Greta Thunberg my opinion

One last post on this then I'm done. But just a quick question that highlights the cognitive dissonance around all this.

So of Greta is right and the world is about to burn due to human neglect, and the blame of this lies at the door of the developed west, then isn't Sweden (and Germany) fundamentally at fault for opening their doors to mass immigration of populations who reproduce at a far higher rate than the native population? They are essentially moving expanding populations from lower carbon producing areas per head to areas where that population footprint will have a bigger impact on global climate change are they not?

Surely the need for global reduction of CO2 is therefore at direct odds with global open borders.

Just one more example of the holes in leftist thinking that simple application of logic blows wide open.

So which is it - open borders or saving the planet? I'll leave that to all the clever folks on the left to work out as it's way above my pay grade.

So you leave refugees to the mercy of war or persecution by their own government because it may be helpful to global warming? Bizarre!

Refugees bwhahahahah they are predominantly economic migrants and the vast majority are young men.

Here’s something worth watching for those on here:
https://twitter.com/markhumphries/statu ... 65440?s=21

To be fair that is funny.

How dare you remind me that there are good people on both sides. How dare you not all be dumbass automatons. How dare you steal my hopes and dreams that the progressives would just eventually slip into a purity spiral that pushed everyone else back onto the side of sanity. How dare you, with your comedy, your hateful, selfish comedy, make me think that everything might be OK if we just carry on as we always have, with humour bridging discussion between the two sides. How dare you? How dare you!

There may be hope after all.



(Greta is still a patsy being used to push through an authoritarian agenda through the back door though. Still, funny is funny from either side.)

I think this is the final paragraph you suggested I read back and ask myself the question?

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Having done so I think I can see both common ground and also where we are at odds in this discussion.

You're right to ask why wouldn't we want to move to cleaner options where available. In my work I write about servitization a lot which is a fundamental driver towards a circular economy within manufacturing and I am a big proponent of the trend not just for ecological reason but also it delivers big commercial gains and improved customer service levels.

I also cover the energy sector to a lesser degree and as I've gone into on other posts dont think solar and wind are effective enough to be viable but am a big advocate of nuclear and hydro.

I am vehemently against the overuse of plastic.

So at its core point I agree with you that we should and can do more as custodians of the planet.

Where we differ though is your assertion that this is all the likes of Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are pushing for. To my eye they are pushing forward an ideology far more extreme than that.

It is the same as the green new deal AOC put forwards in my eyes, which is a push for ever greater governmental control using environmentalism as an easy shield to hide behind.

Thunberg and most of extinction rebellion for that matter are little more than easily manipulated puppets and it is those pulling the strings that scare me as I dont think their motives are as wholesome as they might have you believe.

You may think I'm a tin hat wearing fool of this opinion, likewise I may think some folks are naive for not seeing the wider picture.

However, on the initial point of why shouldn't we do what we can in our personal lives to make some difference, then we can find common ground so I'll leave it whilst we are on that.

There is only so much we can do as individuals though and there is only so much small companies can do to become more efficient. Billions are spent each year on fossil fuel and companies spend hundreds of millions lobbying against legislation that will improve the environment but reduce their profits. If a fraction of that sum of money was invested in renewable energy then the things we are currently doing would be much more efficient and could be relied upon more. There might be a bigger agenda behind these groups but they are realistically the only people who can put enough pressure on governments and industry to force change. If you don't want to support that because you have your own personal theory of a potential hidden motive then that is your choice.

I referenced servitization in my earlier post. I've covered major, major organizations adopting this approach within many sectors including heavy industry sectors such as mining and construction. These are not small organizations we are talking about here, these are multi-billion-pound organizations such as Metso, ABB, GE etc etc.

All (and many more) are moving towards a servitized business strategies which is one of the most foundational pillars of a circular economy being adopted at a global scale.

This is not some small organisations making little difference it is a major paradigm shift within industry that will have huge societal impact across the coming decades and within that will be a more sustainable approach to manufacturing. Trust me I know my apples on this particular topic and it is far more complex than the Evil Corp vs The Planet rhetoric that is becoming popular again.

Same goes for conversations around renewables - it is far more complex than let's just invest in renewables and it'll save the day. OK which renewables because Germany has royally screwed up by betting big on Solar and Wind and have seen cost of power increase alongside their carbon footprint. France, on the other hand, is doing well with Nuclear and Hydro - which are both clean and efficient.

Again it is more complex than renewables good, fossil fuel bad.

Put global restrictions on fossil fuel consumption onto developing nations and they have no means of developing the infrastructure to lead them towards developed nation status - trapping billions of people in poverty. Or how about California who is throwing up solar panels like nobodies business but currently has zero legislation for how they are going to deal with the waste in 30 years time. Solar panels are considered to be made of hazardous waste according to their own interpretation. So shouldn't a careful plan of recycling have been considered before they were thrown up in every corner of the state?

Maybe, maybe not - but again the conversation is far more nuanced and complex than the binary options of Renewables Good vs Fossil Fuels Evil that climate activists would have us believe.

