Greta

Jules

Super Anarchist
7,878
2,836
Punta Gorda
Honestly, her disability....is she somewhere on the Aspbergers continuum....it's probably doing her good.  She says what she means,  right in peoples face and doesn't really "get" that  they might not like it.  She's somewhat unable to waffle....she doesn't have have the empathy for it.   So...too f'ing bad.
I doubt it's a lack of empathy.  Probably more like she can't comprehend why people have to bullshit each other in order to communicate.  Just say what you mean. 

We are so delicate with each other, lest the fragile ego breaks.  Honesty, without an agenda, is a beautiful sail in warm tropical waters.

 

Left Shift

Super Anarchist
10,280
3,109
Seattle
What if problem C is the root cause for the severity of problems A & B and no one wants to talk about problem C.

No one has he guts to discuss problem C. Greta is just as bad as everyone else. Only Bindi Irwin has ever had the guts to bring up problem C 

Three+Wise+Monkeys+Hear+No+Evil+See+No+Evil+Speak+No+Evil+Body+Language+Nonverbal+Communication+Expert+Expert+Speaker+Speaker+Dr+Jack+Brown+Dr+Jack+Brown+Las+Vegas+Southern+California.jpg
Well, Bindi and you.  That's a start.

 

hoppy

Anarchist
567
155
Probably more like she can't comprehend why people have to bullshit each other in order to communicate.  Just say what you mean. 
She will never survive back in Sweden. It's the country where people are incapable of saying what they really think.

 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
28,412
3,839
When I want to understand climate science I always prefer a geologist. sigh. So much ignorance indeed.

 

Innocent Bystander

Super Anarchist
11,749
754
Lower Southern MD
Nothing will change, until we eliminate our pollution...

We are the only animal on the earth that doesn't live within the circle of life.
+1 
 Not necessarily true. 

Deer, for example, will breed and eat until they reach the stage of population collapse. Possibly (probably) human caused by limiting predation and improving habitat, current US deer population is estimated at 1,000 times the 1930 population. Plenty of examples in cutoff and protected populations of habitat impact, stunted growth and disease until the population collapses.  A couple of years ago, we lobbied for and succeeded in opening a local undeveloped park to controlled hunting due to overpopulation. Basically enough deer that undergrowth was disappearing, bird populations were dropping, erosion increasing, etc.  The deer were acting like humans and destroying their habitat with negative impacts on the land and a variety of wildlife, including themselves. First year of hunting limited to 5 hunters (now only) and less than 60% of the park took out 5 bucks and several dozen does (seasonal bag limits on bucks to focus on removing breeding females).  Underbrush is coming back and we expect (and hope) that bird population numbers and diversity will rebound.  Deer are still abundant but not as numerous.  

Basically, lots of food and limited predators resulted in overpopulation and habitat destruction.  My point being that animals, including humans, existing out of balance with the supporting resources will spread until they destroy their environment. Mother Nature has a solution but stunted growth from starvation, disease and population collapse aren’t pretty. 

 

3to1

Super Anarchist
2 hours ago, boatcat65 said:

We aren't going to change the totality of global warming by reducing man's CO2 emissions.  It's the sun, magnetic fields, cloud cover- all beyond our control and well documented as long term cycles in the historical temperature records.  Frankly, it never made sense.  CO2 represents just over half a percent of the atmosphere- and only a small fraction of that comes from mankind.  But it's the current vehicle for the left and their desired political change/redistribution.  So much ignorance, much of it willful.  And a lack of comprehension- computer models (the vast majority of which have failed) don't generate data or facts, only theories.  GIGO.  A bit hard to understand, but this is the only explanation currently supported by hard facts- real data, statistically significant relationships, and plausible causation relationships as opposed to simple correlation:  


your ignorance is glaring, you're brainwashed. fk, why not delete your post, it's ridiculously ass-backwards.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

3to1

Super Anarchist
 Not necessarily true. 

Deer, for example, will breed and eat until they reach the stage of population collapse. Possibly (probably) human caused by limiting predation and improving habitat, current US deer population is estimated at 1,000 times the 1930 population. Plenty of examples in cutoff and protected populations of habitat impact, stunted growth and disease until the population collapses.  A couple of years ago, we lobbied for and succeeded in opening a local undeveloped park to controlled hunting due to overpopulation. Basically enough deer that undergrowth was disappearing, bird populations were dropping, erosion increasing, etc.  The deer were acting like humans and destroying their habitat with negative impacts on the land and a variety of wildlife, including themselves. First year of hunting limited to 5 hunters (now only) and less than 60% of the park took out 5 bucks and several dozen does (seasonal bag limits on bucks to focus on removing breeding females).  Underbrush is coming back and we expect (and hope) that bird population numbers and diversity will rebound.  Deer are still abundant but not as numerous.  

