Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

[Bluespunk]

Just now, DrTuner said:

Well... it is to man made climate change. No humans, no man made climate change. Unless you're saying climate is changing without the actions of humans, yup, there I agree 100%.

I added more to my post.

 

Included here.

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

You say pay them, what happens when enough people don't volunteer...forced sterilization next.

 

Who then chooses who gets sterilized?

 

What criteria is to be used?

 

[DrTuner]

Ah ok, what criteria is used if voluntary sterilization does not work, same as usual: Survival of the fittest (as in the meanest with the best weapons). It'll be ugly.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and replies reported and removed.  

 

[sunnyboy2018]

15 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

What do “corporations” stand to gain?
 

 

The big energy companies will get billions in grants, loans  subsidies and other funding to go green. The tax payers will pay of course. This is the true subtext of the Thunberg hysteria.

[Bluespunk]

25 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Ah ok, what criteria is used if voluntary sterilization does not work, same as usual: Survival of the fittest (as in the meanest with the best weapons). It'll be ugly.

So the same end result as the eugenics movement.

[DrTuner]

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

So the same end result as the eugenics movement.

Maybe. Depends on who's the last man standing. Last time around the allies managed to win. There is one thing that does sound legit: the fourth WW will be fought with sticks and stones.

[Tippaporn]

I haven't followed this thread but I firmly believe in climate change hoax.  At the rate the hoax is rising we are dangerously close to being inundated by BS.  Climate change hoax is serious and people and governments must do something to stop it or we are doomed to be forced to accept sheer propaganda with no turning back.

 

I found this interesting vid of a guy who has created software where you can take any data point and move the start date of the data to produce an upward slope which the climate change hoaxers would have you believe.  Very interesting.

 

Maybe someone else has already posted this but I ain't going through 85 pages to see if someone did.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Lol, i was kidding of course, and i also think that a one world, socialist government could be a necessary evil, if we want to save the planet.

I'll let you expand on that, if you wish so, the very thought of it makes me scared.

If the climate warriors are right and the sky falls, the surviving peoples will welcome any semblance of a government that will save them. However, they should be careful of what they wish for. The Nazis were elected to stop the chaos and look what they did.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, DrTuner said:

I think Greta is the last and only hope for democracy (ironically, as she's an anarchist), people need to be scared <deleted>less to start educating themselves (and to start suspecting the CO2 is just a money grab, far more pressing issues are at hand) and vote for the hard decisions to be made. Otherwise, yes it's socialism here we come again, I think I'll need to start studying the little red book on how to become the cadre of all cadres, it's good up there, but only up there. The one child policy and the existence of only one kind of telephone in DDR are examples where socialism/communism works, but the rest of it is far too high a price to pay.

 

In other words, we're doomed.

We agree. I don't think we are doomed because the 3% of man made CO2 in the atmosphere ( apparently 97 % of atmospheric CO2 is of natural origin ) is going to kill us, but we've been around for about 50,000 years, and it only took us the last 200 years to pollute the planet to the point of human extinction. The faster the population grows, the faster we reach extinction point, and the only thing governments are talking about is banning plastic bags in supermarkets and making us drive electric cars that are highly polluting to make and power. Oh, and erecting loads of bird killing windmills as well.

 

Gaia may have a solution, but I don't imagine it will be human friendly.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I'm also quite perplexed by the media farce, i stopped watching TV about 40 yrs ago btw.

But that's not Greta's fault.

It's obvious that the little girl is being used in some way, yet i prefer to look at the positive side of things.

Monty Python said it best.

Always look on the bright side of life.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I haven't followed this thread but I firmly believe in climate change hoax.  At the rate the hoax is rising we are dangerously close to being inundated by BS.  Climate change hoax is serious and people and governments must do something to stop it or we are doomed to be forced to accept sheer propaganda with no turning back.

 

I found this interesting vid of a guy who has created software where you can take any data point and move the start date of the data to produce an upward slope which the climate change hoaxers would have you believe.  Very interesting.

 

Maybe someone else has already posted this but I ain't going through 85 pages to see if someone did.

