The Greta Thunberg Debate
07 Jan 2021, 11:18 am
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Sure she has a solution--listen to the scientists and take action.
Telling everyone the problem and actually fixing it are two different things. If someone screams and shouts about the former but falls flat in explaining the latter then they're quickly on their way to discreting themselves.
But you are misrepresenting Greta. First, listening to the science is how we fix this. Trying to paint her as irrational is simply false. She is articulate and very rational.
Listening to the scientists is where you start, not finish. She's a public figure who's put herself in the spotlight, she wants to initiate substantial changes in how energy is produced. She can at least have some answers to the very complex dilemma of how to replace fossil fuels but like all people similar to her she never does.
All she does is talk the talk but never walk the walk.
07 Jan 2021, 11:24 am
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Could you provide examples? What I hear her pointing out is that politicians are talking about mitigating climate change, but not acting to do so. She does not claim to be the scientist, but rather a citizen taking their predictions seriously and anticipating a dreadful future. She just seems to lack the wishful thinking that lets us put up with the situation.
But pointing out is all she ever does. Her method of activism is just calling everyone a bunch of toss pots and high tailing it out before anyone can ask her questions in return. Every time I see her on the news it's never answering questions, only anger and hatred directed at people who are usually not even present to defend themselves. "Up against the wall" I believe she once said. Hardly someone to take seriously isn't she? It's the type of activism I despise.
She reminds me of a personified version of extinction rebellion. Complains about everything and everyone but themselves utterly useless at actually building the green revolution.
To be honest I think she's a repulsive person.
I believe the UN was in session when she spoke to them. The UN could not defend itself? And she does answer questions. Unfortunately, you are simply misrepresenting her work. This conversation will be easier if you can come with some facts.
Still didn't see her answer any questions of use. Where is the steel for all these wind farms going to be rolled? Where is the steel going to be made? Do we have enough civil engineers? Is steel for windfarms going to disrupt the steel for other projects? We only a handful of blast furnaces in the UK and they're highly polluting, what's her solution?
She should know, she's the one who choose to become world famous for climate activism.
If she has no answers, and I don't mean "build more solar farms" then she's not worth listening to.
07 Jan 2021, 11:30 am
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Sure she has a solution--listen to the scientists and take action.
Telling everyone the problem and actually fixing it are two different things. If someone screams and shouts about the former but falls flat in explaining the latter then they're quickly on their way to discreting themselves.
But you are misrepresenting Greta. First, listening to the science is how we fix this. Trying to paint her as irrational is simply false. She is articulate and very rational.
Listening to the scientists is where you start, not finish. She's a public figure who's put herself in the spotlight, she wants to initiate substantial changes in how energy is produced. She can at least have some answers to the very complex dilemma of how to replace fossil fuels but like all people similar to her she never does.
All she does is talk the talk but never walk the walk.
The scientist do have answers on how to replace fossil fuels. She also lives her life by the ideals she believes in. Her message is simple: we need to address climate change.
07 Jan 2021, 11:34 am
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Could you provide examples? What I hear her pointing out is that politicians are talking about mitigating climate change, but not acting to do so. She does not claim to be the scientist, but rather a citizen taking their predictions seriously and anticipating a dreadful future. She just seems to lack the wishful thinking that lets us put up with the situation.
But pointing out is all she ever does. Her method of activism is just calling everyone a bunch of toss pots and high tailing it out before anyone can ask her questions in return. Every time I see her on the news it's never answering questions, only anger and hatred directed at people who are usually not even present to defend themselves. "Up against the wall" I believe she once said. Hardly someone to take seriously isn't she? It's the type of activism I despise.
She reminds me of a personified version of extinction rebellion. Complains about everything and everyone but themselves utterly useless at actually building the green revolution.
To be honest I think she's a repulsive person.
I believe the UN was in session when she spoke to them. The UN could not defend itself? And she does answer questions. Unfortunately, you are simply misrepresenting her work. This conversation will be easier if you can come with some facts.
Still didn't see her answer any questions of use. Where is the steel for all these wind farms going to be rolled? Where is the steel going to be made? Do we have enough civil engineers? Is steel for windfarms going to disrupt the steel for other projects? We only a handful of blast furnaces in the UK and they're highly polluting, what's her solution?
She should know, she's the one who choose to become world famous for climate activism.
