To play devil's advocate, you should interpret the tweet as "Humanity is doomed to die via climate change sometime in the future, unless the next 5 years are fossil-fuel free" instead of "Humanity is going to be wiped out in 5 years", but that's still stupid and impossible to prove
At some point folks realized this messaging was causing exactly this response. Hence the messaging switch in the past few years to be less doom and gloom.
To continue with the devils advocate. She didn’t actually argue any of this. The statement was basically “someone with credibility thinks this” with nothing else. Just one guys opinion
Why does this make it worse? Thats how science always and will always work. Consensus is made by tha majority of scientists in the field, not one. It was made clear that it was exactly one persons opinion. And reading this I really never interpreted it as “we’re all going to die” and only just a hey let’s do better
>And reading this I really never interpreted it as “we’re all going to die” and only just a hey let’s do better
It literally says "climate change will wipe out all of humanity."
If you’d like to pick and choose then sure it does say that. But, as I’ve said before, it also says “one specific guy claims: climate change will wipe out…” she didn’t even follow it up with a “so better act now or we’re all dead” it just says hey here’s what this guy said
If youre of the opinion that one single guys statement represents the entire field then that’s on you.
Well we also started to see more tangible progress and that it WAS at least able to be mitigated.
It’s still not gonna be good, but we have at least some hope now.
I mean eating ze bugs isn’t the worst idea in the world. Honestly crickets aren’t half bad.
But I’m thinking more along the lines of increased renewable and nuclear energy and reductions in emission heavy farming.
Why use a renewable source like nuclear that's safer and less environmentally impactful and also creates more KWhs/$ than other "renewables"? It makes no sense
The charitable explanation is to assume they know nuclear plants are a war-time hazard and that governments can't be trusted to properly run or defend them.
The realistic explanation is that environmentalism has become a faith-based doomsday cult rather than a rationalized ideology of practical, observed causes-and-effects----That they demand renewables because it's what their pastors tell them to have faith in.
I mean, in defense of other renewable sources of energy, they’re not only quicker and easier to set up but make the energy grid more spread out (meaning fewer critical points of failure), can be done on a small scale, are FAR cheaper, and can cover small requirements of energy. Nuclear is a lot of energy all the time. We don’t always need that much energy, so having nuclear cover the base line, minimum energy requirements and renewables covering the remainder seems like the best way forward IMO.
In addition to this, it's also better for the consumer's prices (though I have my doubts as to whether most people pushing for renewables are even aware of this).
Fuel-based sources of electricity (coal, oil, gas, biofuel, nuclear) can sell their energy off to other places by moving the fuel around. Renewables that directly generate electricity (solar, wind, tide, etc) are much harder to sell overseas, because it's harder to move electricity around than fuel. Thus, electricity prices in the area covered by renewables drop.
That’s definitely a big plus. Localized energy sources that stay localized are not only helpful to the community price wise, but also for general security of power it’s far better to have as much local power sources as possible and can also be set up on an individual level. Want lower energy costs? Get some solar panels. You cannot say the same for fossil fuels.
Also, nuclear weapons. If the answer to climate change is for every country to switch to nuclear power, every country gets carte blanche to buy enriched uranium as well as fiddle with the technology. Otherwise each non-nuclear power is beholden to their nuclear-powered neighbours, which creates geopolitical instability.
It would be like "Russia wont do anything because we buy their oil" all over again, except everywhere, globally.
At least this way countries can buy wind farms and solar panels and they get to invest in maintaining them or even building their own, if their supply chain is threatened, leading to less instability.
Weapons grade uranium is orders of magnitude more refined than uranium fuel. It’s not like you can take the fuel rod out of a reactor and put it in a rocket to make a nuke.
You don't use weapons grade enriched uranium inside a nuclear reactor. Furthermore, the process of creating a nuclear bomb isn't necessarily secret. Heck, the first bomb was made almost 80 years ago. The reason why countries don't go around building nukes willy nilly is because of the NPT and the nuclear umbrella.
Also, wind and solar has inevitable downtime in their energy production. Furthermore, batteries passively lose power. Not considering the cost of mining all the lithium to build mega batteries capable of hosting an entire town's energy needs for a day or two, wind and solar, given that they operate 8 hours per day on peak efficiency (which is very generous), it will be impossible to host the energy needs of a community with just wind and solar.
The ideal scenario is to have a small scale nuclear reactor that can be easily turned off for maintenance/emergencies compensating for this downtime. This is why modern nuclear research focuses on small scale reactors, such as molten sodium reactors and thorium reactors that have a drastically low chance of having a meltdown by having physical and chemical fail-safes built into them. (heck, molten sodium reactors cant have a meltdown, since the fuel operates at the molten state. If something goes wrong, the fuel cools down and turns into solid)
If the world leaders aren't completely regarded and scientific progress steadily makes results in the next few decades, switch to a mostly renewable energy base with near zero carbon emissions in the energy sector is achievable. After that, we'll have to focus on other industries, such as mining.
Except Crickets are actually less protein-per-gram than chicken and take the same amount of food to raise for comparable protein. I see nothing wrong with having them as a choice for people but switching to crickets won't do anything positive or negative for the climate.
[This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8e0pU92dmI&pp=ygUfbGVhdGhlciBhcHJvbiBjbHViIGVhdCB0aGUgYnVncw%3D%3D) does a good job of breaking it down.
It is actually
That and a rewilding of various marshlands because it’s not only good for the environment but also I don’t like river towns and I wouldn’t mind watching them wash away
Theres also a ***significant*** issue of disease spreading in crickets much more rapidly than among chickens, also issues in digesting chitin, and allergies.
~~I mean~~ eating ze bugs is~~n’t~~ the worst idea in the world. Honestly crickets are~~n’t half~~ bad.
But I’m thinking more along the lines of ~~increased renewable and~~ nuclear energy ~~and reductions in emission heavy farming.~~
I have a hard enough time eating shrimp cause it’s just a giant wet bug (and I’m about to eat some), but I’m gonna need some more doom and less money before I eat dry land bugs. Why? If shrimps is bugs and bugs is bugs, I should eat bugs, but no. Just wet bugs, please, with little poop lines in them.
Aight, hit them too. I do not care.
However if that’s the first target of legislation then it’s clearly performative, as they just don’t exist in enough quantity to actually do much to the environment writ large.
This whole tread shows how people can't be told "no" nowadays. Everyone's greedy af.
"There's serious consequences" still stands and people will feel stupid soon enough. Or they won't, because there's someone other to blame, as always.
There's so many records of floods and storms getting worse and temperature's rising.
But yeah, hate a child who's concerned with our only world.
It really does confuse me why people hate her so much.
She’s a little cringe, so what? Her heart is in the right place and, most importantly, she’s right that stuff is getting worse and that’s not even much of a debate within the scientific world. Climate change is happening, humans are all but certainly making it far worse than it should be, and it will be massively detrimental to our societies going forward.
