It was five years ago tomorrow when Greta predicted the end of the world. Enjoy your last day on Earth today. ;-) We are at the point of no return.

She deleted her tweet. Wonder why?

(bracing for impact)

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Greta and the like claim that absolute changes are the only solution, that we need to basically "turn the world around or we're doomed". They ignore the efforts of countless engineers working day and night to develop solutions which would e.g. solve the problem of long-term energy storage, or provide better options to recycle plastic and composite materials. The possibility of gradual changes and adaptations doesn't exist for them, therefore the only possible conclusion is "the end of the world".

I liked Naomi Seibt a lot. Smart girl. I enjoyed her YT content but it's deleted

How dare you!

@hitko no gradual solution is admitted because, even if it's the most tolerable for humans, it's not the most tolerable for the planet. The fact that there's a future it's just a story that we tell ourselves to continue living, but the fact is that we are doomed. And all the predictions, also the most optimistic, say that.

IMHO everything's dumb.

A prediction is a prediction, it's what could be and not what will be.

That's a general problem imho...

Much like quoting an unverified scientific study as a universal truth - nope, doesn't work that way.

What I dislike in general - be it Greta or one of the other endless idiots - is that they imho instigate to dumbness.

The - imho beautiful - art of discussion and diplomacy is completely lost, it's always about "being right"… not about "finding a compromise to solve a problem".

We're more focused on the media outcry than on solving the problem... And the media outcry usually just leads to more drama and madness, which worsens an already bad situation.

@IntrusionCM as a German, you must know Naomi Seibt. Ever watched something from her? She was always quite scientific were Greta was not

@retoor no... Don't know her...

And from what a simple Wikipedia lookup tells me, she isn't scientific at all.

Rather far right and tinfoil hat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I really don't hope that we have to discuss whether climate change is real or not, cause I think we got more than enough empirical evidence after the last years.

@IntrusionCM I think she was good opposition and should be heard. Sadly YouTube content is down

@IntrusionCM I looked into what I would call the global warming hoax years ago. I came to the conclusion that it was not predominately man made. I went rounds with people who were mostly condescending and always end up demeaning people who interpret the data differently. Much like what is on the wikipedia page. I also came to the conclusion that the people pushing it hated me as a group in my demographic. I believe we need to treat the planet better, but I see the hoax as being a way to enforce global governance. I see politicians buying islands and beach front property while they scream about rising water. It is a lie to tax and enforce more government control of the daily life of the citizen. So, do whatever you have to. I think its bullshit.

@Demolishun that's what I meant, at least partially.

It is a scientific fact that the climate is changing, it's not debatable at least for me.

But there we already have the problem.

Thx to media - and a completely mixed up potpourri of misinformation and scientific information being pushed out like universal truth - we've reached the point where it's not even clear what we're talking about.

So... What narrative are we talking about?

Climate change in the scientific sense, where there is still a lot of uncertainty regarding the how / why, but it's certain that e.g. the Gulf stream definitely has changed over the last decades. So it's evident that the climate has changed and that it had an actual influence on our world...

Longer version:
https://un.org/en/climatechange/...

Or for example climate change in the tinfoil version of "temperature rising - lol, we have cold winter, so it cannot be that bad"...

Not meaning to be disrespectful, but the term has been so abused and often completely been reinterpreted that that distinction must be made.

Even the government spread a lot of misinformation :-)

Science is evolving and adapting, which means that there is no universal truth. We're not omnipotent - we still learn

@IntrusionCM I am impressed by your generous response to actually discuss the topic. I completely agree with your take. The media politicized version just creates polarity and shuts down discussion. Which is probably the point.

What got me to realize that a lot of lying was going on was the ancient temperature cycles that they "think" the Earth has undergone. According to that graph we are in a cooling cycle. This is estimated temperatures over thousands of years.

I think the politicization even extends to "trusted" institutions. I think there is a lot of money at stake and you can buy science now.

What bothers me in politicians claim they are pro environment yet their energy policies are decimating South American forests. The plastic in the oceans is disgusting. The strip mining for electric cars is foul. A lot of this abuse is coming from the "green" policies.,

@Demolishun Green politics is ... Lobbyism in its most perverted form imho.

A lot of policies are made on the "low effort, low cost, max lobby profit" basis.

Which isn't good, I agree

But that's the imho global problem of politics... There are few who do politics for good, too many do it for their own profit.

It will be interesting the next 30 years.
Then I retire, will get a small piece of land somewhere and tell the world goodbye.

I cannot watch daily news or follow politics, it pains me just too much...

In the "real world" - as in a politician being e.g. just a regular dev - most politicians would have been so often fired that no one would hire them again.

But not in our society. They get reelected or get a nice leading position with pension in a large company that sponsors the lobby the politician was mostly influenced by.

