Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

The Greta Thunberg Debate

Page 16 of 18 [ 273 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,803
Location: wales

07 Jan 2021, 2:04 pm

Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
The issue is that she and others like her never answer questions that matter. They just say what needs to be done without actually saying how or even having the slightest interest in participating themselves. The most vocal usually have the most useless jobs and skills one can imagine at making the infrastructure needed to produce green energy so why take them seriously?

Last time I flew on a plane was 2016 for an hour each way. Before then was 2001 for an two hours each way. I drive a 1.2 litre petrol car and I only really drive to work and back and rarely venture out far in it. Diet wise it doesn't bother me and I feel I'm doing more than enough. I also have the skills needed to contribute towards building the green revolutions.....unlike almost all environmental protestors I bump into.


This is far better than her pretending, at 18, to be a technical expert. She promotes for the techies, because that is what she can do best. My entire vocation has been as a conservation adviser to industry, and I can assure you that there's plenty of talent going to waste, because the people in charge only care about profits today, and are gambling away our futures.


It's not really better. If a public figure promotes then he/she needs to know the subject they promote inside out. The issue with not doing so that if someone doesn't know how to implement what they advocate, then how do they know what they advocate is possible in a reasonable time frame or at all? If someone like that has a massive following then that causes further problems of others believing a misleading ideal that can't meet their expectations (or at least fast enough) and when those people are prepared to cause endless disruption and protest that's when I have an issue.


No, promotion and technical work are both specialties. You never see a company with an engineering and advertising department. The sales manager even has far less discretionary budget than the other VPs. Greta is only saying that we will really wish we had done better, and should get busy seeing how much we can save.

I'd like to point out that even the new technology that we are offered is still based on maximizing profits. There is no good excuse for a car to weigh more than it carries - all the excess is just what we are used to being sold.


They are specialities but like I said before, if I protested, advocated or even encouraged others to block streets until Europe caves in to my demand to make a star ship to take 100 people to the nearest star while I myself don't offer any help whatsoever in turning that dream into a reality, that's when I have problems with someone's democratic right to promotion and promotion is a very novel use of the word in such a case.

Cars weight as much as they are usually for a reason. Drive shafts, mountains of safety equipment, axels, body. Cars need to weigh more than they can carry. You can remove a lot of heavy equipment from a petrol/diesel car if you want to turn it into an electric one like the engine, drive shaft and gear box but batteries are heavy and engines have gotten a lot smaller over the years. You can make an electric car lighter but not that light. Car manufacturers don't make their cars weigh a lot for fun and to annoy people.



Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,717
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

07 Jan 2021, 2:27 pm

Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:

No, promotion and technical work are both specialties. You never see a company with an engineering and advertising department. The sales manager even has far less discretionary budget than the other VPs. Greta is only saying that we will really wish we had done better, and should get busy seeing how much we can save.

I'd like to point out that even the new technology that we are offered is still based on maximizing profits. There is no good excuse for a car to weigh more than it carries - all the excess is just what we are used to being sold.


They are specialities but like I said before, if I protested, advocated or even encouraged others to block streets until Europe caves in to my demand to make a star ship to take 100 people to the nearest star while I myself don't offer any help whatsoever in turning that dream into a reality, that's when I have problems with someone's democratic right to promotion and promotion is a very novel use of the word in such a case.

Cars weight as much as they are usually for a reason. Drive shafts, mountains of safety equipment, axels, body. Cars need to weigh more than they can carry. You can remove a lot of heavy equipment from a petrol/diesel car if you want to turn it into an electric one like the engine, drive shaft and gear box but batteries are heavy and engines have gotten a lot smaller over the years. You can make an electric car lighter but not that light. Car manufacturers don't make their cars weigh a lot for fun and to annoy people.


Your starship example is absurd. That is for an impossible demand for one person's fantasy. Greta is asking that we do as much as possible, for everyone.

