources no?

Curiouser and curiouser further down this rabbit hole we go ....

I believe this really shows how devoid of interest you are in 'discussing' this topic. I know you're constantly pivoting on why it apparently annoys you but I think we are getting close to the the root cause. No one with any awareness of the Koch brothers could plead ignorance as to their motivations over recent years and yet here you are. The alignment of those arguing against Greta on this thread and in favour of the likes of Trump on others is quite revealing.

It is clear it isn't discussion on climate change any longer. It is on overarching ideals.

Tea drinker

Deleted User wrote: »

any thoughts on why greta is being platformed as some righteous prophet despite consistently stating outrageous and unhelpful things about the planet ending in a decade, her childhood having been ruined by politicians doing the democratic will of their electorates and that she can see carbon in the air.

we can dance around her autism, but it until recently would have been held as a mental health issue and not a fashionable personality trait. she is far too young too young and far too vulnerable to have been running her own protests this past few years and the fact that her guardians have pushed her onto a world stage is a disgrace

the fact that media and politicians have supported it is a disgrace.

thats this thread. the ravings of kyuss about political fantasy ideology and the frankly bewilderingly tolerated ad-hom lazy insults from gretafanatics has taken it a long long way but nobody has come close to addressing the issues above

She's platformed as a little girl is the most difficult to criticise as due to her sex and age is seen as most in need of protection. Her illness is a bonus.
The fact that the child struggles is really the finishing touch, the more she is stressed and distressed the better. (Her stress reflects the true emergency in climate)

What if she wasn't addressing the leaders of the UN but her parents and peers when she was raging over lies and her lost childhood?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

The key word in discussion of both of the above parts in bold come back to science.

Exploring/Testing/Measuring/Comparing/Understanding in a transparent manner so that others can understand what was done, why, how and what we learned.

The fact that some either wilfully ignore that concept or just don't understand it is the disgrace.

"no"

its much easier to type than your response, and is exactly the same content

CinemaGuy45

lleti wrote: »

It's all about that witty poster!!!

You'd think this lads time would be better spent out planting trees than drawing caricatures of Leo?

And he is wasting paper some environmentalist.

Well he is keeping the nations carbon foot print down by being a layabout.

Tell me how

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Like Greta I also have ASD so I really do not think this should be mentioned over and over again to try and get people hoodwinked and afraid to call BS on her little crusade.

I find the climate change alarmists to be tree hugging morons and the only way to deal with them is to ridicule and laugh and them.

The following picture is fake but I would say it has caused a fair bit of annoyance.

So, why do you think the climate change alarmists are tree hugging morons when they are advocating listening to science, while you are over here posting images which you point out yourself are fake?

I mean, that is so ridiculous I had to read your post a few times to try to see were you on to something but nope, that's it.

It is literally a 'fake news' post. Where you yourself point it out....

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

So, why do you think the climate change alarmists are tree hugging morons when they are advocating listening to science, while you are over here posting images which you point out yourself are fake?

I mean, that is so ridiculous I had to read your post a few times to try to see were you on to something but nope, that's it.

It is literally a 'fake news' post. Where you yourself point it out....

the fake poster is raising awareness so it doesnt matter if its not true

right?

the person who made the fake poster is trying to achieve something they believe in

right?

arent these the deflections we keep hearing about Greta's speechwriters little flirtations with the truth?

JJayoo

I would love to go to these protests and try and sign everyone up to weekly donations to charities that plant trees around the world, have a camera and say this is for our website, tell them how great they are, watch them squirm as they sign up to the most expensive option

And then cancel it the second the camera is off them.

I hate virtue signalling.

Let them pool their money together, buy some cheap land and plant a few dozen forests around the country, hug all the trees they want get all those Facebook likes, but I suppose that would require some effort....best just complain

CinemaGuy45

Tell me how wrote: »

So, why do you think the climate change alarmists are tree hugging morons when they are advocating listening to science, while you are over here posting images which you point out yourself are fake?

I mean, that is so ridiculous I had to read your post a few times to try to see were you on to something but nope, that's it.

It is literally a 'fake news' post. Where you yourself point it out....

Right then let us get serious I believe the climate is controlled by the sun when the amount of solar radiation goes up the carbon follows as life emits carbon.


What would you suggest for the environment?

Tell your children NO they cannot have that new phone TV or console or that takeaway.
Put your children to work planting vegetables in the back garden.
Skip the hot shower and go to work smelling like a 95 year old granny.

Tell your children to walk home from school or get the bus I see all the little darlings being dropped off and picked up in cars.

Instead of two weeks in the sun for your little darlings how about two weeks planting and helping on an organic farm.

Get rid of your car and bike it or bus it.

Now when I say you I mean anybody reading this as in the general population.

What are YOU willing to do to drop your carbon footprint?

