Greta Thumberg Schools UN on Extinction

BRACES of Bristol - Sauer 100 XTA Stainless Package
Apthorpe said:
s

I can argue that young people being interested and active in politics is a bad thing easily. Any young person on becoming interested in politics or the world is necessarily ignorant, by definition. The first thing an ignorant person should do is get educated well on the subject. The second thing they should do is get some experience. Deciding to avoid education and proceed directly to activism, is not only stupid but counterproductive. They don't understand the issues, they don't understand what they're demanding, they don't understand the consequences and they don't know how it compares to the alternatives in effect and damage.

That bit about the 4 meals rule....it's 9 meals from anarchy, and in a world that produces far too much food, and with constantly improving infrastructure has increasingly less relevance in those societies where we can keep the idiots and children away from running the asylum. In fact, the best way to increase those risks is to listen to the children and crackpots who are protesting with so much vigour and so little brain.

Market crashes and WW1 were not started by small things, they were caused by lengthy and massive buildups over years. London riots don't even belong on the same page and are insignificant and irrelevant.


The idea that we should accept that we must cut emissions while non-Western countries get to pollute more because they're developing later than us is also brainless. It depends on arguing that because we fueled our industrial revolution on coal, they ought to be allowed to as well. Firstly, it wasn't known that burning coal caused global harm when we industrialised, it is now. Developing countries are "developing" in economic terms, not mental terms. It's absurd and effectively racist to argue that because their urban and industrial development might be at the level we reached in say 1870, that they are ignorant of any common scientific knowledge acquired in the past 150 years. Once it becomes known that climate change is an urgent and existential threat, then they have the same responsibility to cut emissions as everyone else. It's actually easier for them to do it because they have the choice, rather than a mass of heavily embedded fossil fuel and old infrastructure.

Emotion is not a substitute for intelligence, reason and expertise. The sooner we stamp out the idea that it is, the sooner we can return to civilisation advancing rather than regressing as it currently is.
Click to expand...

I get where you are coming from but think you missed few of my points, agreeably probably not fully explained by myself.
I think calling all young people ignorant is ironically quite ignorant. Yes it would be great if every
Apthorpe said:
s

I can argue that young people being interested and active in politics is a bad thing easily. Any young person on becoming interested in politics or the world is necessarily ignorant, by definition. The first thing an ignorant person should do is get educated well on the subject. The second thing they should do is get some experience. Deciding to avoid education and proceed directly to activism, is not only stupid but counterproductive. They don't understand the issues, they don't understand what they're demanding, they don't understand the consequences and they don't know how it compares to the alternatives in effect and damage.

That bit about the 4 meals rule....it's 9 meals from anarchy, and in a world that produces far too much food, and with constantly improving infrastructure has increasingly less relevance in those societies where we can keep the idiots and children away from running the asylum. In fact, the best way to increase those risks is to listen to the children and crackpots who are protesting with so much vigour and so little brain.

Market crashes and WW1 were not started by small things, they were caused by lengthy and massive buildups over years. London riots don't even belong on the same page and are insignificant and irrelevant.


The idea that we should accept that we must cut emissions while non-Western countries get to pollute more because they're developing later than us is also brainless. It depends on arguing that because we fueled our industrial revolution on coal, they ought to be allowed to as well. Firstly, it wasn't known that burning coal caused global harm when we industrialised, it is now. Developing countries are "developing" in economic terms, not mental terms. It's absurd and effectively racist to argue that because their urban and industrial development might be at the level we reached in say 1870, that they are ignorant of any common scientific knowledge acquired in the past 150 years. Once it becomes known that climate change is an urgent and existential threat, then they have the same responsibility to cut emissions as everyone else. It's actually easier for them to do it because they have the choice, rather than a mass of heavily embedded fossil fuel and old infrastructure.

Emotion is not a substitute for intelligence, reason and expertise. The sooner we stamp out the idea that it is, the sooner we can return to civilisation advancing rather than regressing as it currently is.
Click to expand...

Right. I’ll try and answer this without tangling myself up.

Children are ignorant so shouldn’t have a say - firstly I’m not saying every single one of the protestors is there for good reason, I needed very little reason to bunk off on a Friday. But I think they have grasped what the vast majority of scientists are saying. They aren’t saying listen to us. They are saying listen to the scientists. Your point that people wishing to vote/influence/have a view on matters must go and educate themselves is of course correct. Although i can’t get my head round quite how you think you can only have an opinion after becoming an expert. Yet again they point leaders to look to scientists not themselves a bunch of children. Have you met the average cabinet minister? Hardly the expert in their field to say the least.

Some say 4 some say 9. Not too much difference really. Food Yields have stagnated for decades. The distribution of food is unfair. But still We are having to walk the tightrope between producing more with less ( see phosphorus shortage, land etc) we cant support that many people. And population control is as unpopular as a fart in a lift and a pretty hard sell.

My point of ww1, market crashes, riots was that war financial meltdown and civil unrest all whilst bubbling under the service and a cosmically small event tipped it.

By no way was I saying developing countries shouldn’t develop or should be exempt from efforts. In fact i thought I said we should help then to turn away from dirty coal and fossil fuels (world leaders should lead I think I said roughly)

When climate change is a threat is now!
 
Latest IPCC report estimates deaths from climate change to reach about 1.5m by 2050 I think, mostly in the developing world, if we do nothing. Cost to do something is in the trillions.

Current deaths from diabetes are about 1.6m. We plan to spend far less than 1% of the amount spent on climate change dealing with this.

Why the disparity? Well, the “solutions” the likes of Greta want to implement coincide with far-left thinking (massive limitations of human activities, the rich, excess government control and regulation of business etc). They conveniently ignore the real drivers of climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution, which are the increasing population and the development spike in e.g Africa and Asia, because it is anathema to their politics.