Cheap power, and our propensity for playing status games, made car designers lose sight of the basic goal completely. My avatar shows a car that was built up from a bicycle, adding only what is needed, instead of trying to subtract from a monstrosity.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,803
Location: wales

07 Jan 2021, 2:41 pm

Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:

No, promotion and technical work are both specialties. You never see a company with an engineering and advertising department. The sales manager even has far less discretionary budget than the other VPs. Greta is only saying that we will really wish we had done better, and should get busy seeing how much we can save.

I'd like to point out that even the new technology that we are offered is still based on maximizing profits. There is no good excuse for a car to weigh more than it carries - all the excess is just what we are used to being sold.


They are specialities but like I said before, if I protested, advocated or even encouraged others to block streets until Europe caves in to my demand to make a star ship to take 100 people to the nearest star while I myself don't offer any help whatsoever in turning that dream into a reality, that's when I have problems with someone's democratic right to promotion and promotion is a very novel use of the word in such a case.

Cars weight as much as they are usually for a reason. Drive shafts, mountains of safety equipment, axels, body. Cars need to weigh more than they can carry. You can remove a lot of heavy equipment from a petrol/diesel car if you want to turn it into an electric one like the engine, drive shaft and gear box but batteries are heavy and engines have gotten a lot smaller over the years. You can make an electric car lighter but not that light. Car manufacturers don't make their cars weigh a lot for fun and to annoy people.


Your starship example is absurd. That is for an impossible demand for one person's fantasy. Greta is asking that we do as much as possible, for everyone.

Cheap power, and our propensity for playing status games, made car designers lose sight of the basic goal completely. My avatar shows a car that was built up from a bicycle, adding only what is needed, instead of trying to subtract from a monstrosity.


Not much more absurd than perpetual disruptive protesting demanding for a complete change of infrastructure that generates all electricity and the cessation of all fossil fuels in general. Changes of infrastructure on that scale isn't going to happen in a decade.

That car seems terrible too. Even a 125cc motorbike weighs more than the weight it carries. That car is not practical and will never take off and something made that light will never stand the test of time, is horribly unsafe and probably very slow with almost no range................ this is exactly what I talk about when I mean people who advocate for the environment not knowing the practicalities of actually replacing everything with greener alternatives. That glorified bicycle isn't an alternative to the vehicle I need to travel to and from work. I'm certainly not using something like that to take me back home after a 12 hour day.



Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,717
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

07 Jan 2021, 3:07 pm

^^ You are trying to argue with an award-winning, industry-published engineer. I won't waste more if my time.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,803
Location: wales

07 Jan 2021, 3:17 pm

Dear_one wrote:
^^ You are trying to argue with an award-winning, industry-published engineer. I won't waste more if my time.


I'm seriously doubting that.



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,266
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

07 Jan 2021, 6:27 pm

Dear_one wrote:
jimmy m wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
You have already declared yourself too old to change your mind, whatever the evidence, so you should stay out of the debate.


Yes I am old and I have formed my position over many years. Some might call it Wisdom. Unlike Greta I am a scientist and I do consider all the evidence. But I wonder if you already have your mind made up on this subject and have closed yourself off from considering the scientific evidence. As a matter of fact it appears that we are the same age. Has anyone ever suggested that you should STAY OUR OF THE DEBATE?


What debate? Your procedure is not science, it is ignoring any evidence that does not confirm your position. I saw the Banff glacier when a fine old stone hotel gave a great view of it. Now, the hotel is still there, but the glacier is a thin, distant white line. The news is the same all over. It takes a lot of heat to melt ice, and now that temperature and weather regulator is missing over vast areas.

About half a century ago I attended college near Albany NY (the state capital). I was told when I got there that once snow covered the ground in winter the ground would stay covered until spring. Which was true. Recently I saw an alumni announcement featuring a photo taken by a current student there which was presented as a winter scene. Trees were bare of leaves but the ground was free of snow or nearly so. There was a later photo in which snow appeared but was half melted and there were large puddles. I don't have to be lectured to about scientific evidence, I can see with my own eyes.


