...life can be translucent

Menu

Greta Thunberg

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
On the larger subject of climate change, look at this piece of ridiculousness, from a reputable magazine, even.


Useless emails are perhaps annoying, but yelling at people that they're causing global warming by sending one is the sort of thing that causes people to reject the entire issue. Can we please pick better battles??

From the article:
that estimation on the amount of CO2E generated by an email as one-millionth of a tonne comes from Mike Berners-Lee, a professor at Lancaster University and an expert in carbon footprints and greenhouse gases. He based it on the time used by the person typing, the electricity used by the device, and what's needed to run the network and servers that transmit a message.

I haven't spent hours checking this, but at the very least do a better job explaining. All I see is illogic.

"Time" is not a carbon producer. Chances are high the device would be on anyway. Resources needed to actually send the message - that part I follow.

It also says this:
This doesn't even take into account the sheer amount of waste that goes into posting on social media. What's the carbon footprint of every thumbs-up "like" you give or get? The mind boggles.

:rolleyes: (Gee, I just raised the planet's temperature by inserting a smiley. Maybe I should slit my throat.)
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,849
Reaction score
2,388
(Yes, I was peeved enough to register a Disqus account and comment on the actual article. Not sure I feel any better.)
 

vagabond303

visitor
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
25
Reaction score
4
2019-12-19 22.47.25.jpg

If you've been following the news, Greta is now going on a break because she decided to call the people funding her to be accountable for their actions. Obviously this means that it won't go anywhere and that it's pretty much over for Greta. While it was advantageous for world leaders to push Greta on every screen world wide to guilt trip people into accepting socialism and insane taxation, for world leaders to actually do something is out of the question and we'll probably never hear from her again because she's not playing their game the way they want her too. Elites wants to tax everyone into oblivion and the climate issue is a good way to guilt trip people into paying such taxes. Saving the environment on the other hand well, they couldn't care less. It's a frond to enslave us all. Sorry if you care about the environment but the people who claim to care about don't. like... at all. It's virtue signaling and PR. We're gonna live in toxic sludge unless we stop waiting for messianic figures to save us.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
.... While it was advantageous for world leaders to push Greta on every screen world wide to guilt trip people into accepting socialism and insane taxation ....
I wonder how much of a carbon footprint sour grapes leave?
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
I didn't start this thread/subject and I am not a socialist. I don't know what 'clever' joke is being made with the face under the iceberg or even know who it is.
I do however see much irrational hatred from a few posters.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
I do however see much irrational hatred from a few posters.
Which is also totally unrelated to what the reading was about, and this is why it got moved to Open Space (regardless of people's politics), since it's no longer about the Yi at all.

And since we're now in the political realm .... I see Greta as an intelligent, well-adjusted young woman, whom is speaking out about an issue that's important to her. Good for her! One of the common criticisms I hear is that she should be doing something 'real' and not just speaking out. Well, I think she is doing something effective that is inspiring to many thousands of others. What more might she do? Maybe - as the bully-in-chief suggests - she should just go to a movie with a friend!
 
Last edited:

rosada

visitor
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
9,888
Reaction score
3,169
Pythia - I am just now seeing your post. You can google "greta thunberg astrological chart" to get her info. There are several different charts offered spanning a 10 hour window and placing her sun at 12 - 13 degrees and moon at 18 - 22 degrees.
Incidentally, I saw a video interviewing Charlie Chaplin where he talked about having been born the same day as Hitler. He felt he understood Hitler's sense of being all powerful as Chaplin felt the same way about his own abilities. Interesting how Chaplin used his power to bring joy to the world and Hitler used his to bring grief.
 

Gmulii

visitor
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
229
Reaction score
68
View attachment 2538

If you've been following the news, Greta is now going on a break because she decided to call the people funding her to be accountable for their actions. Obviously this means that it won't go anywhere and that it's pretty much over for Greta. While it was advantageous for world leaders to push Greta on every screen world wide to guilt trip people into accepting socialism and insane taxation, for world leaders to actually do something is out of the question and we'll probably never hear from her again because she's not playing their game the way they want her too. Elites wants to tax everyone into oblivion and the climate issue is a good way to guilt trip people into paying such taxes. Saving the environment on the other hand well, they couldn't care less. It's a frond to enslave us all. Sorry if you care about the environment but the people who claim to care about don't. like... at all. It's virtue signaling and PR. We're gonna live in toxic sludge unless we stop waiting for messianic figures to save us.

The problem is the message was twisted around. She was saying to look at the science, yet everyone keep looking at her.
And of course, that comes with many problems, as its easy to discredit someone, especially with the state of the media today. People care little if something is true or if it should matter, they care more about how emotionally charged it is and how they can use it to push a specific idea. So easy way to pull something down, connect it to a person then make sure people aren't liking this person(add to them strong words like socialism, or taxation or other stuff that I'm not sure she has said often or at all).

Problem in this case, is that this is just one part of a long way, Al Gore was more vocal about it, but the basic concerns we can see even from Edison many years back. And if it doesn't work this time around, its all good. The climate keeps getting worse fast, it seems it still isn't obvious for many people, with time it will, if we don't get the technology to reverse stuff soon.


As far as socialism goes, this has become very charged word in the western world. As my country was part of that block before 1989 its easy to see that the west even today has no idea what it actually is and how it looks from the inside.
Even less so about the core idea of transition of socialism to communism that is suppose to take place in the places that were on the other side of the iron curtain at that time. It seems today its just a scary word to bring emotions in people that have very little idea what it actually represents.
I believe Orwell had good intentions, yet his book became the guideline of what these systems looks like(or could look like) and as far as I'm aware he never actually lived in a socialist place(as he was born in India and lived in France later in his life for some time). So there is already very good reason not to believe in that specific view to the world, another one would be that its widely inaccurate even if he did.

