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

IamtheWalrus

Do the deniers think we should sit by and watch our biodiversity die? The figure I kept hearing in David Attenborough’s Netflix series was 90 - nearly every ecological element had decreased by 90%, from forestation, coral, wildlife. That’s quite a big loss regardless of what’s behind it. Something’s not right.

is_that_so

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Acid rain has been extensively and expensively debunked.

To state that overreaction is preferable to under-reaction in the same post in which you state that “nuclear winter didn’t happen Thankfully” is literally laugh out loud funny. Nuclear winter didn’t happen precisely because at times such as the Cuban missile crisis, politicians didn’t panic and didn’t over-react.

The Cuban missile crisis was the big one. Nothing after came close, but the fear remained for a further 30 years.

is_that_so

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Do the deniers think we should sit by and watch our biodiversity die? The figure I kept hearing in David Attenborough’s Netflix series was 90 - nearly every ecological element had decreased by 90%, from forestation, coral, wildlife. That’s quite a big loss regardless of what’s behind it. Something’s not right.

Another extreme leap of logic. What is your definition of a denier? Someone on this thread asking whether this event serves any real purpose?

Roger_007

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Do the deniers think we should sit by and watch our biodiversity die? The figure I kept hearing in David Attenborough’s Netflix series was 90 - nearly every ecological element had decreased by 90%, from forestation, coral, wildlife. That’s quite a big loss regardless of what’s behind it. Something’s not right.

What's behind it is something that Attenborough never seems to acknowledge: that the exponential increase in the human population is responsible for most of the changes that he talks about.
He advocates the restoration of the eco system back to a point in time when the human population was less than 1 billion, (it is now approaching 8 billion). He never explains how the ever increasing global population is to be fed and housed and provided with acceptable modern lifestyles while at the same time restoring productive land back to 'the wild'. He also advocates the elimination of herbicides, insecticides and artificial fertilisers from food production, returning to 'sustainable farming methods'.
In other words he wants most of the human population to starve. (At least that would address the population problem).

Feisar

Roger_007 wrote: »

What's behind it is something that Attenborough never seems to acknowledge: that the exponential increase in the human population is responsible for most of the changes that he talks about.
He advocates the restoration of the eco system back to a point in time when the human population was less than 1 billion, (it is now approaching 8 billion). He never explains how the ever increasing global population is to be fed and housed and provided with acceptable modern lifestyles while at the same time restoring productive land back to 'the wild'. He also advocates the elimination of herbicides, insecticides and artificial fertilisers from food production, returning to 'sustainable farming methods'.
In other words he wants most of the human population to starve. (At least that would address the population problem).

Ah but he sounds good delivering those sound bites!

Tell me how

Roger_007 wrote: »

What's behind it is something that Attenborough never seems to acknowledge: that the exponential increase in the human population is responsible for most of the changes that he talks about.
He advocates the restoration of the eco system back to a point in time when the human population was less than 1 billion, (it is now approaching 8 billion). He never explains how the ever increasing global population is to be fed and housed and provided with acceptable modern lifestyles while at the same time restoring productive land back to 'the wild'. He also advocates the elimination of herbicides, insecticides and artificial fertilisers from food production, returning to 'sustainable farming methods'.
In other words he wants most of the human population to starve. (At least that would address the population problem).

Feisar wrote: »

Ah but he sounds good delivering those sound bites!

We've really jumped the shark when people are suggesting Attenborough is talking nonsense.
If you watched his shows, you'd realise the amount of times he references the impact of humans on natural habitat and the growing demand for land for human use is negatively impacting that available for animals.

Once again, ye think it is reasonable to discount everything someone says if they can't provide a 5 step plan to fix everything without impacting on living practices, travel habits or population numbers.

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

We've really jumped the shark when people are suggesting Attenborough is talking nonsense.
If you watched his shows, you'd realise the amount of times he references the impact of humans on natural habitat and the growing demand for land for human use is negatively impacting that available for animals.

Once again, ye think it is reasonable to discount everything someone says if they can't provide a 5 step plan to fix everything without impacting on living practices, travel habits or population numbers.