Finally, I wouldn't personally be arrogant enough to say any of the above is my own personal theory, I'm not sure if that was meant as a compliment or a backhanded jibe but I'll take it as the former - seeing as my response was intended in a similarly conciliatory tone.


However, there are a lot more people out there, most of them far, far smarter than me, who have come to similar conclusions by simply following the logical trail, paying attention to historical precedents and being able to apply a wee bit of critical thinking.

I actually didnt mean anything by it, just saying that you can support whatever you want for whatever your reasons. Although, reading it back it does come across quite sarcastic!

I do realise this issue wont be solved overnight and it is not just a simple case of suddenly stopping to use fossil fuels altogether. Which is why I said investment is needed to improve efficiency of renewable sources. But as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels this will continue to be a problem. Pressure from these groups will always be needed to prevent progress stagnating. Sooner rather than later we will have to become less heavily reliant on fossil fuels as, and putting climate change aside, we only have a finite amount of resources left that are predicted to run out within the next 100 years or so. Although I am sure there are people who will say scientists are wrong on that one as well and its just more scaremongering.

I actually didnt mean anything by it, just saying that you can support whatever you want for whatever your reasons. Although, reading it back it does come across quite sarcastic!

Fair enough mate and all good.

Genuinely if this was a conversation over a pint rather than a message board I'm fairly sure we'd find more common ground than disagreement but as you say it is a complex discussion that can't be resolved overnight.

A stage managed 16 year old harbinger of doom being sailed in on one big carbon neutral PR stunt isn't helpful to those conversations and by radically reducing them to the simple 'we are going to burn rhetoric' she is actually damaging them instead by polarising opinion based on personality and opinion rather than constructive fact based discussion.

This is what leads me to see her as more of a political stooge for a subversive globablist movement rather than a genuine eco-warrior. I dont question her integrity, I believe she genuinely, passionately thinks we are on the brink of extinction. I also believed she is being terribly manipulated and exploited for a much darker purpose. You may have noticed I've added a tin foil hat to my avatar in reflection of such thinking!

I guess in short, on tackling climate change we would likely be able to find agreement in many places. On Greta and extinction rebellion etc, it is a matter of perspective which is reliant on other suppositions I hold which I accept are outside of the norm, so where no common ground lies I always suggest agreeing to disagree.

I think this is the final paragraph you suggested I read back and ask myself the question?

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Having done so I think I can see both common ground and also where we are at odds in this discussion.

You're right to ask why wouldn't we want to move to cleaner options where available. In my work I write about servitization a lot which is a fundamental driver towards a circular economy within manufacturing and I am a big proponent of the trend not just for ecological reason but also it delivers big commercial gains and improved customer service levels.

I also cover the energy sector to a lesser degree and as I've gone into on other posts dont think solar and wind are effective enough to be viable but am a big advocate of nuclear and hydro.

I am vehemently against the overuse of plastic.

So at its core point I agree with you that we should and can do more as custodians of the planet.

Where we differ though is your assertion that this is all the likes of Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are pushing for. To my eye they are pushing forward an ideology far more extreme than that.

It is the same as the green new deal AOC put forwards in my eyes, which is a push for ever greater governmental control using environmentalism as an easy shield to hide behind.

Thunberg and most of extinction rebellion for that matter are little more than easily manipulated puppets and it is those pulling the strings that scare me as I dont think their motives are as wholesome as they might have you believe.

You may think I'm a tin hat wearing fool of this opinion, likewise I may think some folks are naive for not seeing the wider picture.

However, on the initial point of why shouldn't we do what we can in our personal lives to make some difference, then we can find common ground so I'll leave it whilst we are on that.

There is only so much we can do as individuals though and there is only so much small companies can do to become more efficient. Billions are spent each year on fossil fuel and companies spend hundreds of millions lobbying against legislation that will improve the environment but reduce their profits. If a fraction of that sum of money was invested in renewable energy then the things we are currently doing would be much more efficient and could be relied upon more. There might be a bigger agenda behind these groups but they are realistically the only people who can put enough pressure on governments and industry to force change. If you don't want to support that because you have your own personal theory of a potential hidden motive then that is your choice.

I referenced servitization in my earlier post. I've covered major, major organizations adopting this approach within many sectors including heavy industry sectors such as mining and construction. These are not small organizations we are talking about here, these are multi-billion-pound organizations such as Metso, ABB, GE etc etc.

All (and many more) are moving towards a servitized business strategies which is one of the most foundational pillars of a circular economy being adopted at a global scale.

This is not some small organisations making little difference it is a major paradigm shift within industry that will have huge societal impact across the coming decades and within that will be a more sustainable approach to manufacturing. Trust me I know my apples on this particular topic and it is far more complex than the Evil Corp vs The Planet rhetoric that is becoming popular again.

Same goes for conversations around renewables - it is far more complex than let's just invest in renewables and it'll save the day. OK which renewables because Germany has royally screwed up by betting big on Solar and Wind and have seen cost of power increase alongside their carbon footprint. France, on the other hand, is doing well with Nuclear and Hydro - which are both clean and efficient.

Again it is more complex than renewables good, fossil fuel bad.