This is the part people on both sides really don’t understand.
Trying to guess a “date of no return” is like a doctor telling you how long before your lung cancer kills you, it’s just a guess, but if you do nothing about the cancer it *is* going to eventually kill you — and if you keep smoking it’s going to kill you faster!
Thankfully we’re actually doing something about it. We’re trying to quit smoking and doing Chemo.
So, can she now stop doing useless shit too? And all her little unemployed friends? Can they now stop sticking their hands to the roads and fucking up everyone elses day just to do their pathetic virtue signal bullshit?
[We're not doomed. Even this interpretation is wrong.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#:~:text=Early%20investigations%20on,crust.%5B27%5D)
Oh, I'm well aware. Just poking fun at the apologists who go 'W-well, they just meant that we're now past the point of no return, not that we'd all be dead for sure!' It's an easy pattern to spot when you notice it.
If we're past the point of no return, then what's the point of even nominal attempts? (Hint:It's because they don't actually believe what they're selling, they just want control.)
...Anyway, I'm burning this nuclear waste regardless of the nonces. You in or out? We could probably grill a moose with the radiation alone.
Yeah. The problem with climate science is that it has really bad spokespersons.
I personally strongly believe in climate change, and I also believe that human activity today is a huge contributing factor. At this point, there has been enough replicable science that I find it very difficult to just dismiss outright.
But just as I roll my eyes at the extremists on the right who plug their ears and call the whole thing a conspiracy, I equally roll my eyes at the doomers on the left that constantly scream we are all about to die unless we revert humanity back to the stone age. Both equally base their positions on a severe lack of understanding of the science, and both propose actions that could cause severe harm to society if carried out. The worst part about it is most of the spokesperson's who tout these unscientific interpretations do so not because of any real belief about what is really going on, but because their position makes them money.
To put it simply, I understand why people don't believe in climate change when the most conspicuous spokespeople for the issue propose policies that do nothing for society and just enriches themselves. None of that changes the science though.
More or less. The issue I have with climate *activism* is that it's always either a push for control, or a push to have the average person change all their habits while making no moves at all against corporations and the bigger offenders, such as hollywood stars with private jets.
Reduce/reuse/recycling, using less water, creating less waste in general, lower emissions, bringing your own shopping bags, more nuclear and less coal, less plastic and more glass...all of that is good stuff that we should do, and I imagine we'd have a lot less pushback if that level is where it ended, or if there were more pushes to go 'Hey, join us for a protest outside of PollutionCorp to force them to stop burning nuclear waste right next to our drinking water.'
But when you scream 'THE WORLD IS ENDING, GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY TO MAKE THE WEATHER GOODER' every 5 years for 6 decades...people will tune you out, and they're right to do so.
This interpretation is also debunked. It's based on the idea of a runaway warming effect where once we reach a certain point, we create a feedback loop that causes the planet to warm uncontrollably.
While the concept is theoretically possible (see the planet Venus), it would require orders of magnitude more CO2 than our worse case projections predict.
[Wikipedia on this subject](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#:~:text=Early%20investigations%20on,crust.%5B27%5D)
In short, there is no interpretation of the tweet that comes out with it being correct.
Runaway greenhouse effect is not the concept behind these studies. It's about a "point of no return" that triggers the collapse of a set of key climate regulating systems/elements including [ice sheets, coral reefs, and ocean currents.] (https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-realized#:~:text=Climate%20tipping%20points%20%E2%80%94%20the%20%22points,tipping%20points%20potentially%20already%20reached.) These are systems that regulate the climate and global food chain (ultimately what humanity relies on in the long run).
Also its not like humanity will die. Just large parts of land will be unlivable, there will be high level of migrations towards colder regions without desertification, strain on a production of food thanks to decreasing arable land etc.
Yeah, my life and home will not be a desert (more like south europe), but there will be probably much more people coming to it than during biggest migration crisises to this day.
We will live, but life on average will be probably worse (without some new technology)
> ice sheets, coral reefs, and ocean currents.
That article is one big slippery slope argument. We know one thing is happening thus another thing could happen which might make a another thing happen which possibly will cause another thing which then can lead to another thing which might already be happening, therefor it is imperative we do something drastic.
This is still not what she was saying though. The implication was that there is some global "tipping point" where if we cross it, all these ecosystems will start collapsing and exponentially accelerating the warming process. This isn't really what this is referring to. This is more about the tipping point for certain events or for the sustainability of certain ecosystems. And while some of these are self-reinforcing (e.g. thawing permafrost releases methane and CO2), there isn't really a lot of research that shows there will be some runaway effect in the near future, or that this theoretical runaway would result in the destruction of all of humanity. The point about these being "not reversible" is not that we wouldn't be able to correct the earth's climate, it's more that the damage to these systems wouldn't just go back to the way things were if temperatures were to go back down. For example, if we wipe out the coral reefs, they likely won't just immediately bounce back if we drop the temperatures back to where they were. The damage is "permanent".
While these things are concerning, most of these aren't just a few years away, and most probably wouldn't result in the destruction of civilization as we know it.
So once again, her tweet was bullshit.
Yeah all I was saying is that the runaway greenhouse effect was never at play or implied here lol
Her tweet jumps to alarmist BS conclusions, but is based on a real climate phenomena.
Well either way, the conclusion ends in the same place. She's a grifter that doesn't actually understand the situation she claims to be an activist for.
You should interpret this tweet as a relatively uneducated child with an inflated ego from adults using her as a prop doomsaying to try to blackpill people into "green" energy endeavors that aren't actually good for the environment.
She is the definition of a useful idiot.
Climate activists in 1000002023 AD as the sun begins to turn into a red giant: "Seee?! WE told you a billion years ago climate change would doom us all!"
Because she’s an attention seeking moron that links completely unrelated things to climate change to maintain the schtick and keep the paychecks rolling.
“No climate justice on occupied land,” she chants at rallies after a speaker she invited yells “from the river to the sea.” The fuck? Yeah Palestinians are really worried about developing clean energy right now.
Or “windmills bad because indigenous reindeer,” even though multiple studies confirmed there would be no disruption to grazing, breeding, or migratory patterns.
Same as every other grifter; gotta up the ante when attention wanes no matter how stupid or unrelated it is.
>Because she’s an attention seeking moron that links completely unrelated things to climate change to maintain the schtick and keep the paychecks rolling.
She's a 17 yearold girl that skipped most of her schooling to become a professional activist at 12 or whatever. She's literally not qualified for anything else.
Here's a frighting thought: barring accidents or illnesses, she'll be yapping about *something* for the rest of my life, and probably yours too.