_________________
My WP story


Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

07 Jan 2021, 6:33 pm

When I was young, permafrost was just that, permanently frozen.

Anyone denying the science is no scientist.



Apuleius
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 88
Location: Boston

08 Jan 2021, 1:11 am

Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:

Not much more absurd than perpetual disruptive protesting demanding for a complete change of infrastructure that generates all electricity and the cessation of all fossil fuels in general. Changes of infrastructure on that scale isn't going to happen in a decade.


Greta's movement has one measurable demand: that the nations where they protest treat their commitments under the Paris Agreement as legally binding and carry them out.

If that's pie-in-the-sky, then the agreement should never have been signed. All the signatories affirmed that they had a path to realizing their commitments.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,803
Location: wales

08 Jan 2021, 4:16 am

Apuleius wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:

Not much more absurd than perpetual disruptive protesting demanding for a complete change of infrastructure that generates all electricity and the cessation of all fossil fuels in general. Changes of infrastructure on that scale isn't going to happen in a decade.


Greta's movement has one measurable demand: that the nations where they protest treat their commitments under the Paris Agreement as legally binding and carry them out.

If that's pie-in-the-sky, then the agreement should never have been signed. All the signatories affirmed that they had a path to realizing their commitments.


They're more than likely caving into pressure from people with little understanding of basic physics and conflicts of interest.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

08 Jan 2021, 4:38 am

"Even the rain that falls won't reach the dams."Tim Flannery. 8)

Image



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,803
Location: wales

08 Jan 2021, 5:45 am

I don't know of this is better on the political thread or not.



Apuleius
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 4 Jul 2018
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 88
Location: Boston

08 Jan 2021, 2:16 pm

Nades wrote:
They're more than likely caving into pressure from people with little understanding of basic physics and conflicts of interest.


So far the only nations that "caved" are Holland and Germany. And both of them had perfectly feasible commitments lined up. Germany's already exceeding theirs anyway.

Remember that the Paris Agreements were negotiated not just by politicos but by nerds as well.



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

08 Jan 2021, 2:17 pm

Nades wrote:

They're more than likely caving into pressure from people with little understanding of basic physics and conflicts of interest.


Like the oil industry?



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,803
Location: wales

08 Jan 2021, 3:54 pm

Apuleius wrote:
Nades wrote:
They're more than likely caving into pressure from people with little understanding of basic physics and conflicts of interest.


So far the only nations that "caved" are Holland and Germany. And both of them had perfectly feasible commitments lined up. Germany's already exceeding theirs anyway.

Remember that the Paris Agreements were negotiated not just by politicos but by nerds as well.


I'm unaware of what Holland and Germany has set for their commitments and by when.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,803
Location: wales

08 Jan 2021, 4:03 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:

They're more than likely caving into pressure from people with little understanding of basic physics and conflicts of interest.


Like the oil industry?


You mean they have little understanding of physics or conflicts of interest?

The conflicts of interest I think of is the almost universal disapproval of pretty much all for profit industries and companies by environmental activists who are pushing for the green revolution with shorter and shorter time limits. To many in environmental activism, the costs are completely irrelevant and practicality or even plausibility of their demands within their times frames equally so.

Sadly the world doesn't work like that and I don't like anyone who demands these changes but fails to deliver the goods in the form of a viable plan to achieve them.

To them it's just endless disruptive protest and absolutely zero in the way of helpful innovation. Hell, I can't even legally install an electric boiler in my own rental houses yet I'm expected to somehow ditch my gas boilers.



commiserate
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

Joined: 7 Jan 2021
Age: 953
Gender: Male
Posts: 20

08 Jan 2021, 4:50 pm

Nades wrote:
Dear_one wrote:
^^ You are trying to argue with an award-winning, industry-published engineer. I won't waste more if my time.


I'm seriously doubting that.


can confirm Dear_one is an award-winning, industry-published engineer ( seen the proof )