Put global restrictions on fossil fuel consumption onto developing nations and they have no means of developing the infrastructure to lead them towards developed nation status - trapping billions of people in poverty. Or how about California who is throwing up solar panels like nobodies business but currently has zero legislation for how they are going to deal with the waste in 30 years time. Solar panels are considered to be made of hazardous waste according to their own interpretation. So shouldn't a careful plan of recycling have been considered before they were thrown up in every corner of the state?

Maybe, maybe not - but again the conversation is far more nuanced and complex than the binary options of Renewables Good vs Fossil Fuels Evil that climate activists would have us believe.

Finally, I wouldn't personally be arrogant enough to say any of the above is my own personal theory, I'm not sure if that was meant as a compliment or a backhanded jibe but I'll take it as the former - seeing as my response was intended in a similarly conciliatory tone.


However, there are a lot more people out there, most of them far, far smarter than me, who have come to similar conclusions by simply following the logical trail, paying attention to historical precedents and being able to apply a wee bit of critical thinking.

A lot of sensible comments here whichever side of the fence you sit on. My opinion for what it's worth is that as in most cases, this comes down to money. I have spent time in Central & S America, and in some areas between the humidity and pollution being generated by local industry, just breathing is enough to make you breathless. Many people living in these regions are surviving from day to day in abject poverty, and are not really interested in the health of our planet. They are just trying to ensure that they and their families can survive from day to day.

The wealthier nations will have to subsidise these countries if they want them to use alternative forms of energy. These same wealthier nations will also have to pay more than lip service themselves with regards to their own pollution if these problems are to be effectively challenged. Many rainforests are being cut down to be replaced with crops that produce an income for some of these poorer countries. If we want to stop the destruction of rainforests, alternative forms of income will have to be made available for those who are harvesting these alternative crops in those regions.

Everyone has a responsibility, and much will depend on the will of the more advanced nations not just to put their own houses in order, but to help the parts of the world who do not have the means to help themselves. It will cost money, and it will be interesting to see how much we are all prepared to pay. Demonstrations and speeches are ok, but we will all be required to do much more than that if these problems are to be seriously tackled.

I think this is the final paragraph you suggested I read back and ask myself the question?

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Having done so I think I can see both common ground and also where we are at odds in this discussion.

You're right to ask why wouldn't we want to move to cleaner options where available. In my work I write about servitization a lot which is a fundamental driver towards a circular economy within manufacturing and I am a big proponent of the trend not just for ecological reason but also it delivers big commercial gains and improved customer service levels.

I also cover the energy sector to a lesser degree and as I've gone into on other posts dont think solar and wind are effective enough to be viable but am a big advocate of nuclear and hydro.

I am vehemently against the overuse of plastic.

So at its core point I agree with you that we should and can do more as custodians of the planet.

Where we differ though is your assertion that this is all the likes of Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are pushing for. To my eye they are pushing forward an ideology far more extreme than that.

It is the same as the green new deal AOC put forwards in my eyes, which is a push for ever greater governmental control using environmentalism as an easy shield to hide behind.

Thunberg and most of extinction rebellion for that matter are little more than easily manipulated puppets and it is those pulling the strings that scare me as I dont think their motives are as wholesome as they might have you believe.

You may think I'm a tin hat wearing fool of this opinion, likewise I may think some folks are naive for not seeing the wider picture.

However, on the initial point of why shouldn't we do what we can in our personal lives to make some difference, then we can find common ground so I'll leave it whilst we are on that.

There is only so much we can do as individuals though and there is only so much small companies can do to become more efficient. Billions are spent each year on fossil fuel and companies spend hundreds of millions lobbying against legislation that will improve the environment but reduce their profits. If a fraction of that sum of money was invested in renewable energy then the things we are currently doing would be much more efficient and could be relied upon more. There might be a bigger agenda behind these groups but they are realistically the only people who can put enough pressure on governments and industry to force change. If you don't want to support that because you have your own personal theory of a potential hidden motive then that is your choice.

I referenced servitization in my earlier post. I've covered major, major organizations adopting this approach within many sectors including heavy industry sectors such as mining and construction. These are not small organizations we are talking about here, these are multi-billion-pound organizations such as Metso, ABB, GE etc etc.

All (and many more) are moving towards a servitized business strategies which is one of the most foundational pillars of a circular economy being adopted at a global scale.

This is not some small organisations making little difference it is a major paradigm shift within industry that will have huge societal impact across the coming decades and within that will be a more sustainable approach to manufacturing. Trust me I know my apples on this particular topic and it is far more complex than the Evil Corp vs The Planet rhetoric that is becoming popular again.

Same goes for conversations around renewables - it is far more complex than let's just invest in renewables and it'll save the day. OK which renewables because Germany has royally screwed up by betting big on Solar and Wind and have seen cost of power increase alongside their carbon footprint. France, on the other hand, is doing well with Nuclear and Hydro - which are both clean and efficient.

Again it is more complex than renewables good, fossil fuel bad.