I work my ass off

Pa ElGrande

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Book is from 2012 and the science in it is from the 80s and 90s (when the author was active in science). Since the book was published, the author seems to have fallen off the planet. Would be great if some science from this century were put forward as an argument against climate change and its impending consequences. Hasn't happened yet on this thread but we live in hope.

Edward Krug is a scientist who found out what happens when you publish and publicise research which disagrees with the political consensus. In his case it was the acid rain scare, he publicised his findings on the American TV program: "60 minutes" and was attacked for it.

After Krug appeared on 60 Minutes to talk about what his research for NAPAP revealed about the relationship between acid rain and acidic lakes, the EPA branded him a scientist of “limited credibility,” called his statements “outlandish,” and said he was “on the fringes of environmental science.” The Agency, under pressure, later recanted those accusations.

source

The acid rain scare originated in Sweden and was used by politicians of the generation to promote nuclear power. You have to see that in the context of the 1970s oil embargo, the campaign for nuclear disarmament they needed to sway public opinion and the issue of nuclear waste.

The comparison between the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy is interesting in another respect as well. In the same period when nuclear waste became part Of an intense public debate in Sweden and was identified as a problem, the first oil-crisis occurred.

In October 1973 the oil-producing countries in the Middle East decided to raise prices and cut the supplies to the Netherlands and USA, while the latter were in control of much of the international oil commerce. The public debate about energy started in Sweden at this time and was, for the rest of the decade, part of a broad debate about energy supply and environmental concerns. Nuclear power and nuclear waste were discussed and compared to Oil supply shortages and the effects of acid rain. The debate about energy issues overshadowed all other political questions in Swedish society during the 70s.

Politicians in favour of nuclear energy used to focus on the acid rain problem. Prime Minister Olaf Palme argued for expanding nuclear power, and often referred to Sweden's dependency on foreign oil, which he viewed as detrimental to national security as well as the economy and the environment. In the campaign before the general election in 1976, Palme said that his 'firm belief is that oil brings larger risks for human health and for the environment than nuclear power does", and concerning the management of the risks involved he argued that the risks associated with nuclear power are clearly mapped, and wished he "could be that sure concerning the management of the damage caused by burning oil."

source

As he discovered a bureaucracy had built up around the acid rain scare and when it became a non-issue that did not please many people since "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.". That's also why catastrophic anthropogenic global warming does not have a solution either it is politicised science, if a magic bullet such as cold fusion was discovered tomorrow they would not be pleased at all.


Since Dr. Krug is retired you will not hear much from him, but if you would like to hear Dr. Krug speak here is his speech to CPAC in 1993. (Start at 2:30 if you want to skip the introduction).

Tell me how

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Right then let us get serious I believe the climate is controlled by the sun when the amount of solar radiation goes up the carbon follows as life emits carbon.

That is partially true but I'm not sure if you can directly say that the Sun is responsible for creating more life on it's own.

It ignores the fact that the rampant burning of fossil fuels on one hand and the destruction of the Amazon (as an example) on the other creates a non natural carbon imbalance influence by human behaviour

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

What would you suggest for the environment?

Whatever we can.
But in the context of this discussion,
We support science to come up with alternative methods of utilising the resources we have.
We demand governments adopt climate favourable policies (see more later)
We do what we can where we can. (Patio heaters so people can sit outside in a t-shirt? No thanks) (Plastic containers to hold food for 3-5 minutes while you eat it and then discarded in to nature for centuries. Please let this change)
We educate people so they understand the issue and try to minimise resource use where they can? Wouldn't it be great if no more single use coffee cups were used because everyone used their own keep cup?
If we used less damaging means of transport where we can (more later)

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Tell your children NO they cannot have that new phone TV or console or that takeaway.

Nobody is saying there should be a blanket ban but that we find the way to become much more efficient in our use of resources.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Put your children to work planting vegetables in the back garden.

I know people doing that (while still purchasing much of what they need) Guess what, the kids love it, the parents love it and the children gain an appreciation for where food comes from and also a fondness for eating veg because they grew it.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Skip the hot shower and go to work smelling like a 95 year old granny.

You're being dramatic for effect here, obviously.
But still, no one is saying that. But how about encouraging shorter periods in the shower? I know of people who wash every towel they use after every shower, every time. Is that necessary?

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Tell your children to walk home from school or get the bus I see all the little darlings being dropped off and picked up in cars.

In many cases, roads are no longer safe for kids to cycle to school. (See more later)

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Instead of two weeks in the sun for your little darlings how about two weeks planting and helping on an organic farm.

What would be wrong with that from time to time? Two weeks would be too much for someone unused to constant work and if they are young then obviously they won't be up to much but they don't necessarily have to spend two weeks playing games in a video arcade by a beach either. Staycations in the country you live in can be a much more environmentally supportive alternative than two weeks in the sun and just as enjoyable for many.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Get rid of your car and bike it or bus it.

