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

AlekSmart

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Ah there was loads.

This town aint big enough for both of us and never turn your back on mother earth by Sparks.

Burn baby burn by Hudson and Ford.

Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell.

Thin Lizzy did one but can't remember the name.

It was a big thing back then but just faded away as people woke up the next morning and the ice was still covering the car and realised the pubs were open later tonight.

Tsk Tsk...making fun of the true meaning of Life...how dare you !

But I hafta admit you may have just begun the fightback....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUJ_ifjKopM

Lets get Greta boogying on down....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPTk5poAa1c

Boredstiff666

171170 wrote: »

Never knew that Sparks single had an environmental context - but what a great guitar riff!

I think most of Kimono my house album was about the environment except amateur hour which was about something else of interest to a 15 year old.......but thats another story.

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I am an olde'un. When I was a young teen I was into all the Greta stuff back then.

It was very popular then with big pop stars of the time even making hit records on it.

The main problem then and now is just too many people but nobody says that. I don't suppose I would be popular saying such now but to be honest I have never heard of the world supposedly being in trouble through the antics of too many whales or pandas.

I know you have only joined Boards today and so are completely unfamiliar with what has been said about this but several posters have already brought this up on this thread.

now some of them, unfortunately, we cannot ask their opinions on what to do about it right now as they are no longer able to contribute to the thread. More are here but one in particular doesn't like being asked to defend statements which they have made (including on this) and so that brings us to your good self.

So, do you think population control, or a focus on sustainable technologies and practices would be more acceptable to society in general?

If it is the former, how would you suggest that it is implemented?

Do you see any issue with such consideration in the type of society which largely exists in the world today, from an economic perspective?

I am glad that you are not denying there is a problem and so I would assume you are somewhat thankful that Greta is causing more and more people to collectively call for action. Ye are also probably closer in viewpoint than you might think given that she has said that the solutions that are needed do not currently exist.

Boredstiff666

Tell me how wrote: »

I know you have only joined Boards today and so are completely unfamiliar with what has been said about this but several posters have already brought this up on this thread.

now some of them, unfortunately, we cannot ask their opinions on what to do about it right now as they are no longer able to contribute to the thread. More are here but one in particular doesn't like being asked to defend statements which they have made (including on this) and so that brings us to your good self.

So, do you think population control, or a focus on sustainable technologies and practices would be more acceptable to society in general?

If it is the former, how would you suggest that it is implemented?

Do you see any issue with such consideration in the type of society which largely exists in the world today, from an economic perspective?

I am glad that you are not denying there is a problem and so I would assume you are somewhat thankful that Greta is causing more and more people to collectively call for action. Ye are also probably closer in viewpoint than you might think given that she has said that the solutions that are needed do not currently exist.

Thats quite funny as you have no idea of how big I was into this stuff back then as were lots of others that made pop stars decide they could make a whole lot of money from the subject.

And there is your answer!

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Thats quite funny as you have no idea of how big I was into this stuff back then as were lots of others that made pop stars decide they could make a whole lot of money from the subject.

And there is your answer!

You'll fit right in here.
Welcome to Boards.

gozunda

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Thats quite funny as you have no idea of how big I was into this stuff back then as were lots of others that made pop stars decide they could make a whole lot of money from the subject.

And there is your answer!

Boredstiff666. Welcome to boards. Wouldn't mind the interrogations or veiled references lol. Basic translation there is if you dont inexplicably love 'greta' - you will be interrogated to provide solutions to all the worlds problems by way of explanation. Its near a meme at this stage.

Boredstiff666

There was a book wrote in the 1950's about the environment going inside out and causing starvation. It was turned into a film in early 1970's called ' No blade of grass'.

In the UK television was off in daytime and after 11pm so to keep the channels open they used to play 'trade test transmissions' which were mostly short films about the environment. We all used to watch them and it was a big item at the time.

Later they were talking about a 'New ice age.

10 years after that they were talking about us all having skin cancer and the ice caps meting because of deodorant.