Put global restrictions on fossil fuel consumption onto developing nations and they have no means of developing the infrastructure to lead them towards developed nation status - trapping billions of people in poverty. Or how about California who is throwing up solar panels like nobodies business but currently has zero legislation for how they are going to deal with the waste in 30 years time. Solar panels are considered to be made of hazardous waste according to their own interpretation. So shouldn't a careful plan of recycling have been considered before they were thrown up in every corner of the state?

Maybe, maybe not - but again the conversation is far more nuanced and complex than the binary options of Renewables Good vs Fossil Fuels Evil that climate activists would have us believe.

Finally, I wouldn't personally be arrogant enough to say any of the above is my own personal theory, I'm not sure if that was meant as a compliment or a backhanded jibe but I'll take it as the former - seeing as my response was intended in a similarly conciliatory tone.


However, there are a lot more people out there, most of them far, far smarter than me, who have come to similar conclusions by simply following the logical trail, paying attention to historical precedents and being able to apply a wee bit of critical thinking.

A lot of sensible comments here whichever side of the fence you sit on. My opinion for what it's worth is that as in most cases, this comes down to money. I have spent time in Central & S America, and in some areas between the humidity and pollution being generated by local industry, just breathing is enough to make you breathless. Many people living in these regions are surviving from day to day in abject poverty, and are not really interested in the health of our planet. They are just trying to ensure that they and their families can survive from day to day.

The wealthier nations will have to subsidise these countries if they want them to use alternative forms of energy. These same wealthier nations will also have to pay more than lip service themselves with regards to their own pollution if these problems are to be effectively challenged. Many rainforests are being cut down to be replaced with crops that produce an income for some of these poorer countries. If we want to stop the destruction of rainforests, alternative forms of income will have to be made available for those who are harvesting these alternative crops in those regions.

Everyone has a responsibility, and much will depend on the will of the more advanced nations not just to put their own houses in order, but to help the parts of the world who do not have the means to help themselves. It will cost money, and it will be interesting to see how much we are all prepared to pay. Demonstrations and speeches are ok, but we will all be required to do much more than that if these problems are to be seriously tackled.

Very good balanced post there Steve

The OP is vile scum. Half a mind to send this onto South Wales Police. He needs to be checked out, I worry for his family

The OP is vile scum. Half a mind to send this onto South Wales Police. He needs to be checked out, I worry for his family

He does seem to have a screw loose but police is a bit far

The OP is vile scum. Half a mind to send this onto South Wales Police. He needs to be checked out, I worry for his family

No need for that tcblue.

The OP is vile scum. Half a mind to send this onto South Wales Police. He needs to be checked out, I worry for his family

Afraid I disagree with you. This forum is all about opinions. The OP may have a different opinion to many of us on here, but I don't see anything wrong with that. The headline of his thread includes the words "my opinion", and why should he be wrong just because his opinions differ from ours. I have strong opinions on many subjects, but I know that doesn't make me right and everyone else wrong.

The OP is vile scum. Half a mind to send this onto South Wales Police. He needs to be checked out, I worry for his family

Yes great idea, the police should spend time and resources investigating an opinion on a message board. Forget rising knife crime, forget county lines drug dealers in Cardiff and concentrate on any view you don’t agree with
You read 1984 mate?

Greta Thunberg, is a victim of those who manipulate and use her.

There was global warming, back in 1997, and there hasn't been any since. They call it the pause. There is no correlation whatsoever between climate and mankind's activities.

There was also the Medieval Warm Period (1.5C warmer than the current one) and the Roman Warm Period (as much as 4C warmer than the current one). Between the warm periods there have been cold periods, including the mini ice age.

All of these changes in our climate can be explained by the Milankovitch cycles. The earth does not follow the same orbit every year, it is tugged around by the gravity of the other planets. This sometimes takes us closer to and sometimes further away from the sun. This is the real proven science. Which they don't tell you because it doesn't suit their globalist NWO aims.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

The OP is vile scum. Half a mind to send this onto South Wales Police. He needs to be checked out, I worry for his family

Yes great idea, the police should spend time and resources investigating an opinion on a message board. Forget rising knife crime, forget county lines drug dealers in Cardiff and concentrate on any view you don’t agree with
You read 1984 mate?

I don't see how his post can be described as vile. I may not agree with a lot of it, but who is to say that his opinion is wrong. A lot of what is said may be closer to the truth than we would care to believe. Either way, he is perfectly entitled to his opinion, and I would be more worried about someone who talks of reporting someone to the police just for expressing an opinion on a forum, than anything Nuclear Blue has posted on the subject.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Greta Thunberg, is a victim of those who manipulate and use her.

There was global warming, back in 1997, and there hasn't been any since. They call it the pause. There is no correlation whatsoever between climate and mankind's activities.

There was also the Medieval Warm Period (1.5C warmer than the current one) and the Roman Warm Period (as much as 4C warmer than the current one). Between the warm periods there have been cold periods, including the mini ice age.

All of these changes in our climate can be explained by the Milankovitch cycles. The earth does not follow the same orbit every year, it is tugged around by the gravity of the other planets. This sometimes takes us closer to and sometimes further away from the sun. This is the real proven science. Which they don't tell you because it doesn't suit their globalist NWO aims.

