Sweetleaf wrote:
Roboto wrote:
Pretty neat that globalists will take advantage of a child who doesn't understand science yet simply because she supports their message. There are people with decades of studies, PhD's who have a different opinion than hers but they get no voice. Those with education on the matter, and who aren't dependent on a government paycheck probably have more knowledge than she does...
Sad to me that people will take advantage of a naive child to promote their own opinion.
The vast majority of scientists think climate change is a crisis...and you're being ageist, what other reason other than her age are you assuming she was brainwashed and not doing this of her own accord? Its not like the knowledge isn't out there I knew climate change was serious when I was 7 years old because I read about it. It does not require any brainwashing to be aware how serious climate change is...the effects are already quite visible in the arctic. 70 people died in Alaska due to a heat wave just this summer, the ice in the arctic is melting at an alarming rate and water is already rising.
Scientists aren't even trying to figure out how to 'stop' climate change at this point, they are working on how to address the changes that are already happening and how to stop it getting worse than it already is.
Also like it or not a little bit of globalism may be necessary to save the planet.
I never ever said she was brainwashed.
The vast majority of "climate scientists" are funded by government. Their hypothesis keeps them employed and paid. I don't trust their studies at all nor has any of the studies actually ever produced a predictable model. You need that to call something "scientific law."
A scientist with decades of experience not on government payroll who may believe in climate change, but negate the human caused portion of it, deserves a much louder voice than an uneducated 17 year old.
I still stand very strongly behind my position. This is globalists taking advantage of a child simply because she happens to share their point of view. She's put less than 1% of the effort toward her hypothesis than so many others who are labeled as "conspiracy nuts." It's very sad to me.
The only way to "save the planet," which isn't actually what you're talking about. You're talking about "saving the human species," is to stop the exponential growth of the parasitic humans who can't stop procreating. If you want a globalist solution to that, I hope you enjoy genocide because there truly is no other way. The planet will be fine. It will be robbed of the resources, and the humans will be gone, but the planet will be fine.