I'm not saying it was great, though, we had reasons to move away from it and I do enjoy the current system better(as I think most of us do), yet its not what the western media try to make it look at all and figuring out what part of the systems a country want to be working in more socialist way and what part should be owned by private companies is vital in every country. As if you let it all be owned by corporations and private companies is a sure way to bring a lot worse systems then socialism could ever be(for reference check any place that is attempting that today)

Anyway, this is offtopic somewhat and has little to do with the actual problem. And the actual problem is that the environment is getting worse and worse, and the people that are suppose to warn us on that(the scientific communities) are not being able to pass the message across, since the media is so loudly presenting conflicting info and ideas on the topic, that very few people are actually looking at what is happening in the world during that.
So people have started to believe in political and media ideas more then the actual science or even just observing the world around them.
(going to a random river in India for example, should show very clearly what the idea is, no matter what political affiliation we want to express)

So Greta... She tried. I don't know if that attempt is over, but as time progresses and the climate changes become more and more obvious there will be more for sure. So its not a battle that the current structure can ever win, as all this way of working has an expiration date. If she can't pass that message, same as the people before her couldn't and most of the scientific community doesn't seem able to, there will be more in the future.

In all this its important to stop and figure out what we are fighting for. And then consider if that is worth fighting for, coz the environment won't get better by itself, so at some point something has to be done. The only choice is how long we want to ignore it.
And if we don't believe it with Greta now, in the future then. But she isn't the problem, this isn't her studies she is talking about, many people have been pointing to them for many years. She is trying to point to something bigger that is happening and is being overlooked.

As far as taxation goes, that is silly solution. The whole idea of limiting the carbon emissions seems impossible to do in my humble opinion. Yet there is much that can be done if we agree on the problem. Invest much, much more in research for technology to solve much of that for example. And many other stuff, but to actually be able to do that we need to agree on the problem. And not just agree in the sense that most countries will get together and say how much they agree then do nothing. But to actual look actively for the solution to all this.

Imagine how the world will look if there was agreement each country would spend 50% of their military budges to implementing and researching more environment friendly energy and industrial solutions. Without any price on the community.
Something like that can change everything in a year. But to do that we need to figure out what the actual problem is and so far, that hasn't happen. And the actual problem isn't Greta, or Al Gore or the scientific community.
So everytime an attempt to point out to the science is overwhelmed by the media, the world doesn't become a better more democratic or cleaner to live in. It just prolongs stuff that we should have stopped prolonging long time ago.
 

vagabond303

visitor
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
25
Reaction score
4
the science lol... the whole 98% of scientist is dishonest. They claim 98% of research papers say anthropogenic global warning is real. However, only 32.6% of papers took a stance on the issue and 98% of the 32.6% conclude humans being the leading cause of global warming. The science isn't settled at all and nobody wants to hear this.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
the science lol... the whole 98% of scientist is dishonest.
Hmmm, 98% of scientist are dishonest?

So, what else do you think 'they' have lied to us about? Geology? Space exploration? Medicine? Oceanography? Anthropology?

According to our government - NASA - 'Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position ....'

... but then again, using your logic, NASA been lying to us all along, and the earth is actually flat, we never had people land on the moon, humans and dinosaurs walked the earh at the same time, there are no space shuttles, and Cape Canaveral is just an action theme park owned by Trump!
 

Gmulii

visitor
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
229
Reaction score
68
the science lol... the whole 98% of scientist is dishonest. They claim 98% of research papers say anthropogenic global warning is real. However, only 32.6% of papers took a stance on the issue and 98% of the 32.6% conclude humans being the leading cause of global warming. The science isn't settled at all and nobody wants to hear this.

Do you really need 98% aggregated studies to see it, though...

Lets look at the info we have on just a very small part of it all.
According to wikipedia(and the estimated values here are accepted as far as I'm aware).
2018 approximate 513 million tons of plastics wind up in the oceans every year...
Plastic is light, so its difficult to give an image of how 513 million of tons a year dumped into the oceans looks like without posting pic and I don't want to post images of garbage.

But lets just say its so much that it has created something called "the great pacific garbage patch"(https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch
.

In there its estimated that the dense garbage takes around 600,000 square miles. For reference the whole France is 200,000 square miles. : )
(source here https://allthatsinteresting.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch)


So does the science agree that humanity is affecting our environment...
I can go into the Kyoto_Protocol and how more then half of the living noble laureates signed back then, making it unprecedented agreement between so many different branches of science that as far as I'm aware we never had before. Or we can go into what has happened since them.

But I don't think we have to... Lets think of it logically. We have the ocean turning to a big garbage pile and there are people trying to clear it up now, but even then isn't on government levels and is done by volunteer engineers working on it.

How many scientists you think, will look at that info, check how many millions of tons of plastic we are still dumping in there and then say"Well, we are sure the fish isn't affected by that, as there is no way humanity is affecting the environment. Its easy to see that the sea life is dying in alarming rates, but it can't be humanity behind it and all that plastic isn't that big problem, as there is still water after all..."


While I can't know the exact % I think even if we don't believe any info of the aggregated studies it should be clear that the majority has to be insane to think we aren't the reason the species around us are dying so fast.
 
Last edited:

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top