Mainly a onwatcher on what I see on the social media, but my only wonder is why not just spare the resources to cleaning/fixing things. Theres plenty of people who could use a job and hands to spare, money most are doing nothing with but letting it sit there. Seems like everyone rather just do nothing.

Tis scary though that a child has to step up for the role

*slowly fades back into the shadows and searches for his 10' pole*

Honestly the world goes through these cycles of change regularly but ppl just don't research this. And also the average temperature change per year can also be attributed to the amount of concrete in those areas since concrete naturally absorbs heat to a point and keeps it and most recording stations are in citys. Now not to say humans trash the environment but if it truly gets to bad the planet will go through it cycle every fue mellenia and just create another ice age and start over like it has many times before

Humans have a tendency to want to fix things only once it's too late.

True but some things truly can't be fixed cause once it was started it won't stop with the improvement of society things were sacrificed and now the average person will not be willing to give up those conveniences even if it is needed. Not to mention the mind set of why should I sacrifice when they don't. It's just now human nature to rebel against forces change that makes them sacrifice pleasures of easy

I've researched. The natural cycles of temperature changes are usually counted in several centuries. We've had extreme changes in 50 years, and it's accelerating. That's not nature. And it's not just concrete. As someone below says, some people can't conceive of having to change their comfortable lives (who are in a small minority among the 7+ billion humans) and they will latch on to any theory that can help them avoid change, no matter how disproven they are. Change will come anyway, but voluntary seems so much harder than through disaster. Honestly, so many want disaster that they won't do anything to stop it - when an effort is made that does avert disaster, people are at first disappointed, then actually start thinking there was no threat of disaster (see Y2K efforts that did actually stop major problems, and the host of minor problems never made the news but still happened).

I definitely think we're killing the planet. The earth is a resilient sucker, and after a long while I'm sure it would recover, but I think that the way we're going, I can see us easily losing 90% of what we've got.

As for whether we're on the brink, I think yes. We have a bunch of regulations in place to protect the environment and climate, but as we've seen it doesn't take much for someone to repeal those. I think what people don't realize is how little else needs to go wrong for us to be screwed over in a very big way.

She brought up a lot of interesting points. However, and this is a big however, people are against her for the fact she is aligned with Antifa, or that's what people think. Hard to tell with all the false news going around. If she wasn't wearing an Antifa shirt though, people may agree with her. ~M

I don't really care what logos or themes people wear. I'm sure her mom picks out her clothes anyway!

That is possible. lol ~M

Never to young to get active in politics, she has a vested interest in her own future. Who are we to tell her no she can't voice her worries and desires. Age does not invalidate this.

Besides, its always nice seeing politicians squirm. It would be bad form for them to attack her verbally and watching those subtle little sighs of discomfort brought a smile to my lips.

They may not be attacking her verbally, but surely online!

Nicely said!

Well I know I'm gonna get un-personed even MOAR for this but, honestly She doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

She's too young to know what the fuck she's talking about and she's just being used as a mouth piece for gullible soccer mom's who love to think they know everything about the world but they don't have the capacity to even correctly assess what they don't know. Leading to a cascade Dunning-Kruger effect.

The climate naturally changes, modifying the climate is alright, we're eventually going to have to do it, we're already trying with floods and adjust for it like tornado seasons in certain areas of the US. but radically changing our or anyone's economy for some quite frankly cult-like idea is plain insanity. Especially when every climate model we're presented seems to be wrong, every single time.

I'm also wondering why greta is avoiding china and india, places that don't have reliable HVAC for their civilian population, which leads them to burning coal, to stay warm, which pollutes the atmosphere. These two places combined have the highest population on earth. And greta... seems to think this is fine. Even though bejing last anyone checked, is a clouded hell-scape.

Well said.

Well I saw a video about it that was interesting: https://youtu.be/JvezZrd79W4

id rather she tell me numbers facts etc rather then yelling and crying. sure i can search them up and im aware of the current issue but im not going to bend my self over for a crying teenager who's brain cant comprehend basic life issues. i can see shes very devoted....but how much is her and how much is something else? aswell its fact she does not understand everything she is saying. by the basis of my statement earlier. her brain is not developed enough to think properly. if everyone was shown numbers, statistical facts, and research. it be better.

I'm by no means a "Greta expert" but i can't imagine she comes up with every script on her own. Her little face is like glued to those scripts, so it would seem that she didn't write any of it.