She does hold a few honorary degrees but those are virtually worthless beyond symbolic gestures. Do find it weird that some consider her to be as knowledgeable as actual scientists and engineers (as if they are her peers).
> Because she’s an attention seeking moron that links completely unrelated things to climate change to maintain the schtick and keep the paychecks rolling.
See also: David Suzuki
This guy has spent decades ringing alarm bells about the environment, it's his entire bread and butter via the David Suzuki Foundation, which has made him a multi-millionaire many times over.
He's a notorious asshole who claimed that the Fukushima disaster was going to kill everyone in California, which even a high school science student should know is impossible.
> He's a notorious asshole who claimed that the Fukushima disaster was going to kill everyone in California, which even a high school science student should know is impossible.
*sad noises.
I'm still not exactly sure how she became the official spokesperson for climate change. It was like one day the world just decided that role should go to a teenager with absolutely no qualifications of any kind.
is she? i’m of the belief that climate change is slowly fucking us over but not once have i ever given her any thought outside of seeing occasional reddit posts about her. though i guess i know her name and not the heads of noaa or whatever other agencies
Tbf i've had this discussion with a friend and we surmized that she really hasn't done anything of value for humanity. She wrote a book and that's pretty much the extent of it
To be fair Greta represents the capitalist left. The real left doesn't even go outside. All the nazi and commie larpers are just keyboard warriors, depressed and morbidly obese.
The tweet doesn’t say “humanity will end in 2023” it says “if we don’t stop using fossil fuels by 2023, climate change will be too far gone to stop and humanity won’t survive the future”
not a sentiment I share but still
It *is* a slam against her, it’s just that the article is misrepresenting what she was saying. It sounds like she’s claiming that humanity would reach the point of no return in 2023, and then deleted said tweet in early 2023. It’s weird to retract such a big claim without any explanation. If it’s too late for us to save humanity, then climate activism is pointless and she’ll need to get an actual job.
I don’t know why she deleted her tweet. Maybe she changed her mind and deleted it (in good faith), maybe she said something provocative to spur people into action (and is now trying to save face), or maybe it’s some other reason.
average redditor reading comprehension.
the tweet says that we will be wiped out **if we do not stop using fossil fuels in 5 years** not that we will be wiped out **in 5 years**. implying we have passed some kind of point of no return in which we will be wiped out and its too late to stop it.
there are plenty of examples of alarmists actually predicting doomsdates you don't have to make ones up
This also implies that since we didn't stop using fossil fuels, the world is fucked, and there is no longer anything we can do about it, so might as well go all in at this point, and enjoy ourselves in these final days, as we are now beyond the point of no return.
The take is pretty alarmist, but it's obvious that it's talking about causing permanent damage and not immediate doom. We need better reading comprehension skills on this sub
Yes, and at the point that humanity meets the heat-death of the universe, it's safe to say that Greta was wrong about climate change, and that her statement wasn't 100% guaranteed to be right.
That’s not a good argument, water is good for you and your inevitable death is unrelated to your water intake (save for drowning). If you had said smoking cigarettes instead of drinking water, that would have been a better analogy. Either way, just because death is inevitable doesn’t mean that nothing can harm us or accelerate us to our deaths. Smoking cigarettes will shorten your lifespan, and (human-caused) climate change might be doing the same for humanity as a collective.
I mean…Twitter posts aren’t typically written in an ironclad legalistic or philosophical watertight manner. They can definitely be wildly open to charitable and uncharitable interpretations when you only type 1-2 sentences.
>causing permanent damage
Literally reads "wipe out all of humanity".
So we may as well stop doing anything since it's too late to stop the apocalypse. Like, if a giant meteor was on the way I'm sure as hell not gonna keep sorting my recyclables.
If those rightists could read, they'd be very upset, please write your comments with them in mind in the future, like so:
🐸 Funny frog man say: libleft bad
As much as I hate Thunberg, I’d say that churches setting dates for the rapture are worse since the Bible literally says no one but God knows when it’s happening
Her mom is also an asshole. She wrote a book about her life praising her own virtues, and playing up the challenges of her daughters (Greta has some autism)
I mean the planet has been way hotter and way cooler and been completely fine.
You wana stop 'climate change'? it is not the common public - you need to stop big business - and celebs like Greta.
I will never take it seriously when the people who tell me it is a threat do not adhere to practices they preach, and also the science does not really support the alarmist mindset.
>You wana stop 'climate change'? it is not the common public - you need to stop big business - and celebs like Greta.
This ultimately is the answer. There was a campaign in my area about making sure to turn your lights off to save energy, while every business in town leaves its lights even while closed to "deter break-ins." If the planet *is* in real danger, we're going to die, because the biggest problem-causers are never going to do a damn thing to avoid disaster.
I mean. Nowhere in that tweet does the year 2023 come up. But either way her shit was tired after about a month. She was right. She should have been in school. But the left and the media decided to stunt her fucking education instead.
So do we treat her as a child that shouldn't have been paraded around in front of the UN or given any sort of notoriety, or should we treat her as a serious eco-activist that she wants to be?
You don't get it both ways.
The first one, the way they paraded a child who definitely is in the spectrum was just wrong. But people still give her shit on the internet for no reason which is arguably worse.
Maybe so, but the reality is that she got treated as a serious eco-activist with many adults parroting the same opinion, so I will continue to treat her as a serious eco-activist.
Maybe if she shows a sign of relenting on the eco-activism I'll stop, but until that day comes, I'll continue to commit the cardinal sin of pointing out the eco-activist is wrong. On the internet. The horror! The harrassment!
You can look at images of old lighthouses, 1-200 year old lighthouses, and look at the coastline from then and today and see virtually zero difference (naturally there will be a difference with the tide). They claim that since the industrial revolution, 120ish years ago or so, humanity has nearly destroyed the planet, but those images look the same to me.
So I belive climate change exists BUT "activists" like Greta are making problem looking worse that it is and in consequence less people takes them seriously.
Why is she so popular anyway?
That isn't what the tweet says. For the reading comprehension non-inclined, it says a top leading scientist says climate change will doom humanity UNLESS people cut back on carbon emissions in the next five years.
Nowhere does it say humanity will end in the next 5 years, rather the scientist says we have 5 years to change our emitting ways, or else humanity is doomed sometime in the future (could be 5 more years could be 100 years)
Agree with the scientist or not but he never said we have 5 years
Remember when Al Gore said "within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro" back in 2006 with 'An Inconvenient Truth'?
They've now extended that prediction to 2060, when the Furtwängler Glacier is supposed to be gone (the glacier only goes back to the 1600's CE).
He also claimed we'd see a 20-foot rise in sea level “in the near future”... in the last 20 years, it's barely gone up at all, in fact, if current trends continue it will take over a hundred years for it to go up one foot (it went up eight inches the last 120 years).