All this tells you the climate change hysteria is probably mostly driven by the far-left who have found an excuse to implement the policies previously rejected by western nations. And funnily enough, the people most enthused by these ideas are...the far left.
 


I got a tenner says this idiot isn't free of medication, or mind altering substances. he even Hints about depression, this has to be up there with flat earth theories, and he seems to be somewhat confused about climate and politics.
the world will burn, 6 billion people will die, mass starvation. I used to hear this in london in the 50,s being out with my grand father, he used to ignore them, I guess when you've seen your mates die by the score from bullets and mustard gas, some bellend ranting bollox is pretty much a non event.
 
This guy keeps talking about capitalism, starvation and the reason for society imminent demise due to man made climate change. However last time I checked more people died from starvation letting the communists allocate resources (tens of millions). And even then the human race soldered on.
 
tikka_madras said:
Latest IPCC report estimates deaths from climate change to reach about 1.5m by 2050 I think, mostly in the developing world, if we do nothing. Cost to do something is in the trillions.

Current deaths from diabetes are about 1.6m. We plan to spend far less than 1% of the amount spent on climate change dealing with this.

Why the disparity? Well, the “solutions” the likes of Greta want to implement coincide with far-left thinking (massive limitations of human activities, the rich, excess government control and regulation of business etc). They conveniently ignore the real drivers of climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution, which are the increasing population and the development spike in e.g Africa and Asia, because it is anathema to their politics.

All this tells you the climate change hysteria is probably mostly driven by the far-left who have found an excuse to implement the policies previously rejected by western nations. And funnily enough, the people most enthused by these ideas are...the far left.
Click to expand...

1.5M out of 7.7B? Not a very high percentage really is it?
 
Sterry said:
When climate change is a threat is now!
Click to expand...

Used to be called global warming. If we can agree that the earth's weather is not evenly distributed, then which actual economy seems to be threatened by climate change and which economy could be improved by climate change?
 
Sterry said:
I get where you are coming from but think you missed few of my points, agreeably probably not fully explained by myself.
I think calling all young people ignorant is ironically quite ignorant. Yes it would be great if every


Right. I’ll try and answer this without tangling myself up.

Children are ignorant so shouldn’t have a say - firstly I’m not saying every single one of the protestors is there for good reason, I needed very little reason to bunk off on a Friday. But I think they have grasped what the vast majority of scientists are saying. They aren’t saying listen to us. They are saying listen to the scientists. Your point that people wishing to vote/influence/have a view on matters must go and educate themselves is of course correct. Although i can’t get my head round quite how you think you can only have an opinion after becoming an expert. Yet again they point leaders to look to scientists not themselves a bunch of children. Have you met the average cabinet minister? Hardly the expert in their field to say the least.

Some say 4 some say 9. Not too much difference really. Food Yields have stagnated for decades. The distribution of food is unfair. But still We are having to walk the tightrope between producing more with less ( see phosphorus shortage, land etc) we cant support that many people. And population control is as unpopular as a fart in a lift and a pretty hard sell.

My point of ww1, market crashes, riots was that war financial meltdown and civil unrest all whilst bubbling under the service and a cosmically small event tipped it.

By no way was I saying developing countries shouldn’t develop or should be exempt from efforts. In fact i thought I said we should help then to turn away from dirty coal and fossil fuels (world leaders should lead I think I said roughly)

When climate change is a threat is now!
Click to expand...

My point about the ignorance of children, and indeed adults, is not that they're not fully entitled to have an opinion, but that they're not entitled to seek to force their opinion on everyone else outside the normal democratic channels. The best way to effect change is to either do something worthwhile oneself or to become expert enough to develop potential solutions. By encouraging opting out of education in favour of haranguing people is neither intelligent nor helpful in achieving their aims. And let's not forget that their aims are everybody's aims. They're not telling us anything new. All they're telling us is that this single issue is more important than anything else, and that we should take a radical course of action that hugely increases the risk of running into anarchy according the few meals hypothesis you mentioned.
I have emailed Extinction Rebellion to clarify a number of the most obvious questions and received a nice, but short email back from an Oxford-educated activist that revealed absolutely no intelligence whatsoever, no inkling of having spent even 5 minutes thinking about the issue herself, and that the movement in fact had nothing whatsoever to offer - other than an ill-informed criticism of renewable subsidies in the UK. What is the point in these cretins protesting if even the most highly-educated section of their movement don't have a clue? How is anyone to satisfy them?

Let us also not forget the long history of deranged and actually harmful decision-making by the environmental lobby. They're not experts, they're idiots - "useful" idiots in many cases - and they don't have any answers. Yet another manifestation of the recent insistence that emotion should trump reason, indignation trump fact, protest trump democracy. A high proportion are as keen on attacking capitalism as anything else - which only goes to show how dangerously wrong they are.
 
more clowns for the circus.


I'm not even certain what that is on the right.
it looks like a weird head photo shopped onto some kind of inflatable suit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm uncomfortable with the concept young people have nothing important to say and can't be believed. Its exactly this mindset that played a large part in the silence around the crimes of Jimmy Savile.

K
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Supporter
Replies
5
Views
252
JonR
J
Muntjac Deer Eating Our Turtle Doves to Extinction
Replies
16
Views
1K
Buchan
B
Nature Day for West Sussex primary schools
Replies
2
Views
691
Ronin
Ronin
Pricing people (especially youngsters) out
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
slider
slider
Sling stud removal, help
Replies
5
Views
427
Tikkat1x
Tikkat1x
Game Larder - Your reliable choice for Game Larder solutions - www.gamelarder.com
Back
Top