 

 

 

As is evident on other topics, you're rather keen on firmly believing a lot of conspiracy and nonsense views. Also not much discretion as to the credibility of where these come from. For example Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard). Quite a few instances of making bold allegations and claims, only for them to be debunked and/or retracted.

 

Steven Goddard

https://en.everybodywiki.com/Steven_Goddard

 

A new Olympic record for retraction of a denier talking point

https://thinkprogress.org/a-new-olympic-record-for-retraction-of-a-denier-talking-point-aa88ac3a7ae1/

 

 

 

[RideJocky]

We agree. I don't think we are doomed because the 3% of man made CO2 in the atmosphere ( apparently 97 % of atmospheric CO2 is of natural origin ) is going to kill us, but we've been around for about 50,000 years, and it only took us the last 200 years to pollute the planet to the point of human extinction. The faster the population grows, the faster we reach extinction point...

So how many billion people does it take to become extinct?

I would think we would need fewer people (like zero?) to be extinct, no?

[RideJocky]

The big energy companies will get billions in grants, loans  subsidies and other funding to go green. The tax payers will pay of course. This is the true subtext of the Thunberg hysteria.

I agree, but my question had to do with how the evil corporations benefit from funding “denier” research, not how the benefit from “true believer” research.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, samran said:

 What, aboriginal land most likely - or don't they count? Nice that you want to plonk it right next to the great artesian basin. Farmers will love you. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/water/gab-map.pdf

 

There's a lot of land in the middle of Australia and it can't all be an artesian basin.

There's loads of people in the world that always come up with a reason for us not to do something, and if they'd been successful we'd still be living in caves and drawing on the walls with a stick because it would be a bad idea to live outside and farm the land.

The world we live in was created by the can do people disregarding the can't do people, and I'm grateful to them, that I don't have to live in a cave.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

We agree. I don't think we are doomed because the 3% of man made CO2 in the atmosphere is going to kill us, but we've been around for about 50,000 years, and it only took us the last 200 years to pollute the planet to the point of human extinction. The faster the population grows, the faster we reach extinction point, and the only thing governments are talking about is banning plastic bags in supermarkets and making us drive electric cars that are highly polluting to make and power. Oh, and erecting loads of bird killing windmills as well.

 

Gaia may have a solution, but I don't imagine it will be human friendly.

Once again you’ve got your blinkers on and your narrow view ensues.

 

Governments are engaged in a wide platform of programs to tackle all forms of pollution and reducing population growth.

 

Unfortunately the current US administration and for too long the US Christian rightwing have actively undermined efforts to provide access to reproductive health services, contraception and reproductive health education.

 

 It it’s not just the rightwing in the US that are getting in the way of government efforts to deal with over population. Comments demanding the UK end overseas aid are common enough here on TVF and a central plank of the UK’s rightwing nationalists  - and yet hundreds of millions of pounds of that aid goes towards providing access to contraception and reproductive health education.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/women-and-girls/uk-announce-600m-aid-family-planning-us-ramps-anti-abortion/

[Chomper Higgot]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the climate warriors are right and the sky falls, the surviving peoples will welcome any semblance of a government that will save them. However, they should be careful of what they wish for. The Nazis were elected to stop the chaos and look what they did.

And you now introduce the Nazis.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

So how many billion people does it take to become extinct?

I would think we would need fewer people (like zero?) to be extinct, no?

 

Yes, and we are heading that way if we don't stop polluting the environment, abusing antibiotics, and limit the population at a sustainable level.

The dinosaurs didn't destroy their environment and how many of them are there today? Species get extinct, one way or another, but humans seem to have chosen the self inflicted version.

[mauGR1]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Monty Python said it best.

Always look on the bright side of life.

Yep. Living in fear and despair looks worse than not living at all.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again you’ve got your blinkers on and your narrow view ensues.

 

Governments are engaged in a wide platform of programs to tackle all forms of pollution and reducing population growth.

 

Unfortunately the current US administration and for too long the US Christian rightwing have actively undermined efforts to provide access to reproductive health services, contraception and reproductive health education.