Nobody is denying that the earth goes through natural temperature cycles. At present, there might not be a correlation between the climate and mankind’s activities because it’s only up until now that activities have been significant enough to influence it. If you look at the graph I previously posted it shows an unnatural spike in co2 levels in the atmosphere which correlates to the industrial revolution. CO2 in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. I.e more thermal energy is retained by the atmosphere. This is pretty simple science. We might well be in a natural warmer cycle but it’s pretty naive to think our activities have no influence on the climate.

I think this is the final paragraph you suggested I read back and ask myself the question?

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Having done so I think I can see both common ground and also where we are at odds in this discussion.

You're right to ask why wouldn't we want to move to cleaner options where available. In my work I write about servitization a lot which is a fundamental driver towards a circular economy within manufacturing and I am a big proponent of the trend not just for ecological reason but also it delivers big commercial gains and improved customer service levels.

I also cover the energy sector to a lesser degree and as I've gone into on other posts dont think solar and wind are effective enough to be viable but am a big advocate of nuclear and hydro.

I am vehemently against the overuse of plastic.

So at its core point I agree with you that we should and can do more as custodians of the planet.

Where we differ though is your assertion that this is all the likes of Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are pushing for. To my eye they are pushing forward an ideology far more extreme than that.

It is the same as the green new deal AOC put forwards in my eyes, which is a push for ever greater governmental control using environmentalism as an easy shield to hide behind.

Thunberg and most of extinction rebellion for that matter are little more than easily manipulated puppets and it is those pulling the strings that scare me as I dont think their motives are as wholesome as they might have you believe.

You may think I'm a tin hat wearing fool of this opinion, likewise I may think some folks are naive for not seeing the wider picture.

However, on the initial point of why shouldn't we do what we can in our personal lives to make some difference, then we can find common ground so I'll leave it whilst we are on that.

There is only so much we can do as individuals though and there is only so much small companies can do to become more efficient. Billions are spent each year on fossil fuel and companies spend hundreds of millions lobbying against legislation that will improve the environment but reduce their profits. If a fraction of that sum of money was invested in renewable energy then the things we are currently doing would be much more efficient and could be relied upon more. There might be a bigger agenda behind these groups but they are realistically the only people who can put enough pressure on governments and industry to force change. If you don't want to support that because you have your own personal theory of a potential hidden motive then that is your choice.

I referenced servitization in my earlier post. I've covered major, major organizations adopting this approach within many sectors including heavy industry sectors such as mining and construction. These are not small organizations we are talking about here, these are multi-billion-pound organizations such as Metso, ABB, GE etc etc.

All (and many more) are moving towards a servitized business strategies which is one of the most foundational pillars of a circular economy being adopted at a global scale.

This is not some small organisations making little difference it is a major paradigm shift within industry that will have huge societal impact across the coming decades and within that will be a more sustainable approach to manufacturing. Trust me I know my apples on this particular topic and it is far more complex than the Evil Corp vs The Planet rhetoric that is becoming popular again.

Same goes for conversations around renewables - it is far more complex than let's just invest in renewables and it'll save the day. OK which renewables because Germany has royally screwed up by betting big on Solar and Wind and have seen cost of power increase alongside their carbon footprint. France, on the other hand, is doing well with Nuclear and Hydro - which are both clean and efficient.

Again it is more complex than renewables good, fossil fuel bad.

Put global restrictions on fossil fuel consumption onto developing nations and they have no means of developing the infrastructure to lead them towards developed nation status - trapping billions of people in poverty. Or how about California who is throwing up solar panels like nobodies business but currently has zero legislation for how they are going to deal with the waste in 30 years time. Solar panels are considered to be made of hazardous waste according to their own interpretation. So shouldn't a careful plan of recycling have been considered before they were thrown up in every corner of the state?

Maybe, maybe not - but again the conversation is far more nuanced and complex than the binary options of Renewables Good vs Fossil Fuels Evil that climate activists would have us believe.

Finally, I wouldn't personally be arrogant enough to say any of the above is my own personal theory, I'm not sure if that was meant as a compliment or a backhanded jibe but I'll take it as the former - seeing as my response was intended in a similarly conciliatory tone.


However, there are a lot more people out there, most of them far, far smarter than me, who have come to similar conclusions by simply following the logical trail, paying attention to historical precedents and being able to apply a wee bit of critical thinking.

A lot of sensible comments here whichever side of the fence you sit on. My opinion for what it's worth is that as in most cases, this comes down to money. I have spent time in Central & S America, and in some areas between the humidity and pollution being generated by local industry, just breathing is enough to make you breathless. Many people living in these regions are surviving from day to day in abject poverty, and are not really interested in the health of our planet. They are just trying to ensure that they and their families can survive from day to day.

The wealthier nations will have to subsidise these countries if they want them to use alternative forms of energy. These same wealthier nations will also have to pay more than lip service themselves with regards to their own pollution if these problems are to be effectively challenged. Many rainforests are being cut down to be replaced with crops that produce an income for some of these poorer countries. If we want to stop the destruction of rainforests, alternative forms of income will have to be made available for those who are harvesting these alternative crops in those regions.