It could also be a trick to use younger people in the fight against world leaders since everybody loves kids, right?
We're just forgetting that world leaders have no heart.

see thats where im.....kinda not. with her whole thing. like im for helping our planet and shit cause i know we hurt it so bad. im just not with her. shes not a face of something i want any part of nor believe in. im 90% sure shes being used cause "look kids crying gotta coddle it".

The numbers, facts, and figures have been published for a couple decades now. No one is paying them any attention.

Look back to her first address: she basically said “I’m not here to talk, I’m here to push people to LISTEN to the science”, and attached the scientific report as her ‘testimony’.

It’s all there, people just need to READ IT. That is all Greta is trying to do.

see ive read it. and its the same thing ive known. but its not bolstered. the whole point of her being there was to speak and say everything she "believes and knows" but she didnt do that she just as stated, yelled and cried. Handing in a "scientific report for testimony" doesent mean anything. if she had stated things from that instead of what she did. id still be wary of if that info was really her's or is she just used as a face for guilt trip but i atleast would have the feel of. well at least she said something, she stated facts you can back up. her handing it in only tells me she doesent know what shes doing and she doesent understand whats happening.

See my reply below.

saying hurricanes occuring in areas where hurricanes are common.........that tells me nothing

Re-read what I said. Hurricanes are occurring where they haven’t in over a hundred years.

that child is a disturbed little victim of cultist psychological abuse.

we are not killing the planet, anyone that thinks we are needs to learn what a GRB is.
even if the observed climate change is being influenced by our actions there are specific actions that we will need to take anyway

use of modern nuclear facilities for bath power and desalination of fresh water. neither of which can of will ever be achieved by wined power, and wont be achieved by solar until we have significant orbital infrastructure
use of wide scale hydroponic farms to allow reforestation and water conservation as well as protection of natural waterways. -current tech
use of dedicated cattle farm buildings, much like hydroponic farms, that separate methane gas for use as renewable biofuel. -current tech
use of arcology urban planning to make cities more self sufficient -material science isnt quite there yet, but initial planing guidelines could have been started in the 80s
(and the very simplest one of all)#
stop creating new buildings on land we know will be lost to flooding. be that sea level rise or extreme rain. since this is just making inevitable population displacment worse.

the earth is in a constant rolling cycle of extinction events, going the route of evil scum, like those behind greta, and casually advocating the slaughter of 4 billion people, the typical "herp derp thers too any people" argument, is assinine and malicious.

regardless of her age, she does not have the experiance or level head needed for the role she is being puppeteered into.

but as usual when people ask governemnt to do a thing without holding them accountable for corruption, the only answer is taxation and subsidy to the rich, along with regressive attacks of peoples prosperity.

even if these insidious eco-marxist luddites do manage to destroy the economy of western nations, asia, arabia and africa will not comply. they wont stop the west destroying itself either.

"stop creating new buildings on land we know will be lost to flooding. be that sea level rise or extreme rain. since this is just making inevitable population displacment worse."

I never understood this. Why would someone thing that's a good idea to begin with. Perhaps it's rooted in peoples desire to stay in the same place.
Or is it because the climate has changed so rapidly that non-risk areas has turned into risk areas. Who knows.

short sighted profiteering.
property near water is worth more. property on flat land is worth more. banks (who profit from higher rents and mortguages) and government around the world are completely incestuous.
in the uk we have :
1- labour, who only care about getting people into rental property and using "benefits" to subsidise rents to labour landlords and housing associations
2- tories, who only care about getting people paying mortguages to banks that are the tories biggest donors.

so we get more and more people flooded out of their homes year after year.
this is a change that would only cost the word "no" to implement, but too many fingers exploiting house price manipulation for anything to change. too much time, thought and money goes into housing development for it to be an accident.

sorry for getting ranty, this is just a pet peeve of mine.

The way I see it, we have two options:
-Believe the climate "alarmists"
-Believe in the "deniers"

What would happen if we listened to either of them and they were wrong?

If the deniers are wrong, we're screwed. If the alarmists are wrong, the planet looks nicer...

...so let's go with the lesser of two evils!

that's like saying have faith in God because you never know.

Not exactly because the climate is actually a thing.

yes but one can see clear similarities in the arguments. I do not deny that things are happening.

I see your reasoning.
But i don't believe that you're really going to do much about the climate if you don't have a burning passion for the subject.,

this is part of why i developed my own ideas listed above.
make both sides feelings irreverent and address the things we know for sure will happen anyway.

Greta Thunberg is a great meme.

Lmao

About ‘killing the planet’, I want to quote brilliant George Carlin: “The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed.”