 

 It it’s not just the rightwing in the US that are getting in the way of government efforts to deal with over population. Comments demanding the UK end overseas aid are common enough here on TVF and a central plank of the UK’s rightwing nationalists  - and yet hundreds of millions of pounds of that aid goes towards providing access to contraception and reproductive health education.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/women-and-girls/uk-announce-600m-aid-family-planning-us-ramps-anti-abortion/

As long as governments pay people to reproduce they are not committed to population reduction, whatever lip service they give to doing it in other countries.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, and we are heading that way if we don't stop polluting the environment, abusing antibiotics, and limit the population at a sustainable level.

The dinosaurs didn't destroy their environment and how many of them are there today? Species get extinct, one way or another, but humans seem to have chosen the self inflicted version.

The dinosaur are all around us.

 

We call them birds.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As long as governments pay people to reproduce they are not committed to population reduction, whatever lip service they give to doing it in other countries.

So which governments pay people to reproduce?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

and yet hundreds of millions of pounds of that aid goes towards providing access to contraception and reproductive health education.

Given the failure of population limitation in certain countries, that seems like wasted money.

Better spent on reducing waste and man made pollution.

[mauGR1]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the climate warriors are right and the sky falls, the surviving peoples will welcome any semblance of a government that will save them. However, they should be careful of what they wish for. The Nazis were elected to stop the chaos and look what they did.

Apparently, when the people are desperate are easier to manipulate, so let's not carried away by scenarios of doom and gloom.

Not everything is lost.

I hope that, besides developing 'cleaner' sources of energy and reducing the plastic waste, we can also learn to live with less, and develop a spirit of cooperation among humans and nations.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As long as governments pay people to reproduce they are not committed to population reduction, whatever lip service they give to doing it in other countries.

Come on TBL, you’ve made a claim, back it up:

 

So which governments pay people to reproduce?

[VocalNeal]

My opinion is that the plastic is the worse. PM2.5 will eventually settle due to gravity but plastic ends up in the oceans and stays there.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The fact they abandoned it is ample proof it didn't work.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy

 

Now again, how would you choose who is allowed to have children?

I was under the impression it worked too well and the Chinese government was worried the population would fall too far.

Otherwise they could have stopped it for political reasons. I wasn't in the room when they made the decision to know for sure.

 

You didn't read what I wrote did you? I said everyone should be sterilized after having ONE child. Where's the choice in that?

 

BTW, I'm still waiting for your solutions to the problem.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Come on TBL, you’ve made a claim, back it up:

 

So which governments pay people to reproduce?

I can see baiting when it's so obvious.

[SteveK]

On 9/24/2019 at 6:52 AM, RickBradford said:

Greta Thunberg is the perfect spokesperson for the modern "progressive" Green/Left.

 

Completely ignorant, yet totally convinced she is right. No wonder they all fawn over her.

She gets right on my t*ts. She can't answer a straight question on her own, and is clearly being used as a pawn to further the loony left views of her parents.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I hope that, besides developing 'cleaner' sources of energy and reducing the plastic waste, we can also learn to live with less, and develop a spirit of cooperation among humans and nations.

Alas, our entire way of life is built on consumerism, and consumerism is built on waste and obsolescence. Entire communities in poor countries like Bangladesh live on the proceeds of western women throwing away last years fashions and buying new, despite the old clothes being perfectly good.

 

The UN was formed to create co operation among humans and nations- how's it working out?

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, SteveK said:

She gets right on my t*ts. She can't answer a straight question on her own, and is clearly being used as a pawn to further the loony left views of her parents.

Not just her parents are using her as a human shield. 

 

If you look at the career path and affiliations of Greta’s two main handlers, Jennifer Morgan and Luisa-Marie Neubauer, you will see some very familiar names and companies pop up.

 

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02/24/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-a-decade-of-social-manipulation-for-the-corporate-capture-of-nature-crescendo/?fbclid=IwAR37P-QXqhAzs3kf2qr-Efu0N_tcOxQjgnD90RN-jPXo7SysIlNxAt6-8yI