Everyone has a responsibility, and much will depend on the will of the more advanced nations not just to put their own houses in order, but to help the parts of the world who do not have the means to help themselves. It will cost money, and it will be interesting to see how much we are all prepared to pay. Demonstrations and speeches are ok, but we will all be required to do much more than that if these problems are to be seriously tackled.

Very good balanced post there Steve

It always boils down to money. From heavy manufactures to individual households. Difference is I’m counting the pennies at the end of every month so my options are fairly limited. Whereas these companies who are having the biggest impacts make huge profits. Like you say it’s everyones responsibility but tackling this issue at the source would have much greater influence than the end of the cycle. So for me, any pressure on these companies is good.

And yes I did notice the tin hat

I think this is the final paragraph you suggested I read back and ask myself the question?

But it goes back to the point I made in my first post though, I really don't understand why anyone would actively appose a move towards a cleaner and more circular economy. Which effectively is what these people are pushing for. Even if you don't believe there is currently a climate crisis, why would anyone be happy to continue to pollute the world and continue to cut down rainforests when there are potential alternatives available?

Having done so I think I can see both common ground and also where we are at odds in this discussion.

You're right to ask why wouldn't we want to move to cleaner options where available. In my work I write about servitization a lot which is a fundamental driver towards a circular economy within manufacturing and I am a big proponent of the trend not just for ecological reason but also it delivers big commercial gains and improved customer service levels.

I also cover the energy sector to a lesser degree and as I've gone into on other posts dont think solar and wind are effective enough to be viable but am a big advocate of nuclear and hydro.

I am vehemently against the overuse of plastic.

So at its core point I agree with you that we should and can do more as custodians of the planet.

Where we differ though is your assertion that this is all the likes of Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are pushing for. To my eye they are pushing forward an ideology far more extreme than that.

It is the same as the green new deal AOC put forwards in my eyes, which is a push for ever greater governmental control using environmentalism as an easy shield to hide behind.

Thunberg and most of extinction rebellion for that matter are little more than easily manipulated puppets and it is those pulling the strings that scare me as I dont think their motives are as wholesome as they might have you believe.

You may think I'm a tin hat wearing fool of this opinion, likewise I may think some folks are naive for not seeing the wider picture.

However, on the initial point of why shouldn't we do what we can in our personal lives to make some difference, then we can find common ground so I'll leave it whilst we are on that.

There is only so much we can do as individuals though and there is only so much small companies can do to become more efficient. Billions are spent each year on fossil fuel and companies spend hundreds of millions lobbying against legislation that will improve the environment but reduce their profits. If a fraction of that sum of money was invested in renewable energy then the things we are currently doing would be much more efficient and could be relied upon more. There might be a bigger agenda behind these groups but they are realistically the only people who can put enough pressure on governments and industry to force change. If you don't want to support that because you have your own personal theory of a potential hidden motive then that is your choice.

I referenced servitization in my earlier post. I've covered major, major organizations adopting this approach within many sectors including heavy industry sectors such as mining and construction. These are not small organizations we are talking about here, these are multi-billion-pound organizations such as Metso, ABB, GE etc etc.

All (and many more) are moving towards a servitized business strategies which is one of the most foundational pillars of a circular economy being adopted at a global scale.

This is not some small organisations making little difference it is a major paradigm shift within industry that will have huge societal impact across the coming decades and within that will be a more sustainable approach to manufacturing. Trust me I know my apples on this particular topic and it is far more complex than the Evil Corp vs The Planet rhetoric that is becoming popular again.

Same goes for conversations around renewables - it is far more complex than let's just invest in renewables and it'll save the day. OK which renewables because Germany has royally screwed up by betting big on Solar and Wind and have seen cost of power increase alongside their carbon footprint. France, on the other hand, is doing well with Nuclear and Hydro - which are both clean and efficient.

Again it is more complex than renewables good, fossil fuel bad.

Put global restrictions on fossil fuel consumption onto developing nations and they have no means of developing the infrastructure to lead them towards developed nation status - trapping billions of people in poverty. Or how about California who is throwing up solar panels like nobodies business but currently has zero legislation for how they are going to deal with the waste in 30 years time. Solar panels are considered to be made of hazardous waste according to their own interpretation. So shouldn't a careful plan of recycling have been considered before they were thrown up in every corner of the state?

Maybe, maybe not - but again the conversation is far more nuanced and complex than the binary options of Renewables Good vs Fossil Fuels Evil that climate activists would have us believe.

Finally, I wouldn't personally be arrogant enough to say any of the above is my own personal theory, I'm not sure if that was meant as a compliment or a backhanded jibe but I'll take it as the former - seeing as my response was intended in a similarly conciliatory tone.


However, there are a lot more people out there, most of them far, far smarter than me, who have come to similar conclusions by simply following the logical trail, paying attention to historical precedents and being able to apply a wee bit of critical thinking.