Now, ‘making survival of humanity on a planet impossible’ is way more correct thing to discuss. And my answer is: shit is out there, temperatures change and humanity certainly affects the environment. But the problem is WAY too bloated. It is there, it is good we do something about it (more as time goes on), but being batshit horrified? No way.

The solution to the problem is not refusing to ‘kill the planet’ (see quote above), it is crushing down most offending areas so issue does not get out of control and actually hasten technological progress, since it is the only thing that can help to guarantee humanity survives.

TD;LR. There is problem. It is (somewhat) exeraggated. We already do much of preservation. We do not do enough progress to actively change our environment in beneficial way. Simple preservation is overrated.

"it is crushing down most offending areas so issue does not get out of control"

AKA wipe out china?

Welp. Consider me honestly surprised. I never imagined ‘area’ in my comment could be interpreted not as ‘area of old technological solutions & economical systems depending on them’, but as literal ‘area as place on Earth others want to blame for perceived wrong-doings’.

China makes a very harsh bid on using old resources in a blase to reach next stage of progress, where such resources won’t be needed in such quantities anymore. It is ham-handed approach, but it is their choice, that may actually work and is more savvy than ‘preserve Earth’ lullaby West is falling into. Earth does not need preservation, it is a changing system anyway. It needs to be able to support humanity for as long as it takes us to develop means to actively and certainly reverse damage made to environment by earlier progress.

earth-chan wanted plastic.
vibrating plastic.

She’s right.

Taking my own home as an example. We had a hurricane a little under 20 years ago. It was the first we’d had in over a hundred years. In the last twenty years, we’ve had two hurricanes, each stronger than the last. In ten years time, we’ll be having hurricanes every goddamn year.

And people wanna tell me this ISN’T a problem? Unto them, I doth say “bullshit”.

There is nothing more scary than mother nature.






... Except for spiders.

Well, when talking about climate change there are some better information sources, than Greta. For example The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every several years they prepare a 150-pages report to summarize all human knowledge related to the climate change problem, but it's probably too scientific and sometimes too difficult to read. So I strongly recommend to take a look at the ”summary for policymakers”, I will paste all links below.
The climate obviously changes and the main reason for that is CO2 driven greenhouse effect. CO2 is thrown into the atmosphere by cars and carbon-based powerplants (coal, oil, etc), so alternative energy such as wind or solar will help at least to slow down climate change. Nuclear energy works as well, electro cars are helpful too.
One other CO2 caused problem, besides the increasing temperature, is decreasing of the ocean pH (aka oceans become more acidic), which causes extinction of many species, especially coral reefs.
Plants, by the way, feel quite nice in the CO2 rich atmosphere, so the harvest yield will increase.
One painful think is that we can’t stop climate change even if we stop all CO2 emissions - templeerature will anyway increase, sea level will rise, etc. Some pessimistic scientists say that the point of no return was already reached.
I personally don’t think so, but no doubt we will have a lot of problems. I’ve read that up to 10 million people will die from heat and floods in the next 50 years. That’s not really dangerous for the humanity, but still not a good thing.

2014 Climate Change Report
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

Summary for Policymakers
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/upl....._SPM_FINAL.pdf

exactly the same thing happend in 1992, a 17 year old kid talking to the UN about the same thing, thing is we have social media now and it spreads much more, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdS8ts63Ck

Unrelated to climate change topic itself, but one thing that irritates the shit out of me is how people defend her by saying stuff like "wow youre arguing with a child" or "look at you, great, bullying a kid" or "how dare you disagree with an innocent girl".

She entered the world stage, the adult world, the international forum, and is blasting her opinion out loud with a megaphone. She deserves to have her opinions and viewpoints criticised and argued against just like in any adult debate. That media tactic of using an "untouchable" kid to push an agenda is absolute horseshit.

She also has no problem insulting US and EU, but i would love to watch her try to go to China or India, the world's real largest polluters by far, and actually have the real courage to speak out for change there.

Kids has always been a sensitive issue in every conversation.

Being young is in no way free pass in any debate. You step up in front of millions of adults with your message and should be ready to be treated as one.
People using such arguments as you mentioned, should really not be a part of the conversation if they cannot see past such petty excuses.

I don't mind climate lovers but there are some people who takes it to the extremes and therefore no longer only include themselves, they also try to force others to believe and fight. Which is just plain silly.

Hmm I only will short answere your questions. I hope it is OK :)


Are we killing the planet?
Killing? No. Maybe us, but never the planet. It will heal even if we (mankind) are not there to see that anymore.