@IntrusionCM how does one like her end up in the AFD. she looks better then that.. anywho, her eyes are kind of creepy

What if the world really did end in 2012 and whatever you're experiencing now is just a new simulation injected into ur consciousness?

What if your vision isn't coming from the real world but the portion of the simulation created specifically for you?

What if you're just like a marionette whose strings are held by a higher being, and they control your every move giving you the illusion that you have free will?

What if I'm right across the street with binoculars, looking at your naked ass right now?

@Sid2006 now this is some good shit! You even threw in the Truman Show!

@joewilliams007

I don't like what I'm about to say...

But probably because she has earned quite a lot of money.

If you throw morality and ethics out of the window and can sell a lie as a truth, life *is* easier. For the price of living in a glass house, cause you make money by representing yourself and selling your face.

That's what any influencer does.

And the media already covered enough tragic death or "life spiraled out of control" stories for different influencers that it is evident that this "easier life" has its price and / or expiry date.

@IntrusionCM rezo ist aber unschuldig oder :/ nicht so ganz

@joewilliams007

I didn't follow the media regarding Rezo closely... I vaguely remember that I watched the first YouTube video of him in which he ripped the CDU politics apart... That video was imho well made.
He added a verifiable list of sources, quoted correctly and thus "did his homework".

He was titled an influencer, yes - but at least for that video that I vaguely remember - I wouldn't call it influencing, but rather journalism. It's ... Disturbing.... That this distinction has to be made.

But nowadays good journalism is pretty rare.

So - for that video alone - I would definitely say that he was a journalist, not an influencer.

An influencer sells whatever they were paid for.

@IntrusionCM yea.. but he was paid buy the Grünen i think. not sure. old news :> i thought the video was made pretty well and he did say facts with sources even if paid or not. But then there was that funny guy Phillip Amthor from the CDU dissing back :D. who himself was caught up in fraud or som like that aswell. im not caught up to the details here sadly.

its just die Grünen arent really that great in many points aswell. and if he gets paid by one side, he shows the one in a good light and the one who paid in a better light. to some extend this did influence the people in one direction not open to both parties. anywho, that vid got so many views i really do think it had a big impact. not really a political person here but i did watch it to ful back then

edit: it has 20 million views?? thats like a thourth of germany. then considering the elderly dont use social media that much.. must be huge coverage to the young people

@IntrusionCM The problem with all the research into "how" and "why" climate changes are happening is that it's more than a little muddy. A huge portion of research is limited to correlating the data that we have with various observations and assumptions about the climate, even though the data that we have is far from representative of the climate during the human, let alone geological history.

There's not much research into whether something is due to correlation or causation, and we have absolutely no way of knowing whether the same has been true for more than the past couple hundred years before reliable measurements have been established. Reviewing and reproducing is also quite hard due to the cost and the amount of work it would take, and any critical review is usually dismissed as "tinfoil" / "corporate greed" / etc.

@hitko Some of it is guessed from sea levels and perceived ice load. So if sea levels went way down does that mean more ice? Also, I saw a theory about how the Earth may in fact be expanding according to the Plank function (not sure on spelling). So if the Earth was a smaller diameter at one time then was all the water forced onto land? Is this why we see sea life fossils at 6000ft elevation? I think most conclusions are best guess. Then the models hopefully get better and we make better guesses.

This just reminds me there are a lot of people trying to keep humanity from destroying itself, and they are taken for granted. Maybe it’s a miracle we made it this far, 90 seconds to midnight.

@Sid2006 if this were the case I'd hope to be having a lot more fun in my simulation 😢

Since Greta thinks it's the end of the world she probably now is drunk and gets her verginnity taken. Damn, who does that

Technically, Greta did not claim the world would be over right now. What she tweeted was that a top climate scientist was warning that climate change would wipe out all of humanity unless we stopped using fossil fuels over the next five years.

Since in English grammar, shit always refers to other shit closest to it, the "over the next five years" refers to "stop using fossil fuels", not to wiping out humanity.

The implication, however, is that according to that tweet, all of humanity will be wiped out later - at an unknown date, but with certainty since we have not stopped using fossil fuels.

Which means that, according to that tweet, we can as well stop caring at all. Didn't age well.

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” - Matthew‬ ‭24‬:‭36‬

@Demolishun No, Earth did not expand because it's not like we had had a giant McD in our orbit.

The reason we find maritime fossils on mountains is plate tectonics. These areas were once underwater, moved around, then got folded up when two plates pushed against each other.

@Demolishun We have sensible and logical explanations for many things; but then, we had sensible and logical explanations telling us that big, heavy, metal objects could never fly. Many conspiracy theories also seem sensible and logical as long as you don't understand or pay attention to hidden counter-inutitive details.

Given that we can't exactly do the same kind of experimental research that we can do in most other fields, we should do that much more to stay clear of politics and mob mentality, to properly explore alternative hypotheses, and to have independent review / reproduction of the research before trying to act on it.