If she has no answers, and I don't mean "build more solar farms" then she's not worth listening to.
Sorry, you are just attacking her. And the fact that you have not seen her answer questions is not surprising as you are simply attacking a 2-d representation created by the right. As a citizen, she does not need to have the answers. Why are you holder her at a higher standard than anyone that has the right to voice her concerns. Lobbying our governments should be a right in any democracy. It is the leadership that needs to find solutions.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think climate change has a human cause?
07 Jan 2021, 11:45 am
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Sure she has a solution--listen to the scientists and take action.
Telling everyone the problem and actually fixing it are two different things. If someone screams and shouts about the former but falls flat in explaining the latter then they're quickly on their way to discreting themselves.
But you are misrepresenting Greta. First, listening to the science is how we fix this. Trying to paint her as irrational is simply false. She is articulate and very rational.
Listening to the scientists is where you start, not finish. She's a public figure who's put herself in the spotlight, she wants to initiate substantial changes in how energy is produced. She can at least have some answers to the very complex dilemma of how to replace fossil fuels but like all people similar to her she never does.
All she does is talk the talk but never walk the walk.
The scientist do have answers on how to replace fossil fuels. She also lives her life by the ideals she believes in. Her message is simple: we need to address climate change.
But the infrastructure and civil engineering side they seem to remain suspiciously quiet.
The UK wants to ban the sale of all diesel and petrol cars by 2030 for example. We understand the science behind electric cars but as of yet nobody has said how to charge them. Yes we plug them in, but where? What if you live in a block of flats? What if you live in a row of terraces, how can the grid cope when its a cold winters day and millions of electric boilers will sucking power from it?
This is the issue with people like her, they sell a glossy picture of a perfect future and end result but have no idea on how to get there.
07 Jan 2021, 11:47 am
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Could you provide examples? What I hear her pointing out is that politicians are talking about mitigating climate change, but not acting to do so. She does not claim to be the scientist, but rather a citizen taking their predictions seriously and anticipating a dreadful future. She just seems to lack the wishful thinking that lets us put up with the situation.
But pointing out is all she ever does. Her method of activism is just calling everyone a bunch of toss pots and high tailing it out before anyone can ask her questions in return. Every time I see her on the news it's never answering questions, only anger and hatred directed at people who are usually not even present to defend themselves. "Up against the wall" I believe she once said. Hardly someone to take seriously isn't she? It's the type of activism I despise.
She reminds me of a personified version of extinction rebellion. Complains about everything and everyone but themselves utterly useless at actually building the green revolution.
To be honest I think she's a repulsive person.
I believe the UN was in session when she spoke to them. The UN could not defend itself? And she does answer questions. Unfortunately, you are simply misrepresenting her work. This conversation will be easier if you can come with some facts.
Still didn't see her answer any questions of use. Where is the steel for all these wind farms going to be rolled? Where is the steel going to be made? Do we have enough civil engineers? Is steel for windfarms going to disrupt the steel for other projects? We only a handful of blast furnaces in the UK and they're highly polluting, what's her solution?
She should know, she's the one who choose to become world famous for climate activism.
If she has no answers, and I don't mean "build more solar farms" then she's not worth listening to.
Sorry, you are just attacking her. And the fact that you have not seen her answer questions is not surprising as you are simply attacking a 2-d representation created by the right. As a citizen, she does not need to have the answers. Why are you holder her at a higher standard than anyone that has the right to voice her concerns. Lobbying our governments should be a right in any democracy. It is the leadership that needs to find solutions.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think climate change has a human cause?
I hold her to a higher standard because she's a public figure known widely around the world who's known only for her enviromental activism.
She should know the answers regardless of what they are.
Yes I believe humans are mostly responsible for climate change too.
07 Jan 2021, 11:57 am
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Could you provide examples? What I hear her pointing out is that politicians are talking about mitigating climate change, but not acting to do so. She does not claim to be the scientist, but rather a citizen taking their predictions seriously and anticipating a dreadful future. She just seems to lack the wishful thinking that lets us put up with the situation.
But pointing out is all she ever does. Her method of activism is just calling everyone a bunch of toss pots and high tailing it out before anyone can ask her questions in return. Every time I see her on the news it's never answering questions, only anger and hatred directed at people who are usually not even present to defend themselves. "Up against the wall" I believe she once said. Hardly someone to take seriously isn't she? It's the type of activism I despise.