Is climate critical issue?
I would say yes but I dont really know how critical.

Are we on the brink of extinction as Thunberg would put it?
No. There will be changes (can be negative or positive, but mostly negative i guess) and it will be different as our generation knows it but brink of extinction? I dont think so. Not that nice anymore. Yes.

Is she too young to be making these statements?
Maybe. She has Aspergers, thats why she is so intensive in that topic thats for sure.
Will she change something in the minds of the people where it matters? I dont have the feeling she will.

Worst healthy places are China and India and countries around there with their growing industry and no filters and stuff. Nobody will listen there like nobody cared in the past.

Thats what I think but normaly I dont speak to that topic as I dont know how other people will react. I dont like hot topic discussions as it leads to nothing. Only frustration ^^

I think it's important to push the issue, even if I don't really have an opinion about Greta. Still, I think all the talk about her motivates more people to think about what's actually going on with our environment or to speak out about it themselves.

98% of scientists agree that Climate Change is a thing, and that it's manmade. I really don't see how it's even debateable at this point. The hottest 17 years on record have been the past 17years. Hurricanes and other destructive forces like fires are getting stronger and stronger and more frequent by the year. The ice in the north and south poles is melting at rates you don't need time lapses to see anymore.

And for those that say "The climate always changes." Well then you're basically saying that we shouldn't do anything that helps our survival as a species either. The planet was here a long time before us, and will be here a long time after we're gone. It will recover after we can't sustain ourselves on it anymore. Shouldn't we take measures to ensure our own survival?

Greta Thunberg is seen as a puppet because she's young. But hell is it not conceivable that a kid miiiight be interested in a subject that involves her future and whether or not she'll be able to enjoy it? Not enough people are bringing much if any attention to this in the mainstream. She's correct in pointing out that the science has been here since the 70's, but our leaders have been ignoring it and getting their pockets lined by the ones polluting and making things worse in the pursuit of their own greed. I applaud the young girl for having the courage to put herself out there in front of the hoard of naysayers who will try to tear her down and prop themselves up. (Not to her face of course. They might come to bodily harm for that.

At the end of the day we only have one planet. There is no backup plan. There is no plan(et) B. We should be doing everything possible to keep this planet healthy. If not for the sake that it's our home, for the sake that if the 98% of scientists are correct, a lot of us will be dead, and the planet will keep on spinning.

I do fail to see how throwing plastic into nature causes hurricanes. It is simply beyond my understanding! I'm surely no scientist.

Humans will always be greedy, will always hunger for money. I don't see this changing until AFTER it's too late. But we won't have to worry about this anyway since we'll all be long gone by then, so...

Good news is that by that time, humans will most likely have expanded to other nearby planets, so i do think there is hope for future generations but it's basically an endless cycle.

It's not the plastic, but the warming of the planet that's causing the stronger storms. Melting ice in the poles are adding to the water in the ocean. Warmer tempuratures mixing with the colder temps are making the storms. As far as people moving to other planets before it's too late, we haven't even been to the moon in 50 years. According to the scientists things have already hit the fan and we have only eleven more years to even have a hope of avoiding the worst of it. No all humans won't be gone. "mass extinction" is not the same as "total extinction", but it doesn't bode well for those of us without the money or influence to get a shelter or onboard an ark (A la the Axiom from Wall-E) to save ourselves are fucked.

As far as "it's the next generation's problem" or "kicking the can down the road". It's extremely selfish to put that burden on those who would actually be living with the adverse effects of climate change when changes can be made today that will lessen their burden. And it's not happening because of simple greed.

As a scientist myself, I can say that there is a problem, caused by us beyond doubt and we should be taking action. We aren't on the brink of extinction, but things gonna get tough for us if we don't take action. The problem with Greta Thunberg's campaing is that it's poorly focused. It just ignores that we know what we have to do in order to keep the earth under the point of no return. And things aren't be done because of money. Those changes cost a lot of money that companies aren't willing to pay. We need to put pressure on those companies to ditch fossil fuels. One more thing, we need nuclear energy. Period. It's the only way to reduce quickly carbon emissions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak

If there is a serious problem and yet we're not even close to extinction, wouldn't one say that it's not our issue, but the coming generations? It's a valid question.
Perhaps not a nice way of putting it, of course. But still.

I guess the movies are right after all, humans will wipe out humanity eventually.

