Climate Activist Greta

Gonna need to elaborate about this supposed history where government is out of the picture where we ran out of something related to oil.

 

Yes matter can neither be created or destroyed. However matter can change. For instance apply enough heat to gasoline and it no longer is gasoline and it may become smog. If one combines all the elements in gasoline one does not necessarily have gasoline.
One of the parts of matter is stored energy. This can be released as heat. Heat warms things.

 

I notice that the go to argument for many of you is to continue to attack those that don't agree with you instead of addressing the issue.

 

With regard to the bolded part: Which are those processes? What are their energy densities compared to oil? What is their energy return on energy invested? How will that transition differ from previous transitions of energy sources? Be specific.

 

You're confusing consent and decision. A 15 yr old can absolutely make the decision to go on a national stage. Parents authorizing said 15 yr old to go on said stage is different

 

No they can't.

That's why the law requires the parent make the decision for them.

 

Clearly a pawn by the liberals. Pawns are also known as useful idiots. It's the liberals MO.

 

Insecurity issues?

 

Yes it is an exothermic reaction that produces heat CO2 and WAter vapor, Catalytic converters have reduced co2 out put by utilizing the heat of the reaction. Technology just keeps getting better and better.

 

All good question with solutions we will discover in time. Once the price of oil rises beyond a certain level the very capitalist system people on the left are constantly condemning will begin put money into finding the answers to those question.

 

Catalytic converters reduce CO (carbon monoxide) output of cars, not the output of CO2.

 

My bad.

 

https://reason.com/2019/09/20/capitalism-is-the-key-to-fixing-climate-change/
https://reason.com/2019/09/24/think...-the-rise-of-greta-thunberg-environmentalism/
"
There are only better and worse ways to deal with coming changes. Contra Thunberg, the better ways don't demonize economic growth as a problem but as a solution. "The most inexorable feature of climate-change modeling isn't the advance of the sea but the steady economic growth that will make life better despite global warming," writes science journalist Will Boisvert. The environmental Kuznets curve, by which countries get wealthier and their citizens demand a cleaner environment, is the rule, not the exception. Such a dynamic is predicated upon economic and technological innovation that would be almost impossible under the sort of regulations promulgated by Green New Dealers and activists such as Thunberg and Naomi Klein, who wants to "decimate the entire neoliberal project" in the name of environmentalism. Environmental commons tend to deteriorate as countries begin to develop economically—but once per-capita income reaches a certain level, the public starts to demand a cleanup. It's a U-shaped pattern: Economic growth initially hurts the environment, Bailey reminds us,

but after a point it makes things cleaner. By then, slowing or stopping economic growth will delay environmental improvement, including efforts to mitigate the problem of man-made global warming.

Greta Thunberg's histrionics are likely heartfelt but neither they nor the deplorable responses they conjure are a guide forward to good environmental policy in a world that is getting richer every day. For the first time in human history, half the earth's population is middle class or wealthier and the rate of deaths from natural disasters is well below what it was even a few decades ago. Protecting all that is just as important as protecting the environment and, more importantly, those two goals are hardly mutually exclusive."


https://reason.com/2018/03/12/climate-change-problems-will-be-solved-t/

You might want to rethink the whole market forces don't do crap thing.

 

At some point, don't liberals feel that it is just a tad exploitational of them to introduce a teenager as a credible voice? It seems to me that our liberal friends have, for years, told us that anyone under the age of 27 can't function as an adult, nor should we treat them as such. So, given that, what is their excuse here? Or did they simply find someone with enough margins or protected statuses to exploit here so anyone criticizing this child was seen as an ogre for having done it?

I suggest that it is the AGW ministry that has presented the acolyte here for slaughter in the media to shield themselves from the mounting criticisms of their religious intolerance these days....

 

Actual doctors she and her parents selected. She herself touts these diagnoses ffs.

She has a rather extreme convergence of disorders, such that she was so anxious about the climate she could not speak ffs.
They then took this child, who has 1) aspergers which prevents her from reading the same social cues we all do, making it extremely difficult for her to tell when she's being lied to or otherwise manipulated, and which generally causes the persons afflicted with it to become ostracized in numerous ways such that giving them ANY attention at all can be a serious pull on them that they lack the tools to examine critically, 2) has OCD and Anxiety disorders making her entirely obsessed with this issue, and completely irrational about it as only someone in the grips of a panic attack based in fear (which she readily agrees she is, see her speech) can be, and stuck her on the world stage with a script to read from (and you can watch her do it ffs, its total cringe from a rhetoric standpoint) in front of a bunch of people who absolutely don't give a **** what she thinks or says because she's a) female b) a child and c) mentally disabled and having a meltdown on stage (remember, the UN is mostly made up of non-western nations who don't often put much value if any in such persons and don't ****ing care what they think. They doubly don't care to be berated by a white girl on the autism spectrum reading from a script. ).