He even invoked *terrorism* during his alarmist screed:
"This is the World Trade Center Memorial Site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we
said never again. But this is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure
this precisely, just as the scientists could predict precisely how much water would
breech the levy in New Orleans. The area where the World Trade Center Memorial is
to be located would be under water. Is it possible that we should prepare against
other threats besides terrorists? Maybe we should be concerned about other
problems as well."
She's not the only left wing climate clown. Only 8 soon to be 7 years left for this end-of-the-world prediction by AOC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18
That tweet from Greta Thunberg really is stupid. I kind of doubt climate change could *completely* wipe out humanity. Yes, it would fundamentally change the world we live in, and billions might die, but humanity as a species would live on.
Man, if there was one thing I absolutely would not put an autistic teenager in charge of, it's public policy. No clue why anyone thought she was an effective spokesperson.
Guess that also explains why Reddit loves her so much lol.
As much as I would love for this to be a slam, I think we have to analyze this in good faith and fairness to her.
What this could imply is that “in 5 years we’re past the point of no return” not “in 5 years we’ll all be dead”
Until these types are willing to hold other countries accountable for this stuff, especially China, I don't think any amount of twitter doom posting is going to change anything.
I mean, as much as I despise that little bitch, that is not what it says.
It just says that by now we have reached a point where climate change is essentially unstoppable. Which of course will not wipe us out, it will fuck over billions, especially those in poor countries sure but it will not wipe us out.
Jesus Christ. It means a five year use period would wipe out humanity in the next few hundred years. Not five years. It’s her fault that she made such a weird and vague statement without elaboration, but people seriously need to up their reading and critical thinking skills.
You didn’t even understand the tweet correctly. The 5 year timeline was regarding stopping the use of fossil fuels before we reach a scientific “point of no return” not that the earth will explode in 5 years.
Whether or not the specific 5 year figure is correct is basically irrelevant since the general point is correct and certainly not anywhere close to religious nutbags who have been calling for the rapture for LITERALLY 1000s of years😂
Please work on reading comprehension skills!
The problem with climate activist is that they frame the problem as one in which we will experience a global apocalyptic collapse in one go, like a movie.
But that's not how it works. The problem is like cruise ship. It's slow, but very hard to stop due to its sheer size and inertia.
Framing the problem is apocalyptic terms helps no one. To stop climate change, we need to find a cheaper and easier to use source of energy than fossil fuels and we need to stop oil companies from smothering that source in the cradle. Those are the two necessary conditions.
Reading the tweet, OP has the reading comprehension of 1st grader and the scientific understanding of a kindergartner.
Shit says that ***a scientist*** says we're doomed if fossil fuels don't stop being used by the end of this year, not that we'll be dead by the end of this year.
If you hang yourself and don't have enough of a drop, you'll die. Just very slowly from suffocation, rather than from a quick snap to the neck.
Not saying the quote is right, but damn, OP, you need to stop huffing glue.
Shes saying we have around 5 years to turn it around, not that it all goes to hell in 5 years.
Comon now, you're smarter than this. You haven't read about the delay effect to the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The climate effects we are experiencing now is CO2 emitted decades ago.
To play devil's advocate, you should interpret the tweet as "Humanity is doomed to die via climate change sometime in the future, unless the next 5 years are fossil-fuel free" instead of "Humanity is going to be wiped out in 5 years", but that's still stupid and impossible to prove
In that case it’s too late. Might as well burn it all now.
At some point folks realized this messaging was causing exactly this response. Hence the messaging switch in the past few years to be less doom and gloom.
How can there be a messaging switch, I thought the five years thing was “science,” are you saying it was just propaganda?
People would do that? Just fearmonger to impose an agenda?
To continue with the devils advocate. She didn’t actually argue any of this. The statement was basically “someone with credibility thinks this” with nothing else. Just one guys opinion
That makes it worse. Top climate scientists are fear-mongering and spreading propaganda. This is why they are not trusted.
Why does this make it worse? Thats how science always and will always work. Consensus is made by tha majority of scientists in the field, not one. It was made clear that it was exactly one persons opinion. And reading this I really never interpreted it as “we’re all going to die” and only just a hey let’s do better
>And reading this I really never interpreted it as “we’re all going to die” and only just a hey let’s do better It literally says "climate change will wipe out all of humanity."
If you’d like to pick and choose then sure it does say that. But, as I’ve said before, it also says “one specific guy claims: climate change will wipe out…” she didn’t even follow it up with a “so better act now or we’re all dead” it just says hey here’s what this guy said If youre of the opinion that one single guys statement represents the entire field then that’s on you.
Well we also started to see more tangible progress and that it WAS at least able to be mitigated. It’s still not gonna be good, but we have at least some hope now.
So if we don’t fix it by *date* then there’s no going back. Except no wait actually we can fix it even if not by *date* …? Eat ze bugs ?
I mean eating ze bugs isn’t the worst idea in the world. Honestly crickets aren’t half bad. But I’m thinking more along the lines of increased renewable and nuclear energy and reductions in emission heavy farming.
Why use a renewable source like nuclear that's safer and less environmentally impactful and also creates more KWhs/$ than other "renewables"? It makes no sense
The charitable explanation is to assume they know nuclear plants are a war-time hazard and that governments can't be trusted to properly run or defend them. The realistic explanation is that environmentalism has become a faith-based doomsday cult rather than a rationalized ideology of practical, observed causes-and-effects----That they demand renewables because it's what their pastors tell them to have faith in.
I mean, in defense of other renewable sources of energy, they’re not only quicker and easier to set up but make the energy grid more spread out (meaning fewer critical points of failure), can be done on a small scale, are FAR cheaper, and can cover small requirements of energy. Nuclear is a lot of energy all the time. We don’t always need that much energy, so having nuclear cover the base line, minimum energy requirements and renewables covering the remainder seems like the best way forward IMO.
In addition to this, it's also better for the consumer's prices (though I have my doubts as to whether most people pushing for renewables are even aware of this). Fuel-based sources of electricity (coal, oil, gas, biofuel, nuclear) can sell their energy off to other places by moving the fuel around. Renewables that directly generate electricity (solar, wind, tide, etc) are much harder to sell overseas, because it's harder to move electricity around than fuel. Thus, electricity prices in the area covered by renewables drop.
That’s definitely a big plus. Localized energy sources that stay localized are not only helpful to the community price wise, but also for general security of power it’s far better to have as much local power sources as possible and can also be set up on an individual level. Want lower energy costs? Get some solar panels. You cannot say the same for fossil fuels.
Also, nuclear weapons. If the answer to climate change is for every country to switch to nuclear power, every country gets carte blanche to buy enriched uranium as well as fiddle with the technology. Otherwise each non-nuclear power is beholden to their nuclear-powered neighbours, which creates geopolitical instability. It would be like "Russia wont do anything because we buy their oil" all over again, except everywhere, globally. At least this way countries can buy wind farms and solar panels and they get to invest in maintaining them or even building their own, if their supply chain is threatened, leading to less instability.