As medicine and rejuvenative technologies get better, it would be quite interesting to see people not having an option anymore to let ‘future generations’ handle problems shoveled onto them by ancestors, since those ancestors would still be alive, kicking and being blamed for what is happening to the world

Well, what I mean is that it is not black or white, but of course we have to deal with it. I don't know if we will destroy ourselves, but sure thing is that we will suffer from it (My english is a work in progress, sorry for any misunderstanding).

This is a delayed response, but the answer to that question is "no." The problem is that these systems work on the scales of centuries or millennia naturally. In only several decades, human activity has forced a significantly higher rate of change in environmental conditions than natural systems can accommodate. It's not the change itself that's the biggest part of the problem, it's the rate of change. Nature will adapt, but it takes time to do so. If the environment changes faster than plants or animals can adapt, they die out.

If humanity stopped emitting carbon (not net zero, actual zero) today, it would take a century or two for temperatures to stabilize. CO2 in the atmosphere takes a long time to be sequestered out. What we do today has a a direct effect on those coming generations. Were it not for human activity, the Earth would actually be in a cooling period, and would have entered another ice age in approximately 50,000 years or so. As it stands now, we've pushed that ice age out to at least 100,000 years in the future.

If you haven't seen this XKCD comic, it has an excellent visual representation of what historical temperatures were. https://xkcd.com/1732/

If you are living in a place with lot of land mass, you probably don't think about it as much
but if you think about this as a whole? it is really really bad
I went to study in New Zealand in the past year and they are being really serious about not using plastic just because the island surrounding them lose it landmass as water rise and cause more refugee from those island to flow into New Zealand so they have to plan for that

This is also a good point.
You wouldn't think much of it if it's not a present issue to you. This is common way of life among humans.

Are we killing the planet? If yes, how fast?
-We are detrimentally affecting the planet, yes. I wouldn't use the word "killing" because dead/alive implies a binary state. Human presence is always going to be a degree of detriment to the planet. It's a good thing that the ecosystem is capable of self-regulating. The thing we need to keep in mind is that the degree to which we affect the planet should ideally be equal to or less than the degree to which the planet can heal itself. It is impossible for a species like us to have zero impact, but it would be better if we had less impact than we do now.
More importantly though, the planet will survive after we are gone. Life will continue., It may be shaped for our passing, but it will not be eradicated. THe idea of "killing" the planet, as I stated before, implies that we can get to a point where it is utterly uninhabitable. Possible? Sure. Probable? No.
What I feel we need to consider is that at our current rate of emission and consumption, we will continue to decrease the standard of living for an increasingly greater number across the globe as time goes on. It will affect people disproportionately. And as long as it there is a monetary cost to people who are relatively unaffected (independently wealthy in particular, since they own Congress in the US), it is unlikely that people will voluntarily change their current lifestyle.

Is climate critical issue?
-It is. It is one of many set to affect humanity in a significant way in the coming decades. Some people like to imagine it's the only thing we have to worry about. But in reality, it is one of a number of preventable catastrophes that may eventually make Earth uninhabitable for us humans. However, two other very important concerns that can have a much more thorough effect in a much shorter timeframe, are planetary defense against asteroids and comets, and the increasingly possible threat of the cold war restarting and putting us again at the brink of nuclear annihilation. School teachers harp on climate change, so school children grow up thinking it is the one and only thing that matters.
And again, I reiterate. IT MATTERS. IT VERY MUCH MATTERS.
But convincing ourselves that nothing else does, would be doing ourselves an equal disservice to ignoring it entirely.

Are we on the brink of extinction as Thunberg would put it?
-No.
Thunberg is *literally*a child and cannot grasp the nuance of the situation. Climate change will not kill everyone at once, or even in a very short period. It will make certain areas increasingly difficult to inhabit and strain resources in other areas as climate refugees are displaced. The next issue after that happens is arable land and potable water. THose will not kill everyone, either. But it will be harder for people to live and will force people's lifestyles to change radically, starting at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and moving slowly upward until the middle class is affected. Greta herself will probably die of old age before her family's income bracket is really affected in any meaningful way. Which is frustrating, because the way these things are pushed, it's not about "Billions of people living in coastal areas in Asia, India, island nations, low-lying areas that depend on fishing and ocean desalination for agriculture will be affected severely and it is inhumane to not do anything to change this", it's about "OMG YOU PEOPLE ARE PUTTING ME IN PERSONAL DANGER".

Is she too young to be making these statements?
-No. Nobody is ever too young to start learning about the world around them, and too few people grow up caring about the things in our world that affect them.

https://banned.video/watch?id=5d93d.....75750013abf6bd