A lot of sensible comments here whichever side of the fence you sit on. My opinion for what it's worth is that as in most cases, this comes down to money. I have spent time in Central & S America, and in some areas between the humidity and pollution being generated by local industry, just breathing is enough to make you breathless. Many people living in these regions are surviving from day to day in abject poverty, and are not really interested in the health of our planet. They are just trying to ensure that they and their families can survive from day to day.

The wealthier nations will have to subsidise these countries if they want them to use alternative forms of energy. These same wealthier nations will also have to pay more than lip service themselves with regards to their own pollution if these problems are to be effectively challenged. Many rainforests are being cut down to be replaced with crops that produce an income for some of these poorer countries. If we want to stop the destruction of rainforests, alternative forms of income will have to be made available for those who are harvesting these alternative crops in those regions.

Everyone has a responsibility, and much will depend on the will of the more advanced nations not just to put their own houses in order, but to help the parts of the world who do not have the means to help themselves. It will cost money, and it will be interesting to see how much we are all prepared to pay. Demonstrations and speeches are ok, but we will all be required to do much more than that if these problems are to be seriously tackled.

Very good balanced post there Steve

It always boils down to money. From heavy manufactures to individual households. Difference is I’m counting the pennies at the end of every month so my options are fairly limited. Whereas these companies who are having the biggest impacts make huge profits. Like you say it’s everyones responsibility but tackling this issue at the source would have much greater influence than the end of the cycle. So for me, any pressure on these companies is good.

And yes I did notice the tin hat

Shame the money made from the narcotics trade in Colombia and money laundering in Panama couldn't be put to good use. Enough there from just two countries to solve most global issues.

Interesting reading about her? She had semi famous mother who Greta had her give up a career in opera as she didnt want mother to fly so causing pollution! she's being advised by experts ect in climate matters, put asburges into mix and can see why shes so upfront with her manner? She is on a bandwagon now just hope the wheels dont come off and shes dropped as quickly as shes been pushed into limelight.

The OP is vile scum. Half a mind to send this onto South Wales Police. He needs to be checked out, I worry for his family

Im vile Scum if you feel the need to discuss this with me in person many know where to find me. You f*cking prick. Go ahead report it you piece of shit

There has been a lot of talk about Greta Thunberg with her twisted face and her rage against adult generations. Is this a concerned girl or is it just a brainwashed girl who’s head has been twisted by a liberal education system of which has been infiltrated by the ruling Elites ?



It’s an aerie reminder of history when the Nazis used impressible school girls to spread there propaganda, (Picture below) a recent video of teachers telling School Children there are a hundred genders is testament to that.
These school Children are saying how can you go against scientific evidence when they don’t take scientific and biological facts of genders as fact.



Greta who blames the older generations for a mass extinction that she believes she will be a victim but my generation, but when I was a kid I remember we was much more environmentally friendly that these kids think they are. We used milk bottles delivered by electric vehicles that was re used. Fizzy drinks was done exactly the same way, we re used egg cartons over and over again, We all walked to School even if it was miles away in snow rain sun or hail.
Now this generation never walk to school they very rarely go out to play but rely on electric consumption to keep them amused.
Now Greta. our Earth is 4.543 billion years old and we have had around five ice ages and five mass extinctions and back then no one drove 4x4s or had coal fired power stations.
Our planet is changing all the time it’s the way the mop flops. We will have another ice age and mass extinctions again but you driving your 4x4 will not be to blame. But every time a volcano erupts puts more crap in the air than anything man has ever done.
Now say what they say is true ? It’s the establishment who are to blame with the black gold being to blame but then they can dare to blame us the people.
Now where there is a problem and that is plastic, this is caused by the big business and again nothing to do with us. Everything is packaged, milk is in plastic containers, and here we have a massive problem.
But the problem with Greta and her brainwashed like they don’t yet see the manipulation the lies that come from the establishment. They haven’t worked out yet that Climate change to the establishment is raising taxes and creating a money making empire for their like.
Over the next twenty or so years we will see the result of our brainwashed youth who will believe everything that the establishment tell them, and what they don’t realise when you believe in the madness they are being taught, they will be very easy to control.
It’s not far away from a North Korea type scenario where they believe there leader is a god and that there supreme leader won 12 gold medals at the last Olympics.
If you can make children believe there are a hundred genders I think you can get them to believe anything.
I ain’t gonna be one who is mocking Greta Thunberg no I’m my mind she is a victim of the establishment and using children to Push there agendas.
Think it’s time for parents to smell what there little kids are being taught is schools because it’s definitely not fact just ideologies, it’s a mixture of communist and elitist ideology all in one go. Time to wake up !!

F9297C9F-A067-4B7F-A12A-8E1E191CB386.jpeg

8447461B-7FDA-4A93-B0EE-E92297C76C52.jpeg

I didn't need to read beyonf the 1st para. Your biased perspective was evident from that point.

She was absolutely brilliant and spot on. Man and his greed is fooking this planet up and it's good to see the younger generation having a voice. Her stare at Trump was class, if looks could kill.