Wouldn't that be fantastic for those who could manage it!!!
Cars are idle approx 92% of the time and yet can cost up to 20% of nett pay per annum for many people. Does that sound attractive? Wouldn't it be much cheaper to have an alternative means of transport. This is where we should demand that governments provide safe cycling resources within large urban areas and their suburbs and suitable public transport where possible both in urban and satellite areas.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Now when I say you I mean anybody reading this as in the general population.

What are YOU willing to do to drop your carbon footprint?

See my responses above.
I expect that my life could and will change further. I don't currently have a car because I am living in a city with decent public transport. I also think that I would like to see governments put massive pressure on industry to ensure goods last longer, can be serviced/repaired easier than currently and indeed can have parts upgraded to take advantage of new technologies without scrapping the entire product. (This is what Greta is saying when she says we need to find the ways to make a positive change, the answers are not immediately obvious)
I don't buy single use plastic products if I can in any way avoid them, if cold, the first thing I do is put on another layer instead of turning the heating on and I don't aim to eat meat at every meal.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I work my ass off

Cool. Not sure how that is relevant here though.

CinemaGuy45

Tell me how wrote: »

That is partially true but I'm not sure if you can directly say that the Sun is responsible for creating more life on it's own.

It ignores the fact that the rampant burning of fossil fuels on one hand and the destruction of the Amazon (as an example) on the other creates a non natural carbon imbalance influence by human behaviour


Whatever we can.
But in the context of this discussion,
We support science to come up with alternative methods of utilising the resources we have.
We demand governments adopt climate favourable policies (see more later)
We do what we can where we can. (Patio heaters so people can sit outside in a t-shirt? No thanks) (Plastic containers to hold food for 3-5 minutes while you eat it and then discarded in to nature for centuries. Please let this change)
We educate people so they understand the issue and try to minimise resource use where they can? Wouldn't it be great if no more single use coffee cups were used because everyone used their own keep cup?
If we used less damaging means of transport where we can (more later)


Nobody is saying there should be a blanket ban but that we find the way to become much more efficient in our use of resources.


I know people doing that (while still purchasing much of what they need) Guess what, the kids love it, the parents love it and the children gain an appreciation for where food comes from and also a fondness for eating veg because they grew it.


You're being dramatic for effect here, obviously.
But still, no one is saying that. But how about encouraging shorter periods in the shower? I know of people who wash every towel they use after every shower, every time. Is that necessary?

In many cases, roads are no longer safe for kids to cycle to school. (See more later)

What would be wrong with that from time to time? Two weeks would be too much for someone unused to constant work and if they are young then obviously they won't be up to much but they don't necessarily have to spend two weeks playing games in a video arcade by a beach either. Staycations in the country you live in can be a much more environmentally supportive alternative than two weeks in the sun and just as enjoyable for many.



Wouldn't that be fantastic for those who could manage it!!!
Cars are idle approx 92% of the time and yet can cost up to 20% of nett pay per annum for many people. Does that sound attractive? Wouldn't it be much cheaper to have an alternative means of transport. This is where we should demand that governments provide safe cycling resources within large urban areas and their suburbs and suitable public transport where possible both in urban and satellite areas.


See my responses above.
I expect that my life could and will change further. I don't currently have a car because I am living in a city with decent public transport. I also think that I would like to see governments put massive pressure on industry to ensure goods last longer, can be serviced/repaired easier than currently and indeed can have parts upgraded to take advantage of new technologies without scrapping the entire product. (This is what Greta is saying when she says we need to find the ways to make a positive change, the answers are not immediately obvious)
I don't buy single use plastic products if I can in any way avoid them, if cold, the first thing I do is put on another layer instead of turning the heating on and I don't aim to eat meat at every meal.

Cool. Not sure how that is relevant here though.

I do agree with you about the plastics this is a waste.
And I see you agree with me a lot of the ideas are not practical.

As for the last bit about me working my ass off I find rich people telling us to use less a bit much.

Tell me how

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I do agree with you about the plastics this is a waste.
And I see you agree with me a lot of the ideas are not practical.

As for the last bit about me working my ass off I find rice people telling us to use less a bit much.

You must understand it is not necessarily climate advocates calling for blanket/radical/impractical ideas. It is climate change luddites suggesting that that is what all activists want.
There is a distinct difference there. And one that is happening a lot, see the plant at the AOC meeting last week calling for eating babies. I've seen several on this thread say that climate activists think everyone should just die off. That is not what the majority or the loudest voices are saying. Please understand this.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

As for the last bit about me working my ass off I find rice people telling us to use less a bit much.

We waste a lot. In a lot of ways. Waste is never good.
I don't see how that relates to your working habits. Unless you are a baker. Up to 54% of bread is never actually consumed...