She reminds me of a personified version of extinction rebellion. Complains about everything and everyone but themselves utterly useless at actually building the green revolution.
To be honest I think she's a repulsive person.
I believe the UN was in session when she spoke to them. The UN could not defend itself? And she does answer questions. Unfortunately, you are simply misrepresenting her work. This conversation will be easier if you can come with some facts.
Still didn't see her answer any questions of use. Where is the steel for all these wind farms going to be rolled? Where is the steel going to be made? Do we have enough civil engineers? Is steel for windfarms going to disrupt the steel for other projects? We only a handful of blast furnaces in the UK and they're highly polluting, what's her solution?
She should know, she's the one who choose to become world famous for climate activism.
If she has no answers, and I don't mean "build more solar farms" then she's not worth listening to.
Sorry, you are just attacking her. And the fact that you have not seen her answer questions is not surprising as you are simply attacking a 2-d representation created by the right. As a citizen, she does not need to have the answers. Why are you holder her at a higher standard than anyone that has the right to voice her concerns. Lobbying our governments should be a right in any democracy. It is the leadership that needs to find solutions.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think climate change has a human cause?
I hold her to a higher standard because she's a public figure known widely around the world who's known only for her enviromental activism.
She should know the answers regardless of what they are.
Yes I believe humans are mostly responsible for climate change too.
Sorry, but people do have the right in a democracy to voice their opinions. And she does have the answer--use fact-based solutions to the problem. The idea that she needs to be an engineer, chemist, physicist, biologist, and social scientist before she can speak is a disingenuous argument. That is unless you are also all of those things as well.
07 Jan 2021, 12:15 pm
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Could you provide examples? What I hear her pointing out is that politicians are talking about mitigating climate change, but not acting to do so. She does not claim to be the scientist, but rather a citizen taking their predictions seriously and anticipating a dreadful future. She just seems to lack the wishful thinking that lets us put up with the situation.
But pointing out is all she ever does. Her method of activism is just calling everyone a bunch of toss pots and high tailing it out before anyone can ask her questions in return. Every time I see her on the news it's never answering questions, only anger and hatred directed at people who are usually not even present to defend themselves. "Up against the wall" I believe she once said. Hardly someone to take seriously isn't she? It's the type of activism I despise.
She reminds me of a personified version of extinction rebellion. Complains about everything and everyone but themselves utterly useless at actually building the green revolution.
To be honest I think she's a repulsive person.
I believe the UN was in session when she spoke to them. The UN could not defend itself? And she does answer questions. Unfortunately, you are simply misrepresenting her work. This conversation will be easier if you can come with some facts.
Still didn't see her answer any questions of use. Where is the steel for all these wind farms going to be rolled? Where is the steel going to be made? Do we have enough civil engineers? Is steel for windfarms going to disrupt the steel for other projects? We only a handful of blast furnaces in the UK and they're highly polluting, what's her solution?
She should know, she's the one who choose to become world famous for climate activism.
If she has no answers, and I don't mean "build more solar farms" then she's not worth listening to.
Sorry, you are just attacking her. And the fact that you have not seen her answer questions is not surprising as you are simply attacking a 2-d representation created by the right. As a citizen, she does not need to have the answers. Why are you holder her at a higher standard than anyone that has the right to voice her concerns. Lobbying our governments should be a right in any democracy. It is the leadership that needs to find solutions.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think climate change has a human cause?
I hold her to a higher standard because she's a public figure known widely around the world who's known only for her enviromental activism.
She should know the answers regardless of what they are.
Yes I believe humans are mostly responsible for climate change too.
Sorry, but people do have the right in a democracy to voice their opinions. And she does have the answer--use fact-based solutions to the problem. The idea that she needs to be an engineer, chemist, physicist, biologist, and social scientist before she can speak is a disingenuous argument. That is unless you are also all of those things as well.
They do to an extent. It's just that if one becomes world famous for environmental activism and refuses to step out of the spotlight, then they need to answer questions that matter. Millions of people in the UK don't give a damn about building more wind farms, they worry about where to plug in their soon to be mandatory electric car when they live in flats and tower blocks. If she's become THIS famous and still voluntarily advocates for a green revolution then she should know her subject inside out and should be able to tell them. I also have an issue with advocating as hard as she does when she has no clue about the practicalities of what she's hawking.