I am mystified why everybody is so uptight of a puppet 16 year olds rants. It certainly isnt anything new.

hetuzozaho

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Thats quite funny as you have no idea of how big I was into this stuff back then as were lots of others that made pop stars decide they could make a whole lot of money from the subject.

Well let's be glad the scientists didn't give up haha

Boredstiff666

gozunda wrote: »

Boredstiff666. Welcome to boards. Wouldn't dont mind the interrogations or veiled references lol. Basic translation there is if you dont inexplicably love 'greta' - you will be interrogated to provide solutions to all the worlds problems by way of explanation. Its near a meme at this stage. .

Hey I don't mind. As I said at 15 I was big into this stuff, but I am nearly 61 now which is amazing and I was supposed to be fried to death or frozen to death or polluted to death long ago.

Tuisceanch

Continuing the music theme!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E

Peter Garrett was the singer in Midnight Oil. He is no longer with the band. He served two terms as president of the Australian Conservation Foundation. In his first term, from 1989 to 1993, significant results were achieved for many threatened areas of the Australian environment including Coronation Hill in Kakadu, Shoalwater Bay in Queensland, the Queensland Wet Tropics rainforest and Jervis Bay in NSW. In his second term, the ACF grew strongly, developed partnerships with non-government organisations, progressive business groups and companies, and expanded it's campaigning into marine conservation and northern Australia.

He received the Australian Humanitarian Foundation Award ( environment category) in 2000, and in 2003 received the Order of Australia (Member General Division) for his contribution to environment and the music industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAi3VTSdTxU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjtYrFXcMko

RIP Dolores

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

There was a book wrote in the 1950's about the environment going inside out and causing starvation. It was turned into a film in early 1970's called ' No blade of grass'.

In the UK television was off in daytime and after 11pm so to keep the channels open they used to play 'trade test transmissions' which were mostly short films about the environment. We all used to watch them and it was a big item at the time.

Later they were talking about a 'New ice age.

10 years after that they were talking about us all having skin cancer and the ice caps meting because of deodorant.

I am mystified why everybody is so uptight of a puppet 16 year olds rants. It certainly isnt anything new.

Yep. Associated with the use of CFC's.
And, as a consequence, they were banned.

Thanks for giving an example of the benefits of acting based on scientific evidence.

Boredstiff666

Tell me how wrote: »

Yep. Associated with the use of CFC's.
And, as a consequence, they were banned.

Thanks for giving an example of the benefits of acting based on scientific evidence.

Holes are still there and nobody knows why they get bigger or smaller.

Well done so does that mean you will implement 'Logan's Run' and restrict the earth damaging population.

Tuisceanch

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Holes are still there and nobody knows why they get bigger or smaller.

Well done so does that mean you will implement 'Logan's Run' and restrict the earth damaging population.

Ozone layer finally healing after damage caused by aerosols, UN says

The results, presented on Monday in a four-year assessment of the health of the ozone layer, represent a rare instance of global environmental damage being repaired, and a victory for concerted global action by governments. Scientific evidence of the depletion of the ozone layer over the Antarctic was first presented in 1985, and in 1987 the Montreal protocol was signed, binding world governments to reduce and phase out the harmful chemicals identified as causing the problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/05/ozone-layer-healing-after-aerosols-un-northern-hemisphere

Boredstiff666

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Hey everbody is entitled to believe what ever they want but if you are going to quote the UN who believe in one world government (them!) and open borders world wide with restrictions on western white people doing this and doing that.......... and the loony left newspaper that backed Jeremy Corbin...........I will give it a miss thanks.

Tell me how

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Holes are still there and nobody knows why they get bigger or smaller.

Any evidence to support this statement?

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Well done so does that mean you will implement 'Logan's Run' and restrict the earth damaging population.

Are you asking Will I, an individual, restrict the earth damaging population? No. I have no kids, or no plan to, but I'm not going to pretend it is because of my desire to save the planet.

I would much rather focus on driving sustainable use of materials as much as possible as I think that stands a much better chance of success, and is prudent anyway irrespective of the population size.

Now, do you care to answer the associated questions on how you suggest limiting the earths population as asked above?