Why not let 16yr olds run the world I am sure its easy on social media or xbox! Can have greta as the world leader

Could she do any worse than the leaders in UK US Hungary and all the other populist chancers and would be dictators masquerading as politicians?

There seems to be a lot of confusion here generally, starting with the puppet Thurnberg herself. Why she should stare at Trump is anybody’s guess.. she has no cause to do. He’s not responsible for global warming. It is plain rudeness and stupidity.

Same goes as riding high horses when the OP suggests similarities to Nazi propaganda methods, and is shouted down by people comparing this to holocaust. People need to turn their ‘angry’ filters off, and stop confusing separate items of information.

Propaganda methods used by the Nazis is not Nazism.

The words rudeness and stupidity you used sums Trump up in one. Too many Sun and Daily Mail readers spoonfed crap.

Well said BB

There seems to be a lot of confusion here generally, starting with the puppet Thurnberg herself. Why she should stare at Trump is anybody’s guess.. she has no cause to do. He’s not responsible for global warming. It is plain rudeness and stupidity.

Same goes as riding high horses when the OP suggests similarities to Nazi propaganda methods, and is shouted down by people comparing this to holocaust. People need to turn their ‘angry’ filters off, and stop confusing separate items of information.

Propaganda methods used by the Nazis is not Nazism.

Exactly as I said before I can’t help it if people cannot see the context of what I wrote. Nothing to do with what the Nazis did just there method of getting there propaganda out.When these Liberals are constantly calling people Nazis or fascists that’s ok for them to bring it up. But get all upset if a reference to it is made against themselves. Hypocritical

Because liberalism is the polar opposite of nazism and populism. Dumkopf

It’s because they’ve been conditioned not to free think Nukes.. wonder what caused that!!

Oh the irony!

OP - There has been a lot of talk about Greta Thunberg with her twisted face and her rage against adult generations. Is this a concerned girl or is it just a brainwashed girl who’s head has been twisted by a liberal education system of which has been infiltrated by the ruling Elites ?

It’s an aerie reminder of history when the Nazis used impressible school girls to spread there propaganda, (Picture below) a recent video of teachers telling School Children there are a hundred genders is testament to that.
These school Children are saying how can you go against scientific evidence when they don’t take scientific and biological facts of genders as fact.

The Labour Party has been using this mindset for a few years now - convincing the younger generation, who have never voted or lived through a left leaning Government that their policies will bring prosperity to all.

But many of us oldies remember Labour in the Seventies (winter of discontent, rubbish piled up, rats, etc etc) and Gordon Brown's Government (no Money left, sorry note).

Tories may not be perfect but as always - Labour F--k the Country and Tories have to fix it - and so it goes on !

Rinse and repeat. Labour overspend particularly on public sector, Tories squeeze till economy is back on even keel.

Completely and utterly wrong (again) Jock. Just look at the table here https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_n ... t_analysis
So when the Tories came into power in 2010 the national deficit was about £1 trillion now it is £1.8 trillion. This despite years of austerity that have damaged the lives of millions. Where has the money gone? Into the hands of the people who are orchestrating Brexit. Jock I wouldn't be surprised if you get the moderators to remove this. Truth hurts eh? You need to get of of the Brexit bubble. After all you claim you persuaded a remainer to get out of his remain bubble.

There seems to be a lot of confusion here generally, starting with the puppet Thurnberg herself. Why she should stare at Trump is anybody’s guess.. she has no cause to do. He’s not responsible for global warming. It is plain rudeness and stupidity.

Same goes as riding high horses when the OP suggests similarities to Nazi propaganda methods, and is shouted down by people comparing this to holocaust. People need to turn their ‘angry’ filters off, and stop confusing separate items of information.

Propaganda methods used by the Nazis is not Nazism.

Exactly as I said before I can’t help it if people cannot see the context of what I wrote. Nothing to do with what the Nazis did just there method of getting there propaganda out.When these Liberals are constantly calling people Nazis or fascists that’s ok for them to bring it up. But get all upset if a reference to it is made against themselves. Hypocritical

Because liberalism is the polar opposite of nazism and populism. Dumkopf

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Irrational use of nazi slur doesn't help your cause.

Says it all

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Am I on the Cardiff High 6th form forum.. if so, I’d better get me some acne.

" It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways."

Margaret Thatcher 1989

Was she disbelieved or ignored by the environmentalists then and is her history of environmental concern air brushed away because she doesn't fit the climate narrative claimed by the liberal left ?

Aside from the debate on climate change for a moment...

This thread appears to have two types of people on it, its a good reflection on society at large.

Those who seem to be hungry for outrage and are either unable to or unwilling to understand that a conversation can have nuance and be complicated but still be constructive.

Then there are those who are able to discuss things like adults.

It's funny how most of the former seem to congregate their opinions around cookie cutter comments and the first move is always attack the man not the ball without taking the time to consider the points being raised.

There have been some notable exceptions in this thread, but in the main all of the usual suspects have shown themselves to be nothing more than outrage addicts looking for another desperate hit for a virtue signalling high.

Y'all gonna end up eating each other eventually mark my words, none of you is perfect enough to live in the purity spiral your feeding.