Its not right. They're literally using that poor disabled girl as a human shield.

 

Problem is most of the criticisms I have seen were not based on the actual substance of the child's speech but the child themselves (whether it be their character, genetic makeup, personal issues whathaveyou, which is not only sick but a general fallacy of reasoning). I really couldn't care less about treating her as an adult. What did she say and was it reasonable?

 

Now apparently not only does she have a mental disorder (apparently), but she's also disabled. Intriguing.

 

Ok, I can refute the entirety of the childs speech. There is zero evidence that is quantifiable that man has any substantive effect on a climate that is changing naturally, and there are zero proofs that anyone can point to to demonstrate what, if any effect our output is having. Zero.

So, if that is the case, and then science supports this position, are you now going to claim that science isn't the answer, and that instead, we should simply ignore the natural world in favor of artificial financial and political exploitation instead? How do you suppose that is better?

The unfortunate truth here is that none of the prescriptive measures either advance, or improve the outcomes be they those articulated in the NDPs new GreenDeal efforts, or those of the Carbon Markets folks. All of these prescriptive measures only codify a future revenue stream for those who are too lazy to generate one for themselves in the market and are going to rely instead of government to both create and then enforce it. We've seen this movie before, it always ends in the wreckage of evil intent and greed. The AGW faithful here, while perhaps entirely heartfelt, are simply misled, misguided deniers of science themselves.

 

Nutism can't be cured.

 

She is a minor child. If her parents are against her being there, why is the UN exploiting this little girl against the wishes of her parents? Oh yeah, cuz the UN wants the money and power that comes with this hoax, and it's exploitation of the people as useful pawns and idiots.

 

No they are not. If they were she wouldn't be doing it. I didn't see anywhere that she is emaciated from them, so they are her parents still, from whom she needs parental permissions. Worried about her? No. They pushed her in front of a crazy train.

She is obviously being coached and financed. Clearly this is political. The left is trotting out children because they are hard to attack.

Just as a pro boxer wouldn't raise a glove to a teen thrown in the ring, so her handlers imagine she will be coddled and gain sympathy votes if anyone does say so much as a disparaging word about her. She wins by default , a hollow victory that won't make a bit of difference to the environment.

I don't think a 'diagnosis' should be used to limit potential. If it does then we are all in big trouble because this entire generation seems to have one. (I've even heard them referred to as the, "I want to die generation'). Mental health issues are very trendy these days.

However, in this case, I think they absolutely are using that angle themselves. You would have to be not just heartlessly opposing a teen, but Evil enough to oppose a mentally challenged teen!

This entire thing is a dishonest, manipulative, ploy. The timing alone speaks to that. Next they'll Trott out a kid in a wheel chair. meh

I'm stunned at the amount of people that are eating this crap up. It's really sad.

Is she another David Hogg? Yes. Absolutely she is. Very similar parental dynamics and framework at play.

 

Hey, I don't want my son to play football. Guess what, he plays football. Children are not one's possession, they have their own will and mind, you know?

Here is from wikipedia:

"For about two years, Thunberg challenged her parents to lower the family's carbon footprint by becoming vegan and giving up flying, which in part meant her mother had to give up her international career as an opera singer.[9][14] Thunberg credits her parents' eventual response and lifestyle changes with giving her hope and belief that she could make a difference.[9] The family story is recounted in the 2018 book Scenes from the Heart.[15]"

It seems like she pushed her parents, not the other way around. She also started demonstrating at an early age -- in Sweden. I guess that was all caused by the Democrats who coach and finance her? Or could it be that you are just using that stick to discredit her?

 

Ultimately, you had to sign those parental permission forms. So later if he has CTE you don't get to go, "Well he wanted to play ".

That's your decision. My nephew's parents are the same. They don't want him to play, yet he does, and they've already dealt with a couple of concussions that he's had. And no. I don't get it.

 

Her mother is politically active in support of the Paris Agreement and she and her husband co-wrote a book about their family, the environmental crisis and sustainability.