We've been hosed by Greta's End of the World Prediction

@wildgrass said
I would not call it nature friendly. To build that kind of infrastructure permanently damages coastal ecosystems. It's the same with wind power, which has destroyed wilderness areas throughout the US east coast and offshore.

Nuclear is the best option.

I will add that there are exceptions to this. If the ecosystem is already permanently damaged, then there's no further harm in building wind or tidal power plants. But the problem is that these areas are often either too expensive to build in, or the projects are vehemently fought against by residents.

@wajoma said
Climate related deaths have dropped 99% in the last hundred years.

Graph from peer reviewed paper in science direct ijit

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157?fbclid=IwAR2_1cfzj8_tobG74PGTqvEI7nXOm2KbyvDLmfIq1Jzk-KEcopGxYqUaWuM

Read it and weep in a puddle of your own catastrophist tears. Try not to raise the sea level too much with all your crying, you're not scaring anyone, anymore.

Wrong. Your link says death *risks* have decreased, not actual deaths.

Typical idiocy from someone who gets news from Facebook.

@wildgrass said
I would not call it nature friendly. To build that kind of infrastructure permanently damages coastal ecosystems. It's the same with wind power, which has destroyed wilderness areas throughout the US east coast and offshore.

Nuclear is the best option.

Seriously?

How much would an oil derrick (which many on the right want, even in pristine Alaska) ruin the environment? Putting up a wind turbine is minimal by comparison. I take issue with your claim that wind power has "destroyed wilderness areas".

Nuclear? Take a look around Chernobyl. Or Fukushima. Or even Three-Mile Island, which was a minor event.

Infrastructure impacts the environment. Yeah, what a newsflash. The idea is always to minimize that impact.

@wildgrass said
Did you read this article???

He clearly didn't. Probably just read a blurb from whatever Facebook group he swiped this from.

@suzianne said
Seriously?

How much would an oil derrick (which many on the right want, even in pristine Alaska) ruin the environment? Putting up a wind turbine is minimal by comparison. I take issue with your claim that wind power has "destroyed wilderness areas".

Nuclear? Take a look around Chernobyl. Or Fukushima. Or even Three-Mile Island, which was a minor event.

Infrastr ...[text shortened]... cture impacts the environment. Yeah, what a newsflash. The idea is always to minimize that impact.

Of course. It is clear that all forms of energy production are unfriendly to nature. The problem is figuring out which is less harmful, and not resorting to anecdotes. There are a lot of comparisons to consider. But wind vs. coal provide pretty clear comparables since that's happening in a lot of states.

Replacing just one coal power plant in Michigan for example requires building more than 4,000 wind turbines. Each turbine needs 2-5 acres of land. You can do the math on how much space that is and figure out somewhere to put them that doesn't include what used to be wilderness. For point of comparison, the coal power plant being replaced is ~600 acres. And Michigan has 88 coal power plants. Replacing it with wind takes up an enormous amount of land.

Also consider the huge amount of materials that go into making 4,000 wind turbines, which are mostly steel. Making steel is not friendly to nature.

I'm not against renewable energy, but it's important to point out that renewable energy is not necessarily more environmentally friendly, when compared to infrastructure that already exists. These comparisons get even more dramatic with an existing nuclear power plant, which operates on a smaller footprint with zero carbon emissions.

https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/tripling-states-1100-wind-turbines-wont-replace-this-one-coalgas-plant

@vivify said
Wrong. Your link says death *risks* have decreased, not actual deaths.

Typical idiocy from someone who gets news from Facebook.

Guess I better get scared again.

Hahahahaha

@suzianne said
Did you even read the fact check?

The fact check needs to be corrected.

@suzianne said
It's like the right is wishing a dystopia on us all, and speeding ever faster to that point.

Do they somehow feel that they'll be spared? I can think of no other reason they are so cavalier about it.



Another trademark they all flaunt is that they consider education to be tantamount to 'indoctrination'. Way to start circling the drain.

You really do believe this don't you.?? It is NOT the west that is the biggest contributor, it is like China, India and Asia that must continue to use more fossil fuels to thrive, no, to survive.
A good 7 min watch: This guy is great to watch. If you dare, Lol.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1194798797817895

@wajoma said
Guess I better get scared again.

Hahahahaha

You posted a link that said risks of death from climate-related disasters have gone down since the early 1900's...due to better technology and infrastructure.

You lied about what your source said. So instead of finally growing some balls to man-up and admit your BS, this is what you post.

Just what we expect from you.

@suzianne said
The statement is true, even if the timeline is arguable. There is no admission of gullibility.

Even among the most gullible, the far-right.

Then it is too late. No sense doing anything about it now, right?
That is what point of no return means.

@vivify said
You posted a link that said risks of death from climate-related disasters have gone down since the early 1900's...due to better technology and infrastructure.

You lied about what your source said. So instead of finally growing some balls to man-up and admit your BS, this is what you post.

Just what we expect from you.

He was incorrect only in a pedantic way.
At work we were taught all about the accident triangle, look it up.
It rather suggests that if you reduce the risk factors, then you reduce the outcomes, in this event, deaths, so, it follows, from a rather logical stance, that if risks of death are reduced, then so are deaths reduced. ( due to fossil fuel use )
That's as I see it anyways.

@jimmac said
He was incorrect only in a pedantic way.
At work we were taught all about the accident triangle, look it up.
It rather suggests that if you reduce the risk factors, then you reduce the outcomes, in this event, deaths, so, it follows, from a rather logical stance, that if risks of death are reduced, then so are deaths reduced. ( due to fossil fuel use )
That's as I see it anyways.

Cheers for that jimmac, I was going to string vivify along a bit more, she got excited by some minor mistake, she'd like to call it lies or whatever. Meantime she wants to scare us with increased deaths from heat but quickly abandons that when it's pointed out more people die from cold. poof, her scare story get's turned 180 degrees.

Is there any convincing the catastrophists? Nope, I'm only here fishing, while waiting a move in a game. vivify and suzi think they're making public service announcements ;^)

You're right, what happens when risk goes down by 99%? vivify would like us to think deaths go up, anything to cling to her story.

@jimmac said
He was incorrect only in a pedantic way.
At work we were taught all about the accident triangle, look it up.
It rather suggests that if you reduce the risk factors, then you reduce the outcomes, in this event, deaths, so, it follows, from a rather logical stance, that if risks of death are reduced, then so are deaths reduced. ( due to fossil fuel use )
That's as I see it anyways.

Claiming (falsely) that there's less deaths from climate disasters is a completely different statement from saying risks of deaths have lowered. This wasn't some slip of the tongue, this was a dumbass who didn't even read his own source because he doesn't care about facts.

@vivify said
Claiming (falsely) that there's less deaths from climate disasters is a completely different statement from saying risks of deaths have lowered. This wasn't some slip of the tongue, this was a dumbass who didn't even read his own source because he doesn't care about facts.

Whatever, it does not chance the crux of his point 1 iota, something that you do not seem to wish to address. You would rather debate his error than the facts?
This post is about yet another climate lie, not weather Wajoma lied or not.

@jimmac said
Whatever, it does not chance the crux of his point 1 iota, something that you do not seem to wish to address. You would rather debate his error than the facts?
This post is about yet another climate lie, not weather Wajoma lied or not.

The OP of this thread is a based on a false premise: that Greta claimed humanity would end in 5 years. That's not what she said.

Greta posted that scientists warned something needs to be done about climate change within 5 years or that inaction could imperil humanity's existence.

There was no "climate lie" just some pathetic right-wingers losing their minds over something a 15 yr old girl said.