What if the leadership can't find solutions and people like ER and Greta are still blocking the streets making demands that turn out to be impossible?
Use fact based solutions? Yes that's what I want, that's what we all want, but I can't help but feel she or anyone else like her knows what they are. If I start making demands to travel to the nearest star using "fact based solutions" and block roads with protests until a working starship is made, do I still have a democratic right to cause that much disruption when it's found a starship is 100 years from being built at best?
I think not, people like ER need the riot police to educate them unless they contribute more to their cause.
Dear_one
Veteran
Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,721
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines
07 Jan 2021, 12:55 pm
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Could you provide examples? What I hear her pointing out is that politicians are talking about mitigating climate change, but not acting to do so. She does not claim to be the scientist, but rather a citizen taking their predictions seriously and anticipating a dreadful future. She just seems to lack the wishful thinking that lets us put up with the situation.
But pointing out is all she ever does. Her method of activism is just calling everyone a bunch of toss pots and high tailing it out before anyone can ask her questions in return. Every time I see her on the news it's never answering questions, only anger and hatred directed at people who are usually not even present to defend themselves. "Up against the wall" I believe she once said. Hardly someone to take seriously isn't she? It's the type of activism I despise.
She reminds me of a personified version of extinction rebellion. Complains about everything and everyone but themselves utterly useless at actually building the green revolution.
To be honest I think she's a repulsive person.
You must be watching news edited with prejudice. Have you made a point of avoiding oil use, and minimizing your impact through diet, etc?
07 Jan 2021, 1:08 pm
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
She moans a lot and never comes up with any solutions to the problems she's so vocal about and also seems to have an extreme aversion to having a discussion on climate change. Instead she just goes on rambling and often bizarre monologues.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
She just sounds like a run of the mill fruit cake.
Could you provide examples? What I hear her pointing out is that politicians are talking about mitigating climate change, but not acting to do so. She does not claim to be the scientist, but rather a citizen taking their predictions seriously and anticipating a dreadful future. She just seems to lack the wishful thinking that lets us put up with the situation.
But pointing out is all she ever does. Her method of activism is just calling everyone a bunch of toss pots and high tailing it out before anyone can ask her questions in return. Every time I see her on the news it's never answering questions, only anger and hatred directed at people who are usually not even present to defend themselves. "Up against the wall" I believe she once said. Hardly someone to take seriously isn't she? It's the type of activism I despise.
She reminds me of a personified version of extinction rebellion. Complains about everything and everyone but themselves utterly useless at actually building the green revolution.
To be honest I think she's a repulsive person.
You must be watching news edited with prejudice. Have you made a point of avoiding oil use, and minimizing your impact through diet, etc?
The issue is that she and others like her never answer questions that matter. They just say what needs to be done without actually saying how or even having the slightest interest in participating themselves. The most vocal usually have the most useless jobs and skills one can imagine at making the infrastructure needed to produce green energy so why take them seriously?
Last time I flew on a plane was 2016 for an hour each way. Before then was 2001 for an two hours each way. I drive a 1.2 litre petrol car and I only really drive to work and back and rarely venture out far in it. Diet wise it doesn't bother me and I feel I'm doing more than enough. I also have the skills needed to contribute towards building the green revolutions.....unlike almost all environmental protestors I bump into.
Dear_one
Veteran
Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,721
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines
07 Jan 2021, 1:19 pm
Nades wrote:
The issue is that she and others like her never answer questions that matter. They just say what needs to be done without actually saying how or even having the slightest interest in participating themselves. The most vocal usually have the most useless jobs and skills one can imagine at making the infrastructure needed to produce green energy so why take them seriously?
Last time I flew on a plane was 2016 for an hour each way. Before then was 2001 for an two hours each way. I drive a 1.2 litre petrol car and I only really drive to work and back and rarely venture out far in it. Diet wise it doesn't bother me and I feel I'm doing more than enough. I also have the skills needed to contribute towards building the green revolutions.....unlike almost all environmental protestors I bump into.
Last time I flew on a plane was 2016 for an hour each way. Before then was 2001 for an two hours each way. I drive a 1.2 litre petrol car and I only really drive to work and back and rarely venture out far in it. Diet wise it doesn't bother me and I feel I'm doing more than enough. I also have the skills needed to contribute towards building the green revolutions.....unlike almost all environmental protestors I bump into.