Tuisceanch

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Hey everbody is entitled to believe what ever they want but if you are going to quote the UN who believe in one world government (them!) and open borders world wide with restrictions on western white people doing this and doing that.......... and the loony left newspaper that backed Jeremy Corbin...........I will give it a miss thanks.

OK fine but what do you base your assertions on so we can have some balance. The guardian didn't back JC either so don't know where you got that idea from.

Boredstiff666

Tell me how wrote: »

Any evidence to support this statement?



Are you asking Will I, an individual, restrict the earth damaging population? No. I have no kids, or no plan to, but I'm not going to pretend it is because of my desire to save the planet.

I would much rather focus on driving sustainable use of materials as much as possible as I think that stands a much better chance of success, and is prudent anyway irrespective of the population size.

Now, do you care to answer the associated questions on how you suggest limiting the earths population as asked above?

I too believe in using sustainable products and sustainable living 100%. I grew up in a world where plastic was rare so you cant blame us oldies for dumping the stuff all over the place.

Our food was sold loose without packaging and we drank out of returnable glass bottles. We didnt have phones and all the other stuff.

No matter what you argue about it is just people who cause the problems as when did you last see a polar bear driving a car or flying on Ryanair?

How would I reduce the population?........Do not give benefits to have children is one in the western world anyway. The poorer countries I would give free contraception instead of money but some may see that as racists. So thats for you to argue about.

Tuisceanch

I'm presuming the WHO is also part of the conspiracy but you have to get your information from somewhere in the absence of anything else

Global health has improved considerably over the last four decades, but everywhere the health status of the poor compares unfavourably with that of the more affluent sectors of society.1 In Africa, one in 26 women of reproductive age dies from a maternal cause, as opposed to one in 9400 in Europe.2 Parallel disparities in fertility and in contraceptive use are found between poor and wealthy countries. The world’s total fertility rate has dropped dramatically, from 5 children per woman in the early 1950s to 2.6 children per woman today,3 largely owing to more widespread use of modern contraceptives, especially in the developing world.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/4/10-083329/en/

biko

Germany’s migrant-smuggling activist switches to climate cause, calls for civil disobedience and ‘eco-socialism’

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article204333652/Carola-Rackete-ruft-fuers-Klima-zu-zivilem-Ungehorsam-auf.html

Boredstiff666

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I'm presuming the WHO is also part of the conspiracy but you have to get your information from somewhere in the absence of anything else

I can't argue with anything you say. All I can tell you is that when i was 15 (we use that age because I was into this stuff).......so when I was 15 the population I think was about 4 to 4.5 billion.

Now it's screaming towards twice that and you have all the problems that concern you.

It's not really rocket science is it?

mynamejeff

Tuisceanch wrote: »

OK fine but what do you base your assertions on so we can have some balance. The guardian didn't back JC either so don't know where you got that idea from.

"The Guardian’s election editorial has come out in strong support of Labour. The editorial welcomes the enthusiasm of Jeremy Corbyn on the campaign trail so far,"
from the guardian website

Tuisceanch

mynamejeff wrote: »

"The Guardian’s election editorial has come out in strong support of Labour. The editorial welcomes the enthusiasm of Jeremy Corbyn on the campaign trail so far,"
from the guardian website

Well it's not really a discussion about JC but I'm curious why you didn't link to the article. Also if you refer to this media study report, linked in the article, you will observe that overall the Guardian was not such a vocal supporter of JC since his rise to leadership of the Labour party.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

Tuisceanch

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I can't argue with anything you say. All I can tell you is that when i was 15 (we use that age because I was into this stuff).......so when I was 15 the population I think was about 4 to 4.5 billion.

Now it's screaming towards twice that and you have all the problems that concern you.

It's not really rocket science is it?

No but it's not absent from the debate either.

This book for instance argues that it's not the issue that people make out

Too Many People?: Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis..Ian Angus

How we are supposed to decrease the population was something which was part of the conspiracy you talked about, Agenda 21 or maybe more accurately, In the 1970s, the Club of Rome launched the book "The Limits to Growth".. so I'm not really sure where you're coming from

AlekSmart

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I can't argue with anything you say. All I can tell you is that when i was 15 (we use that age because I was into this stuff).......so when I was 15 the population I think was about 4 to 4.5 billion.

