Coaxial wrote: 
Yes I know, she appears to be coopting the tweet to assure us she is indeed happy and optimistic about her future which seems to me to be contraindicated to her entire public persona.  For her sake, I hope she is happy, well adjusted and optimistic because that is the best perspective and attitude to achieve ones goals and to navigate a healthy and successful life.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
She is repeating said tweet that came from beauxeau.

 R_P wrote: 
She seems to be contradicting herself here, but I would rather this one be true and not all of her other expressions for her own good.

 steeler wrote:

 Coaxial wrote: 
Oh I know, again what does this have to do with our discussion?    "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.....you know its gonna be, alright."

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Did you hear the WHOOSH? He's alluding to what beauxeau did from the casa blanca.

 steeler wrote: 
I think that is a horrible idea, but what it does it have to do with our discussion?

 Red_Dragon wrote: 

we could promote that, but it won't produce a solution

anxiety, panic and depression are emotional states that will likely produce undesirable results

depending on the context they're usually non-rational or irrational

either way we should exclude them from our thought process when putting forward our best effort in solving a problem

if we're trying to be consciously analytic, we should use reason and logic

one thing to keep in mind here is some of the history of the of the anti-nuclear movement

if we look back we see the highly emotional political protests, media and movies against nuclear energy development and construction in the US

and we see that they were very successful in derailing the government's plan to go in that direction 

that plan in large part was in partnership with the national academy of sciences

in the 1970s the nas had directed meetings and consulting groups with hundreds of the top scientists, engineers and physicists of the day to produce a report on the future of energy in the US and to their credit it was very low/zero carbon emissions (i think it is a large document and we can probably dig that up online and peruse it)

they had worked with the government to recommend, build and implement about 20 large coal gasification plants and 1000 nuclear plants/reactors

a couple of hundred of those reactors were fast breeders so they would produce the fuel for the remaining plants

ironically the government subsidized nuclear energy into development through programs like the manhattan project and oak ridge national laboratories

today we have around 100 or so nuclear plants that produce about 8% or our energy

imagine that ten fold...we would have up to 80% of our current energy coming from a carbon free source

who knows maybe even more (ronald bailey, a man that i have often disagreed with did a great job documenting all of this in his book the end of doom)

also, i think in the 1970s ohio, the air pollution was pretty bad and they needed some way of providing electricity that would minimize it asap

they had an ambitious nuclear program that was crushed by nader and the sierra club, forcing them back to coal

it looks like the fossil fuel industry was going to get marginalized in the energy generation business, but were saved by the environmental movement

the very same movement railing against them now...

i'm pretty excited by the new reactor designs, especially the safety and scalability of the small modular units

pv and battery tech are progressing too

much of science and technology are growing at an exponential rate and that includes our ability to solve problems

gotta get back to work

peace

This is what I know.  If it is feasible and I am not sure it is to reverse or even slow down the warming of the climate, it will require 100% worldwide cooperation of completely changing human civilization and the  way we all live sans primitive cultures that still live off the land without man made sources of energy.  The sustainability of the artificially created population levels is not possible without massive sources of energy that cannot be replicated with renewable sources without nuclear which is for the most part not even supported in most environmentalist plans.  We will have to revert to the old ways before the industrial revolution to keep the fossil fuels out of the ground, it has  to be complete and like I said will need 100% support and compliance from every human being on the earth regardless of nationality.  To actually logistically attempt this in the time required, it will require a global facist empire with much force and coercion.   Unless their is some type of technological breakthrough that can generate equal amounts of energy that is required for a modern lifestyle that does not involve nuclear or fossil fuels, might as well ride it out with some semblance of liberty and freedom cause we screwed anyway.  One thing you can do for me though is to stop killing your trees, plant stuff instead of cutting it down, get rid of your lawnmower.   Oh and taxation is theft. 

Holocene extinction

 kurtster wrote: 
But I'm sure you're okay with indoctrinating children with the idea that an all-knowing, all-present "god" is watching them - even as they sleep. So that he can convict them of thought-crime against him.

This young person is far more self-aware and intelligent than you choose to believe.She not a pawn, a victim of child-abuse or a fool. She's a human being who is aware of the insanity around her and is quite pissed off about it.

Um, we ARE in a mass-extinction. Read a book, okay?

Not sure why I posted this, because your Trump-supporting nonsense matters not in the least to me.

 steeler wrote: 
I know, right?

 kurtster wrote:
 
I think the best anyone can do for her is to publicly mock her on Twitter.

 kurtster wrote:
 
I agree.  The hype is not helpful.  

But I am relieved that we all die in 12 years.  Typically 20 years is what modern doomsayer enviro-activists usually use.


BTW, I am dead.   Dr. David Suzuki said so.  So enjoy!  You are reading a post by a dead person.

 kurtster wrote: 
I think Bill Murray said it best; "Don't drive angry."

 kurtster wrote: 
I see what you did there... 

Immediate Climate Action Is Needed to Avoid “Grim” Future, Scientists Warn

Russia joins Paris climate accord

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
That is an attitude that is a total loser from the get go.  Whoever taught this little girl to be so afraid should be totally ashamed and kept away from all children.  This is child abuse.  Someone taught this girl to think this way just as other children are taught to be racist and bigoted.  There is no difference.

I can easily see her committing a desperate public suicide shortly or getting a gun and shooting up a school in a fit of hopeless desperation ... and then killing herself.  I will then blame those who taught her these irrational fears and robbed her of her childhood.

Stand tall, look life in the eye.  Or stay in the dark so that you will not have to fear your own shadow.  I'll take the former over the latter.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" ...

Can someone show me the science that is the basis for teaching this child that we are at the beginning of a mass extinction ?