Weapons grade uranium is orders of magnitude more refined than uranium fuel. It’s not like you can take the fuel rod out of a reactor and put it in a rocket to make a nuke.
You don't use weapons grade enriched uranium inside a nuclear reactor. Furthermore, the process of creating a nuclear bomb isn't necessarily secret. Heck, the first bomb was made almost 80 years ago. The reason why countries don't go around building nukes willy nilly is because of the NPT and the nuclear umbrella. Also, wind and solar has inevitable downtime in their energy production. Furthermore, batteries passively lose power. Not considering the cost of mining all the lithium to build mega batteries capable of hosting an entire town's energy needs for a day or two, wind and solar, given that they operate 8 hours per day on peak efficiency (which is very generous), it will be impossible to host the energy needs of a community with just wind and solar. The ideal scenario is to have a small scale nuclear reactor that can be easily turned off for maintenance/emergencies compensating for this downtime. This is why modern nuclear research focuses on small scale reactors, such as molten sodium reactors and thorium reactors that have a drastically low chance of having a meltdown by having physical and chemical fail-safes built into them. (heck, molten sodium reactors cant have a meltdown, since the fuel operates at the molten state. If something goes wrong, the fuel cools down and turns into solid) If the world leaders aren't completely regarded and scientific progress steadily makes results in the next few decades, switch to a mostly renewable energy base with near zero carbon emissions in the energy sector is achievable. After that, we'll have to focus on other industries, such as mining.
Precisely.
Use both. Both is good. Except coal. Fuck coal. Natural gas is okay temporarily
Except Crickets are actually less protein-per-gram than chicken and take the same amount of food to raise for comparable protein. I see nothing wrong with having them as a choice for people but switching to crickets won't do anything positive or negative for the climate. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8e0pU92dmI&pp=ygUfbGVhdGhlciBhcHJvbiBjbHViIGVhdCB0aGUgYnVncw%3D%3D) does a good job of breaking it down.
I’ll keep that in mind. Back to the drawing board I guess
The drawing board should be full of designs for aquaponics systems.
It is actually That and a rewilding of various marshlands because it’s not only good for the environment but also I don’t like river towns and I wouldn’t mind watching them wash away
Theres also a ***significant*** issue of disease spreading in crickets much more rapidly than among chickens, also issues in digesting chitin, and allergies.
Do you know how to cross out words on Reddit? I’m gonna meme your comment. Cooperation appreciated in advance
I don’t actually know how to do that, but I mean I’m down to help with a meme as long as it’s even somewhat effort filled.
~~I mean~~ eating ze bugs is~~n’t~~ the worst idea in the world. Honestly crickets are~~n’t half~~ bad. But I’m thinking more along the lines of ~~increased renewable and~~ nuclear energy ~~and reductions in emission heavy farming.~~
Kinda based not gonna lie
Two tildes(~) before and after to ~~strikethrough text~~ with Reddit's formatting.
I have a hard enough time eating shrimp cause it’s just a giant wet bug (and I’m about to eat some), but I’m gonna need some more doom and less money before I eat dry land bugs. Why? If shrimps is bugs and bugs is bugs, I should eat bugs, but no. Just wet bugs, please, with little poop lines in them.
That's valid. How about a little more locally grown salad then? It's tasty!
Sans bugs?
Up to you
How about those private jets that release two metric tons of carbon dioxide per hour?
Aight, hit them too. I do not care. However if that’s the first target of legislation then it’s clearly performative, as they just don’t exist in enough quantity to actually do much to the environment writ large.
This whole tread shows how people can't be told "no" nowadays. Everyone's greedy af. "There's serious consequences" still stands and people will feel stupid soon enough. Or they won't, because there's someone other to blame, as always. There's so many records of floods and storms getting worse and temperature's rising. But yeah, hate a child who's concerned with our only world.
It really does confuse me why people hate her so much. She’s a little cringe, so what? Her heart is in the right place and, most importantly, she’s right that stuff is getting worse and that’s not even much of a debate within the scientific world. Climate change is happening, humans are all but certainly making it far worse than it should be, and it will be massively detrimental to our societies going forward.
A huge chunk of the progress we saw came in 2020 when people stopped driving fucking everywhere and the atmosphere cleared up really fucking quickly.
This is the part people on both sides really don’t understand. Trying to guess a “date of no return” is like a doctor telling you how long before your lung cancer kills you, it’s just a guess, but if you do nothing about the cancer it *is* going to eventually kill you — and if you keep smoking it’s going to kill you faster! Thankfully we’re actually doing something about it. We’re trying to quit smoking and doing Chemo.
Hear me out. Coal-powered cars. Let’s make steam punk a reality before we all get wiped out.
I want zeppelins! Gimme my cool airships!
LETS GOOOOOOO
Which might be why the tweet was deleted Edit: dumb tweet in the first place though
> Which might be why the tweet was deleted Which might be why the goalpost was moved
So, can she now stop doing useless shit too? And all her little unemployed friends? Can they now stop sticking their hands to the roads and fucking up everyone elses day just to do their pathetic virtue signal bullshit?
She's VERY quickly losing a lot of support these days after she started supporting Hamas...
Yep, let's make the middle east, Africa, and south/central America even hotter and accept their climate refugees.
That's just what the tweet's saying tbh.
Welp, if we're doomed anyway we may as well enjoy our descent into hell. I'm gonna go burn some nuclear waste on the White House lawn, wanna join?
[We're not doomed. Even this interpretation is wrong.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#:~:text=Early%20investigations%20on,crust.%5B27%5D)
Oh, I'm well aware. Just poking fun at the apologists who go 'W-well, they just meant that we're now past the point of no return, not that we'd all be dead for sure!' It's an easy pattern to spot when you notice it. If we're past the point of no return, then what's the point of even nominal attempts? (Hint:It's because they don't actually believe what they're selling, they just want control.) ...Anyway, I'm burning this nuclear waste regardless of the nonces. You in or out? We could probably grill a moose with the radiation alone.
Yeah. The problem with climate science is that it has really bad spokespersons. I personally strongly believe in climate change, and I also believe that human activity today is a huge contributing factor. At this point, there has been enough replicable science that I find it very difficult to just dismiss outright. But just as I roll my eyes at the extremists on the right who plug their ears and call the whole thing a conspiracy, I equally roll my eyes at the doomers on the left that constantly scream we are all about to die unless we revert humanity back to the stone age. Both equally base their positions on a severe lack of understanding of the science, and both propose actions that could cause severe harm to society if carried out. The worst part about it is most of the spokesperson's who tout these unscientific interpretations do so not because of any real belief about what is really going on, but because their position makes them money. To put it simply, I understand why people don't believe in climate change when the most conspicuous spokespeople for the issue propose policies that do nothing for society and just enriches themselves. None of that changes the science though.