Basically, lots of food and limited predators resulted in overpopulation and habitat destruction.  My point being that animals, including humans, existing out of balance with the supporting resources will spread until they destroy their environment. Mother Nature has a solution but stunted growth from starvation, disease and population collapse aren’t pretty. 
it's strange how so many overthink shit, like you're doing her, when it's largely irrelevant.

as a species, we fucked up, and it's entirely on us. the ball has always been in our court, and we need to make hard choices about how we live on this planet, because we're utterly killing it's biosphere all across the board at a feverish pace. imo, the prognosis is shitty, this beautiful miracle that is Earth is fucked for one reason, homo sapiens. shame on us.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alan H

Super Anarchist
3,234
630
SF Bay Area
The Guardian has.....they do this often.... an article about the best kids protest signs from around the UK.  I'm sorry but I pissed my pants laughing when I saw it.

activist.jpg

 
Last edited by a moderator:

random

Super Anarchist
6,057
365
haha, nope - just because I don't usually agree with you doesn't mean I won't follow you and try to understand your viewpoints.  random is a pita doing more harm than good.
You stay in your hot truck and discuss things politely, I can see how that fucker is turnin out.  Keep complaining and keep being nice but buy an emergency shelter for Xmas.

Anything, crude, annoying and crass, is better than the mediocrity you and many others on here persist with.  Permanent victims whining as the tide comes in and being nicy-nice to those who opened the flood gates.  Well fuck that.  I'm going down fighting.

What good are you doing in your vanilla cocoon?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

random

Super Anarchist
6,057
365
boatcat65 said:
We aren't going to change the totality of global warming by reducing man's CO2 emissions.  It's the sun, magnetic fields, cloud cover- all beyond our control and well documented as long term cycles in the historical temperature records.  Frankly, it never made sense.  CO2 represents just over half a percent of the atmosphere- and only a small fraction of that comes from mankind.  But it's the current vehicle for the left and their desired political change/redistribution.  So much ignorance, much of it willful.  And a lack of comprehension- computer models (the vast majority of which have failed) don't generate data or facts, only theories.  GIGO.  A bit hard to understand, but this is the only explanation currently supported by hard facts- real data, statistically significant relationships, and plausible causation relationships as opposed to simple correlation:  
Prof. Easterbrook was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) hosted by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. His presentation for the Institute was titled, "Global Warming Is Over: Geologic, Oceanographic, and Solar Evidence for Global Cooling in the Coming Decades." [1]

He "challenges the theory that the global warming of the past century was caused by human input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." Easterbrook's theory puts him at odds with a majority of the scientific community and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports have found that "[c]ontinued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming," and that the "best estimate" for the "low scenario" of temperature change in the next century is a "likely range" of an increase between "1.1 degrees Celsius to 2.9 degrees Celsius."

DON EASTERBROOK IS A SHILL CUNT!

But anyone who posts this shit is just a stupid cunt who knows fuck all about basic science or critical thinking.

In short, go fuck yourself you stupid stupid cunt.

 

random

Super Anarchist
6,057
365
Couple that with his 9/11 inside job crap and he could go away and we would all be better off. 
Funni as fuck Ranger, you accept the science of climate change yeah?  Scientists Right?

But when it comes to 9/11, you side with the same people who tell you climate change is a Chinese plot.

YCMTSU

 

Panoramix

Super Anarchist
12 hours ago, boatcat65 said:

We aren't going to change the totality of global warming by reducing man's CO2 emissions.  It's the sun, magnetic fields, cloud cover- all beyond our control and well documented as long term cycles in the historical temperature records.  Frankly, it never made sense.  CO2 represents just over half a percent of the atmosphere- and only a small fraction of that comes from mankind.  But it's the current vehicle for the left and their desired political change/redistribution.  So much ignorance, much of it willful.  And a lack of comprehension- computer models (the vast majority of which have failed) don't generate data or facts, only theories.  GIGO.  A bit hard to understand, but this is the only explanation currently supported by hard facts- real data, statistically significant relationships, and plausible causation relationships as opposed to simple correlation:  


Actually he is right about ionization, sun spots, the correlation between sun spots and global temperature, the medieval warm period, the little ice age etc...

He just conveniently forgets to mention one crucial point. At the moment we are going through a minimum number of sun spots thus the climate should be colder but yet it is warmer.... An honest scientist would try to understand the discrepancy and would consider CO2 as a possible explanation.

 

Rain Man

Super Anarchist
6,941
1,890
Wet coast.
WOULD SOMEONE GET THIS FUCKING THREAD OUT OF MY GODDAMN SAILING!
Well, that is exactly Greta's point.  Adults want to ignore the problem, so the kids have to show leadership and force them to take this seriously.  If you need some sort of motivation to get on board, think of it this way: she wants your great grandchildren to be able to go sailing too.  

So, to be blunt, this fucking thread is in your face because we adults have been ignoring the problem for so long.  Get over it.

 
Top