5 point plans help tell people what to do. Nothing wrong with speeches in their own right but there is only so long they can hold your attention and they can't be relied on to get anything done.

Pa ElGrande

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Do the deniers think we should sit by and watch our biodiversity die? The figure I kept hearing in David Attenborough’s Netflix series was 90 - nearly every ecological element had decreased by 90%, from forestation, coral, wildlife. That’s quite a big loss regardless of what’s behind it. Something’s not right.

Who are these deniers? and what is the purpose of that term? It seems to me that Sir David Frederick Attenborough falls into that category himself claiming there are too many people on the planet yet failing to realise the only 90+ figure is his age and thus contributing to the overpopulation. One would think he should lead by example rather than lecturing us on how bad we are for the planet?


The question arises has Attenborough become a propaganda mouthpiece promoting climate eco-catastrophism? You may well be aware that the latest film he was paid to narrate contained some dubious footage as explained here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatVKZZcPG0

It's not the first time such an incident where the line between reality and fiction on programs narrated by him pulls on peoples heartstrings and purse strings (that Netflix series was a thinly veiled fundraiser for the WWF) in the name of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

blinding

I can’t take anyone seriously on Climate Change unless they are circling above me in a Private Jet ideally dumping their crap out and telling me not to fly or ideally exist:eek:

Feisar

Tell me how wrote: »

We've really jumped the shark when people are suggesting Attenborough is talking nonsense.
If you watched his shows, you'd realise the amount of times he references the impact of humans on natural habitat and the growing demand for land for human use is negatively impacting that available for animals.

Once again, ye think it is reasonable to discount everything someone says if they can't provide a 5 step plan to fix everything without impacting on living practices, travel habits or population numbers.

Oh no Attenborough is dead right however it's a pointless soap box exercise. We are running out of planet and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Thelonious Monk

Feisar wrote: »

Oh no Attenborough is dead right however it's a pointless soap box exercise. We are running out of planet and there's nothing that can be done about it.

I agree, we are too greedy to change. I just don't understand why anyone trying to fight against the current tide is ridiculed so much. They're not harming anyone are they? Greta etc.

jimgoose

Possibly somewhat tangentially, but that young one isn't a great advertisement for the vegan diet either. She looks about eight, most sixteen year old girls around here at least are six-foot Valkyries with incredible features and legs up to their ears.

KyussB

Since the thread is full of vast majority denialists, I take it the new Current Affairs section of Boards has been a fuckup that few venture to? (unless they want to be in an echo chamber)

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I agree, we are too greedy to change. I just don't understand why anyone trying to fight against the current tide is ridiculed so much. They're not harming anyone are they? Greta etc.

Boards is definitely not representative of general views - what you're reading here is a mostly hijacked discussion, turned into an echo chamber, tbh.

Stevieluvsye

jimgoose wrote: »

Possibly somewhat tangentially, but that young one isn't a great advertisement for the vegan diet either. She looks about eight, most sixteen year old girls around here at least are six-foot Valkyries with incredible features and legs up to their ears.

That's a good point.

Veganism should be banned for U 18's. Grass and flowers don't cut when your body needs to grow and develop

xckjoo

KyussB wrote: »

Since the thread is full of vast majority denialists, I take it the new Current Affairs section of Boards has been a fuckup that few venture to? (unless they want to be in an echo chamber)

Boards is definitely not representative of general views - what you're reading here is a mostly hijacked discussion, turned into an echo chamber, tbh.

Ya it's pretty septic. But it contains most of the shills, trolls and those who have bought into the it in one place.

Thelonious Monk

Jesus. Now talking about her looks? She looks perfectly fine and healthier than many of the fat teenagers i see around my area going to school who no doubt eat meat every day.

blinding

Who is bankrolling / promoting the Great Greta Circus .

She gets some coverage for a 16 year old .

Qui Bono ?

jimgoose

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Jesus. Now talking about her looks? She looks perfectly fine and healthier than many of the fat teenagers i see around my area going to school who no doubt eat meat every day.

I'm not talking about her looks. I'm talking about the fact that she is far smaller and lighter than most Western 16-year-old girls, and has the face of a toddler. And any fat teenage girls you see are not thus from eating meat, I can assure you.