This is far better than her pretending, at 18, to be a technical expert. She promotes for the techies, because that is what she can do best. My entire vocation has been as a conservation adviser to industry, and I can assure you that there's plenty of talent going to waste, because the people in charge only care about profits today, and are gambling away our futures.
07 Jan 2021, 1:35 pm
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
The issue is that she and others like her never answer questions that matter. They just say what needs to be done without actually saying how or even having the slightest interest in participating themselves. The most vocal usually have the most useless jobs and skills one can imagine at making the infrastructure needed to produce green energy so why take them seriously?
Last time I flew on a plane was 2016 for an hour each way. Before then was 2001 for an two hours each way. I drive a 1.2 litre petrol car and I only really drive to work and back and rarely venture out far in it. Diet wise it doesn't bother me and I feel I'm doing more than enough. I also have the skills needed to contribute towards building the green revolutions.....unlike almost all environmental protestors I bump into.
Last time I flew on a plane was 2016 for an hour each way. Before then was 2001 for an two hours each way. I drive a 1.2 litre petrol car and I only really drive to work and back and rarely venture out far in it. Diet wise it doesn't bother me and I feel I'm doing more than enough. I also have the skills needed to contribute towards building the green revolutions.....unlike almost all environmental protestors I bump into.
This is far better than her pretending, at 18, to be a technical expert. She promotes for the techies, because that is what she can do best. My entire vocation has been as a conservation adviser to industry, and I can assure you that there's plenty of talent going to waste, because the people in charge only care about profits today, and are gambling away our futures.
It's not really better. If a public figure promotes then he/she needs to know the subject they promote inside out. The issue with not doing so that if someone doesn't know how to implement what they advocate, then how do they know what they advocate is possible in a reasonable time frame or at all? If someone like that has a massive following then that causes further problems of others believing a misleading ideal that can't meet their expectations (or at least fast enough) and when those people are prepared to cause endless disruption and protest that's when I have an issue.
07 Jan 2021, 1:35 pm
Nades wrote:
They do to an extent. It's just that if one becomes world famous for environmental activism and refuses to step out of the spotlight, then they need to answer questions that matter. Millions of people in the UK don't give a damn about building more wind farms, they worry about where to plug in their soon to be mandatory electric car when they live in flats and tower blocks. If she's become THIS famous and still voluntarily advocates for a green revolution then she should know her subject inside out and should be able to tell them. I also have an issue with advocating as hard as she does when she has no clue about the practicalities of what she's hawking.
What if the leadership can't find solutions and people like ER and Greta are still blocking the streets making demands that turn out to be impossible?
Use fact based solutions? Yes that's what I want, that's what we all want, but I can't help but feel she or anyone else like her knows what they are. If I start making demands to travel to the nearest star using "fact based solutions" and block roads with protests until a working starship is made, do I still have a democratic right to cause that much disruption when it's found a starship is 100 years from being built at best?
I think not, people like ER need the riot police to educate them unless they contribute more to their cause.
What if the leadership can't find solutions and people like ER and Greta are still blocking the streets making demands that turn out to be impossible?
Use fact based solutions? Yes that's what I want, that's what we all want, but I can't help but feel she or anyone else like her knows what they are. If I start making demands to travel to the nearest star using "fact based solutions" and block roads with protests until a working starship is made, do I still have a democratic right to cause that much disruption when it's found a starship is 100 years from being built at best?
I think not, people like ER need the riot police to educate them unless they contribute more to their cause.
??? Your mandatory electric cars was a law passed by your Parliament. Don't they have engineers?
07 Jan 2021, 1:44 pm
Personally, I think she is a nice kid. I think that she was used by people in the entertainment industry and politics.
I feel her suffering, and why she is angry with how irresponsible the human race are.
I think her emotional outbursts were powerful and did wake some people up.
But then she became yet another victim of the usual entertainment industry / journalism / political sociopath bullies,
who perhaps attacked her as they were jealous that she was getting too much attention, attention that they wanted and thought they deserved, along with all the power, wealth and other trappings that come along with the limelight if connected to one of the above mentioned industries.
07 Jan 2021, 1:49 pm
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
They do to an extent. It's just that if one becomes world famous for environmental activism and refuses to step out of the spotlight, then they need to answer questions that matter. Millions of people in the UK don't give a damn about building more wind farms, they worry about where to plug in their soon to be mandatory electric car when they live in flats and tower blocks. If she's become THIS famous and still voluntarily advocates for a green revolution then she should know her subject inside out and should be able to tell them. I also have an issue with advocating as hard as she does when she has no clue about the practicalities of what she's hawking.