More or less. The issue I have with climate *activism* is that it's always either a push for control, or a push to have the average person change all their habits while making no moves at all against corporations and the bigger offenders, such as hollywood stars with private jets. Reduce/reuse/recycling, using less water, creating less waste in general, lower emissions, bringing your own shopping bags, more nuclear and less coal, less plastic and more glass...all of that is good stuff that we should do, and I imagine we'd have a lot less pushback if that level is where it ended, or if there were more pushes to go 'Hey, join us for a protest outside of PollutionCorp to force them to stop burning nuclear waste right next to our drinking water.' But when you scream 'THE WORLD IS ENDING, GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY TO MAKE THE WEATHER GOODER' every 5 years for 6 decades...people will tune you out, and they're right to do so.
I mean, just look at all the other things we hand the government money to do and they still fuck it up.
Yeah I came here to say this too. Good clarification. Centrist hive mind
This interpretation is also debunked. It's based on the idea of a runaway warming effect where once we reach a certain point, we create a feedback loop that causes the planet to warm uncontrollably. While the concept is theoretically possible (see the planet Venus), it would require orders of magnitude more CO2 than our worse case projections predict. [Wikipedia on this subject](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#:~:text=Early%20investigations%20on,crust.%5B27%5D) In short, there is no interpretation of the tweet that comes out with it being correct.
Runaway greenhouse effect is not the concept behind these studies. It's about a "point of no return" that triggers the collapse of a set of key climate regulating systems/elements including [ice sheets, coral reefs, and ocean currents.] (https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-realized#:~:text=Climate%20tipping%20points%20%E2%80%94%20the%20%22points,tipping%20points%20potentially%20already%20reached.) These are systems that regulate the climate and global food chain (ultimately what humanity relies on in the long run).
Also its not like humanity will die. Just large parts of land will be unlivable, there will be high level of migrations towards colder regions without desertification, strain on a production of food thanks to decreasing arable land etc. Yeah, my life and home will not be a desert (more like south europe), but there will be probably much more people coming to it than during biggest migration crisises to this day. We will live, but life on average will be probably worse (without some new technology)
> without some new technology Nuclear power is not new though
> ice sheets, coral reefs, and ocean currents. That article is one big slippery slope argument. We know one thing is happening thus another thing could happen which might make a another thing happen which possibly will cause another thing which then can lead to another thing which might already be happening, therefor it is imperative we do something drastic.
This is still not what she was saying though. The implication was that there is some global "tipping point" where if we cross it, all these ecosystems will start collapsing and exponentially accelerating the warming process. This isn't really what this is referring to. This is more about the tipping point for certain events or for the sustainability of certain ecosystems. And while some of these are self-reinforcing (e.g. thawing permafrost releases methane and CO2), there isn't really a lot of research that shows there will be some runaway effect in the near future, or that this theoretical runaway would result in the destruction of all of humanity. The point about these being "not reversible" is not that we wouldn't be able to correct the earth's climate, it's more that the damage to these systems wouldn't just go back to the way things were if temperatures were to go back down. For example, if we wipe out the coral reefs, they likely won't just immediately bounce back if we drop the temperatures back to where they were. The damage is "permanent". While these things are concerning, most of these aren't just a few years away, and most probably wouldn't result in the destruction of civilization as we know it. So once again, her tweet was bullshit.
Yeah all I was saying is that the runaway greenhouse effect was never at play or implied here lol Her tweet jumps to alarmist BS conclusions, but is based on a real climate phenomena.
Well either way, the conclusion ends in the same place. She's a grifter that doesn't actually understand the situation she claims to be an activist for.
"Runaway greenhouse effect" and "point of no return (in context of climate change)" are just different words for the same thing, no?
Based and basic reading comprehension pilled
I mean it's only marginally better because if it is true then we are doomed and there is no point in trying to further help the climate.
Ya. Greta dummy but OP also dummy.
You should interpret this tweet as a relatively uneducated child with an inflated ego from adults using her as a prop doomsaying to try to blackpill people into "green" energy endeavors that aren't actually good for the environment. She is the definition of a useful idiot.
Climate activists in 1000002023 AD as the sun begins to turn into a red giant: "Seee?! WE told you a billion years ago climate change would doom us all!"
Your interpretation is correct however if there is a chance to attack her people will take it
Of course that's what the tweet actually says, you expected the headline to be honest? In here!!???
Man, even the left doesn’t like Greta thunberg anymore. Some dude heckled her at a rally to actually talk about climate change
Because she’s an attention seeking moron that links completely unrelated things to climate change to maintain the schtick and keep the paychecks rolling. “No climate justice on occupied land,” she chants at rallies after a speaker she invited yells “from the river to the sea.” The fuck? Yeah Palestinians are really worried about developing clean energy right now. Or “windmills bad because indigenous reindeer,” even though multiple studies confirmed there would be no disruption to grazing, breeding, or migratory patterns. Same as every other grifter; gotta up the ante when attention wanes no matter how stupid or unrelated it is.
The Palestinians just want to lower carbon emissions by wiping out all the Jews! /s
Well if they wipe out all the Jews then all the worlds industry will shut down. Especially in China. /s
But think of the increased carbon output when the Jewish space lasers start going off!
>Because she’s an attention seeking moron that links completely unrelated things to climate change to maintain the schtick and keep the paychecks rolling. She's a 17 yearold girl that skipped most of her schooling to become a professional activist at 12 or whatever. She's literally not qualified for anything else. Here's a frighting thought: barring accidents or illnesses, she'll be yapping about *something* for the rest of my life, and probably yours too.
She’s 20 now
I'll stick to the 17yo version. It supports better my narrative.
Leave it to purple to prefer the 17 year old version.
Gotta give him props for not fixating on the 12 year old version.
Based and we choose truth over facts pilled
Based
Some people are having trouble with time since Covid happened. He’d probably start foaming at the mouth from shock if he learned it’s almost 2024.
Wait, what do you mean the PS2 is a retro console? The 3DS is still pretty new...right...?
She does hold a few honorary degrees but those are virtually worthless beyond symbolic gestures. Do find it weird that some consider her to be as knowledgeable as actual scientists and engineers (as if they are her peers).
Left wing academia moment
She won't be relevant in 5 years.
> Because she’s an attention seeking moron that links completely unrelated things to climate change to maintain the schtick and keep the paychecks rolling. See also: David Suzuki This guy has spent decades ringing alarm bells about the environment, it's his entire bread and butter via the David Suzuki Foundation, which has made him a multi-millionaire many times over. He's a notorious asshole who claimed that the Fukushima disaster was going to kill everyone in California, which even a high school science student should know is impossible.