Pa ElGrande

jimgoose wrote: »

I'm not talking about her looks. I'm talking about the fact that she is far smaller and lighter than most Western 16-year-old girls, and has the face of a toddler. And any fat teenage girls you see are not thus from eating meat, I can assure you.

To be expected due to the complications she has experienced. She would be a difficult girl to live with in any family, so I suspect there is probably some relief that she has a cause to pursue that is not self destruction.

Greta is eleven years old and has gone two months without eating. Her heart rate and blood pressure show clear signs of starvation. She has stopped speaking to anyone but her parents and younger sister, Beata.

After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside her closest family. When she wants to tell a climate researcher that she plans a school strike on behalf of the environment, she speaks through her father.


source

jimgoose

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

To be expected due to the complications she has experienced. She would be a difficult girl to live with in any family, so I suspect there is probably some relief that she has a cause to pursue that is not self destruction.

Apparently it was she who decided that Svante Thunberg's household would become vegan and give up air travel when she was nine or ten. I give up... :pac:

blinding

jimgoose wrote: »

Apparently it was she who decided that Svante Thunberg's household would become vegan and give up air travel when she was nine or ten. I give up... :pac:

People are being had by this ‘publicity campaign ‘

No 16 year old gets this sort of coverage without an organised campaign behind it .

Pa ElGrande

jimgoose wrote: »

Apparently it was she who decided that Svante Thunberg's household would become vegan and give up air travel when she was nine or ten. I give up... :pac:

I expect the combination of parents careers and interests, doctors inability to diagnose her condition early on plus any medication she was one to regulate her behaviour all together caused a situation where there may not have been enough attention paid to her and her sister in their formative years which led to the children behaving that way in order to command attention. the only review I've seen of her mothers book is not positive on the situation either.

99problems1

Why did she take a photo of her smiling looking into new york?

Did she forget the planet is dying, the oceans rising, the icecaps melting, the trees burning.

The whole thing is a sham to make this kid feel important because she's got a Aspergers.

99problems1

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

To be expected due to the complications she has experienced. She would be a difficult girl to live with in any family, so I suspect there is probably some relief that she has a cause to pursue that is not self destruction.

And this is the kid we're all supposed to listen to...the kid governments and the EU have given air time to to speak about climate change etc.

Stevieluvsye

99problems1 wrote: »

Why did she take a photo of her smiling looking into new york?

Did she forget the planet is dying, the oceans rising, the icecaps melting, the trees burning.

The whole thing is a sham to make this kid feel important because she's disabled.

.

99problems1

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Eeeek, edit your post. I got a warning yesterday

If they're not ok with the term they should give back their disability allowances then.

Pa ElGrande

99problems1 wrote: »

And this is the kid we're all supposed to listen to...the kid governments and the EU have given air time to to speak about climate change etc.

Greta is the victim in this. She simply parrots the narrative she has been given so they have no problem giving her airtime, it suits their corporate image as being "woke" while in parallel they discuss climate finance. The EU parliament did not allow her to speak because because “kids belong in schools” and likely they don't want the Greens or other socialist types gaining political traction on the back of that.

Stevieluvsye

Papa grande, you seem to fairly well informed on all this

You any idea why corals are suffering so much around the world or is that all horse**** too?

blinding

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Greta is the victim in this. She simply parrots the narrative she has been given so they have no problem giving her airtime, it suits their corporate image as being "woke" while in parallel they discuss climate finance. The EU parliament did not allow her to speak because because “kids belong in schools” and likely they don't want the Greens or other socialist types gaining political traction on the back of that.

They won’t mind piling on the Green taxes mind .

Politicians love taxes especially taxes that can be justified by the Greens waffle .

99problems1

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Greta is the victim in this. She simply parrots the narrative she has been given so they have no problem giving her airtime, it suits their corporate image as being "woke" while in parallel they discuss climate finance. The EU parliament did not allow her to speak because because “kids belong in schools” and likely they don't want the Greens or other socialist types gaining political traction on the back of that.

Yes. Those school protests are so condescending too.

"look at these kids caring about something".

It's akin to little Timmy putting a 5er into a moneybox and his grandparents telling him what a great boy he is and patting him on the head.