Now it's screaming towards twice that and you have all the problems that concern you.

It's not really rocket science is it?

Please...can you use something other than a rocket to make your point...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UExTN3_UOIY

All that Noise....Heat...Smoke and hey !...Gas...Gasses by the Gasful....OMG NASA stole your childhood !

I share your pain !

171170

Tuisceanch wrote: »

The Guardian didn't back JC either so don't know where you got that idea from.

True, but many of its less intellectually gifted columnists did. And the same nitwits are still blaming everyone else but JC for Labour's humiliation last week.

Boredstiff666

Tuisceanch wrote: »

No but it's not absent from the debate either.

This book for instance argues that it's not the issue that people make out

Too Many People?: Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis..Ian Angus

How we are supposed to decrease the population was something which was part of the conspiracy you talked about, Agenda 21 or maybe more accurately, In the 1970s, the Club of Rome launched the book "The Limits to Growth".. so I'm not really sure where you're coming from

No nothing like that at all. If I remember correctly from school history........the worlds population hovered around 1 billion for hundreds or thousands of years up until the end of the 1800's.

Then even with WW1, the Spanish flu, WW2, Stalin and all other things the population grew dramatically.

Maybe it was medicine I dont know but it 'IS' the problem.

Also the 'third' world or poorer nations want what you have and western big corp wants to sell it them. So you have at least a 2 pronged approach to too many people having access to too many products so a tiny few can make mega bucks.

What chance has the world got!!

But now you have a few 'dreamers' who think buy forcing old western whitey to ride a bike and become a vegan that the world is going to be saved from all it's problems.

The more people you have the more problems the planet has and trying to force them all to eat carrots aint gonna work.

The 'third' world used to be very environmentally friendly when they didnt have access to western products. You aint gonna stop them now and there is no way they will go back to their old days regardless.

All that's gonna happen is old westerner will die off in shame and those 'third' worlders' will take their place...........and just want and have and get.

So what is the answer?

Tuisceanch

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

No nothing like that at all. If I remember correctly from school history........the worlds population hovered around 1 billion for hundreds or thousands of years up until the end of the 1800's.

Then even with WW1, the Spanish flu, WW2, Stalin and all other things the population grew dramatically.

Maybe it was medicine I dont know but it 'IS' the problem.

Also the 'third' world or poorer nations want what you have and western big corp wants to sell it them. So you have at least a 2 pronged approach to too many people having access to too many products so a tiny few can make mega bucks.

What chance has the world got!!

But now you have a few 'dreamers' who think buy forcing old western whitey to ride a bike and become a vegan that the world is going to be saved from all it's problems.

The more people you have the more problems the planet has and trying to force them all to eat carrots aint gonna work.

The 'third' world used to be very environmentally friendly when they didnt have access to western products. You aint gonna stop them now and there is no way they will go back to their old days regardless.

All that's gonna happen is old westerner will die off in shame and those 'third' worlders' will take their place...........and just want and have and get.

So what is the answer?

I don't disagree and I have no idea what the answer is hence my interest in finding out where others are coming from.

Tuisceanch

171170 wrote: »

True, but many of its less intellectually gifted columnists did. And the same nitwits are still blaming everyone else but JC for Labour's humiliation last week.

Well until recently I wasn't aware of 'free ports' and i think therein lies the answer as to why Labour lost its heartland plus JC was not very inspiring.

Boredstiff666

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I don't disagree and I have no idea what the answer is hence my interest in finding out where others are coming from.

Well listening to a stupid 16 year old who is being manipulated by others with vested interest is just ridiculous and not the answer.

There is only one answer but how you do that is???????

Tuisceanch

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Well listening to a stupid 16 year old who is being manipulated by others with vested interest is just ridiculous and not the answer.

There is only one answer but how you do that is???????

Well wherever you look there will be vested interests so i don't know how that helps.

Is the answer 42?