What if the leadership can't find solutions and people like ER and Greta are still blocking the streets making demands that turn out to be impossible?
Use fact based solutions? Yes that's what I want, that's what we all want, but I can't help but feel she or anyone else like her knows what they are. If I start making demands to travel to the nearest star using "fact based solutions" and block roads with protests until a working starship is made, do I still have a democratic right to cause that much disruption when it's found a starship is 100 years from being built at best?
I think not, people like ER need the riot police to educate them unless they contribute more to their cause.
What if the leadership can't find solutions and people like ER and Greta are still blocking the streets making demands that turn out to be impossible?
Use fact based solutions? Yes that's what I want, that's what we all want, but I can't help but feel she or anyone else like her knows what they are. If I start making demands to travel to the nearest star using "fact based solutions" and block roads with protests until a working starship is made, do I still have a democratic right to cause that much disruption when it's found a starship is 100 years from being built at best?
I think not, people like ER need the riot police to educate them unless they contribute more to their cause.
??? Your mandatory electric cars was a law passed by your Parliament. Don't they have engineers?
They're banned from being sold past a certain date. I imagine it'll be some sort of offence to buy a new petrol/diesel past that date. Eventually all oil cars will break but I imagine laws will be implemented before then removing the remaining ones long before they break.
Either way, worrying quickly nobody will be able to have a petrol or diesel car and nothing whatsoever have been mentioned as to how they can all be charged or what happens to people like me who already works 55+ hour weeks and occasionally need to make a delivery hours away in a van. I already struggle with my workload, do I have to work even more punishing hours just to recharge a van to get home? Nobody has answered any questions yet, the streets are regularly blocked with environmental protestors and I'm getting worried.
I would prefer the people who actually know what they're doing (civil engineers, electrical engineers, draftsman, tradesmen and solicitors) to deal with the green revolution and the environmental numpties who block the streets in the process can be forcibly removed until we have the answers we need and know how to make the next step. Ideally less Greta too.
Last edited by Nades on 07 Jan 2021, 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dear_one
Veteran
Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,721
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines
07 Jan 2021, 1:52 pm
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
The issue is that she and others like her never answer questions that matter. They just say what needs to be done without actually saying how or even having the slightest interest in participating themselves. The most vocal usually have the most useless jobs and skills one can imagine at making the infrastructure needed to produce green energy so why take them seriously?
Last time I flew on a plane was 2016 for an hour each way. Before then was 2001 for an two hours each way. I drive a 1.2 litre petrol car and I only really drive to work and back and rarely venture out far in it. Diet wise it doesn't bother me and I feel I'm doing more than enough. I also have the skills needed to contribute towards building the green revolutions.....unlike almost all environmental protestors I bump into.
Last time I flew on a plane was 2016 for an hour each way. Before then was 2001 for an two hours each way. I drive a 1.2 litre petrol car and I only really drive to work and back and rarely venture out far in it. Diet wise it doesn't bother me and I feel I'm doing more than enough. I also have the skills needed to contribute towards building the green revolutions.....unlike almost all environmental protestors I bump into.
This is far better than her pretending, at 18, to be a technical expert. She promotes for the techies, because that is what she can do best. My entire vocation has been as a conservation adviser to industry, and I can assure you that there's plenty of talent going to waste, because the people in charge only care about profits today, and are gambling away our futures.
It's not really better. If a public figure promotes then he/she needs to know the subject they promote inside out. The issue with not doing so that if someone doesn't know how to implement what they advocate, then how do they know what they advocate is possible in a reasonable time frame or at all? If someone like that has a massive following then that causes further problems of others believing a misleading ideal that can't meet their expectations (or at least fast enough) and when those people are prepared to cause endless disruption and protest that's when I have an issue.
No, promotion and technical work are both specialties. You never see a company with an engineering and advertising department. The sales manager even has far less discretionary budget than the other VPs. Greta is only saying that we will really wish we had done better, and should get busy seeing how much we can save.
I'd like to point out that even the new technology that we are offered is still based on maximizing profits. There is no good excuse for a car to weigh more than it carries - all the excess is just what we are used to being sold.