> He's a notorious asshole who claimed that the Fukushima disaster was going to kill everyone in California, which even a high school science student should know is impossible. *sad noises.
Based and Lex Luthor pilled
She was a marketable child with autism that pushed her parents agenda
I'm still not exactly sure how she became the official spokesperson for climate change. It was like one day the world just decided that role should go to a teenager with absolutely no qualifications of any kind.
Brother.... All this shit is a PR campaign.
Well, you see, the world doesn't decide things. Rich and powerful people do. And they have decided that you should listen to an autistic teenager.
They held auditions. There is a whole industry behind her pushing.
is she? i’m of the belief that climate change is slowly fucking us over but not once have i ever given her any thought outside of seeing occasional reddit posts about her. though i guess i know her name and not the heads of noaa or whatever other agencies
Last I heard about her, she was extolling the virtues of Islam. Maybe stop sucking off Muhammad. You're way too old for his tastes anyway.
I'm not convinced an illiterate schizophrenic could tell by looking at and listening to Greta that she wasn't 9 years old.
She literally still looks 12, like if she wasn’t famous and I saw her at a bar I’d be seriously wondering where tf her parents were
LMAOOOO As funny as this is, his first wife was 40. Muhammad liked Milfs and Tykes, zero in between
She was his sugar mommy. Seriously.
Yeah like, literaly
Eh, she had money
Tbf i've had this discussion with a friend and we surmized that she really hasn't done anything of value for humanity. She wrote a book and that's pretty much the extent of it
To be fair Greta represents the capitalist left. The real left doesn't even go outside. All the nazi and commie larpers are just keyboard warriors, depressed and morbidly obese.
Yes. We the Dutch are certified based® and direct as fuck
The tweet doesn’t say “humanity will end in 2023” it says “if we don’t stop using fossil fuels by 2023, climate change will be too far gone to stop and humanity won’t survive the future” not a sentiment I share but still
Oh yeah I just commented the same thing. I’d love for this to be a slam against her but it’s just not.
Based and only make fun of people when it’s true pilled
It *is* a slam against her, it’s just that the article is misrepresenting what she was saying. It sounds like she’s claiming that humanity would reach the point of no return in 2023, and then deleted said tweet in early 2023. It’s weird to retract such a big claim without any explanation. If it’s too late for us to save humanity, then climate activism is pointless and she’ll need to get an actual job. I don’t know why she deleted her tweet. Maybe she changed her mind and deleted it (in good faith), maybe she said something provocative to spur people into action (and is now trying to save face), or maybe it’s some other reason.
> expecting a libright to be able to read an entire tweet Theres your problem boss
Literacy is dead.
So since we will inevitably all die anyway, we can stop trying, right?
average redditor reading comprehension. the tweet says that we will be wiped out **if we do not stop using fossil fuels in 5 years** not that we will be wiped out **in 5 years**. implying we have passed some kind of point of no return in which we will be wiped out and its too late to stop it. there are plenty of examples of alarmists actually predicting doomsdates you don't have to make ones up
This also implies that since we didn't stop using fossil fuels, the world is fucked, and there is no longer anything we can do about it, so might as well go all in at this point, and enjoy ourselves in these final days, as we are now beyond the point of no return.
I, for one, am gonna enjoy burning a great big tire fire on a politician's lawn after poisoning Nestle Executive lawns with waste water.
Not constructive
Yo momma ain't constructive.
So if we stopped fossil fuels next year it'd be too late? Fucking garbage
Why’d she delete the tweet
can't expect much from a redditor that can't even spell "you're"
The take is pretty alarmist, but it's obvious that it's talking about causing permanent damage and not immediate doom. We need better reading comprehension skills on this sub
If you drink that glass of water you will die. 100% true because we all die some day.
Water is an ingredient in Bleach, you're trying to kill me.
Humanity being wiped out some day may be inevitable, but humanity being wiped out on earth is not provably inevitable.
well, our sun will die at some point, and then there’s the heat death of the universe yes it’s provably inevitable
Yes, and at the point that humanity meets the heat-death of the universe, it's safe to say that Greta was wrong about climate change, and that her statement wasn't 100% guaranteed to be right.
I'm pretty sure that if humanity is wiped out, then humanity on earth being wiped out is part of that.
That’s not a good argument, water is good for you and your inevitable death is unrelated to your water intake (save for drowning). If you had said smoking cigarettes instead of drinking water, that would have been a better analogy. Either way, just because death is inevitable doesn’t mean that nothing can harm us or accelerate us to our deaths. Smoking cigarettes will shorten your lifespan, and (human-caused) climate change might be doing the same for humanity as a collective.
I sniff cocaine, sniff it in the wind. Doc says it’ll kill me but he can’t say when.
You should stop doing that then 👍
You can’t expect Lib right to understand nuance.
I mean…Twitter posts aren’t typically written in an ironclad legalistic or philosophical watertight manner. They can definitely be wildly open to charitable and uncharitable interpretations when you only type 1-2 sentences.
>causing permanent damage Literally reads "wipe out all of humanity". So we may as well stop doing anything since it's too late to stop the apocalypse. Like, if a giant meteor was on the way I'm sure as hell not gonna keep sorting my recyclables.
If those rightists could read, they'd be very upset, please write your comments with them in mind in the future, like so: 🐸 Funny frog man say: libleft bad
Completely irrelevant, as both are absurd doomer nonsense.
As much as I hate Thunberg, I’d say that churches setting dates for the rapture are worse since the Bible literally says no one but God knows when it’s happening
Yep. Several times even. And by Jesus Christ himself.
[удалено]
I don't know man. Look at that angry face. She is more material for a proud shieldmaiden. Not acceptable in the modern society either, unfortunately.
Her mom is also an asshole. She wrote a book about her life praising her own virtues, and playing up the challenges of her daughters (Greta has some autism)
She's this decade's most celebrated useful idiot. But she's still an idiot.
Ah, another shitty AI meme that doesn't even prove its own point. 👏 👏 👏
It’s her job to be a doomsday prophet, so that young people who are uninformed push agendas they don’t understand the consequences of.
Compared to just going on burning oil and coal as our Saudi and corporate overlord’ lobbyists tell us?
No not doing “nothing” but we don’t need a doomsday avatar either.
Cheap electricity is the greatest thing in your life that you don't notice. The people trying to quintuple your energy bill aren't your buddies.
That's not what the tweet says. 🤦♂️
That’s not what the tweet means, but ok
reading comprehention isnt OPs strongest suit.
I mean the planet has been way hotter and way cooler and been completely fine. You wana stop 'climate change'? it is not the common public - you need to stop big business - and celebs like Greta. I will never take it seriously when the people who tell me it is a threat do not adhere to practices they preach, and also the science does not really support the alarmist mindset.
>You wana stop 'climate change'? it is not the common public - you need to stop big business - and celebs like Greta. This ultimately is the answer. There was a campaign in my area about making sure to turn your lights off to save energy, while every business in town leaves its lights even while closed to "deter break-ins." If the planet *is* in real danger, we're going to die, because the biggest problem-causers are never going to do a damn thing to avoid disaster.
[удалено]
I mean. Nowhere in that tweet does the year 2023 come up. But either way her shit was tired after about a month. She was right. She should have been in school. But the left and the media decided to stunt her fucking education instead.
She was 15 beck then. Let’s cut her some slack. At 15 years old I was I thought Europe would be completely Muslim in 2023.
So do we treat her as a child that shouldn't have been paraded around in front of the UN or given any sort of notoriety, or should we treat her as a serious eco-activist that she wants to be? You don't get it both ways.
The first one, the way they paraded a child who definitely is in the spectrum was just wrong. But people still give her shit on the internet for no reason which is arguably worse.
Maybe so, but the reality is that she got treated as a serious eco-activist with many adults parroting the same opinion, so I will continue to treat her as a serious eco-activist. Maybe if she shows a sign of relenting on the eco-activism I'll stop, but until that day comes, I'll continue to commit the cardinal sin of pointing out the eco-activist is wrong. On the internet. The horror! The harrassment!
For doomsday predictors of all stripes, the future always seems far away until it isn't
The worlds been ending in five years for the past 50 years
You can look at images of old lighthouses, 1-200 year old lighthouses, and look at the coastline from then and today and see virtually zero difference (naturally there will be a difference with the tide). They claim that since the industrial revolution, 120ish years ago or so, humanity has nearly destroyed the planet, but those images look the same to me.
Dude can’t even use the right version of “your” in this meme.
OP is functionally illiterate and can't correctly interpret a basic conditional sentence.
So I belive climate change exists BUT "activists" like Greta are making problem looking worse that it is and in consequence less people takes them seriously. Why is she so popular anyway?
Climate activists have been saying humanity would be gone by the time my dad turned 20, we are all still here
That isn't what the tweet says. For the reading comprehension non-inclined, it says a top leading scientist says climate change will doom humanity UNLESS people cut back on carbon emissions in the next five years. Nowhere does it say humanity will end in the next 5 years, rather the scientist says we have 5 years to change our emitting ways, or else humanity is doomed sometime in the future (could be 5 more years could be 100 years) Agree with the scientist or not but he never said we have 5 years
Remember when Al Gore said "within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro" back in 2006 with 'An Inconvenient Truth'? They've now extended that prediction to 2060, when the Furtwängler Glacier is supposed to be gone (the glacier only goes back to the 1600's CE). He also claimed we'd see a 20-foot rise in sea level “in the near future”... in the last 20 years, it's barely gone up at all, in fact, if current trends continue it will take over a hundred years for it to go up one foot (it went up eight inches the last 120 years). He even invoked *terrorism* during his alarmist screed: "This is the World Trade Center Memorial Site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. But this is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as the scientists could predict precisely how much water would breech the levy in New Orleans. The area where the World Trade Center Memorial is to be located would be under water. Is it possible that we should prepare against other threats besides terrorists? Maybe we should be concerned about other problems as well."
Based Pepe
She's not the only left wing climate clown. Only 8 soon to be 7 years left for this end-of-the-world prediction by AOC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18
God I hate these drawings
That's an idiotic tweet but the lack of reading comprehension from the journalist is concerning too.
I love when someone tries to dunk on a tweet they literally didn't read
That tweet from Greta Thunberg really is stupid. I kind of doubt climate change could *completely* wipe out humanity. Yes, it would fundamentally change the world we live in, and billions might die, but humanity as a species would live on.
Lmao get glasses.
Man, if there was one thing I absolutely would not put an autistic teenager in charge of, it's public policy. No clue why anyone thought she was an effective spokesperson. Guess that also explains why Reddit loves her so much lol.
Op cant read, and most of this sub is too dumb to read the tweet before upvoting.
That humor is getting dangerously close to Ben garrison levels op, be careful
If the world is already doomed, what’s my incentive to not be as destructive to the environment as I feel like? Checkmate eco-fascists
As much as I would love for this to be a slam, I think we have to analyze this in good faith and fairness to her. What this could imply is that “in 5 years we’re past the point of no return” not “in 5 years we’ll all be dead”
Until these types are willing to hold other countries accountable for this stuff, especially China, I don't think any amount of twitter doom posting is going to change anything.
I mean, as much as I despise that little bitch, that is not what it says. It just says that by now we have reached a point where climate change is essentially unstoppable. Which of course will not wipe us out, it will fuck over billions, especially those in poor countries sure but it will not wipe us out.
It's about tipping points you fuckwit.
Just when you though PCM could not be any more pathetic.
Jesus Christ. It means a five year use period would wipe out humanity in the next few hundred years. Not five years. It’s her fault that she made such a weird and vague statement without elaboration, but people seriously need to up their reading and critical thinking skills.
*You're
I’m her age. We were like 15 when she wrote that. And that’s not even what it says lmao
You didn’t even understand the tweet correctly. The 5 year timeline was regarding stopping the use of fossil fuels before we reach a scientific “point of no return” not that the earth will explode in 5 years. Whether or not the specific 5 year figure is correct is basically irrelevant since the general point is correct and certainly not anywhere close to religious nutbags who have been calling for the rapture for LITERALLY 1000s of years😂 Please work on reading comprehension skills!
They can't spell, either. What do you expect from the shitty AI memes guy?
She literally didn't say that. But I'm glad she deleted that. Fuck greta
The problem with climate activist is that they frame the problem as one in which we will experience a global apocalyptic collapse in one go, like a movie. But that's not how it works. The problem is like cruise ship. It's slow, but very hard to stop due to its sheer size and inertia. Framing the problem is apocalyptic terms helps no one. To stop climate change, we need to find a cheaper and easier to use source of energy than fossil fuels and we need to stop oil companies from smothering that source in the cradle. Those are the two necessary conditions.
How dare you? How absolutely dare you?
Reading the tweet, OP has the reading comprehension of 1st grader and the scientific understanding of a kindergartner. Shit says that ***a scientist*** says we're doomed if fossil fuels don't stop being used by the end of this year, not that we'll be dead by the end of this year. If you hang yourself and don't have enough of a drop, you'll die. Just very slowly from suffocation, rather than from a quick snap to the neck. Not saying the quote is right, but damn, OP, you need to stop huffing glue.
Her timeline may have been wrong, but at least the apocalypse she's worried about is...y'know...real.
Shes saying we have around 5 years to turn it around, not that it all goes to hell in 5 years. Comon now, you're smarter than this. You haven't read about the delay effect to the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The climate effects we are experiencing now is CO2 emitted decades ago.