[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i read a bit about this Greta Thornberg kid. By the age of 11, she was so obsessed with the doomsday effects of
climate change that she stopped
playing and doing her homework.
On 20 August 2018, Thunberg, who had just started ninth grade, decided to not attend school until the 2018 Swedish general election on 9 September after the heat waves and wildfires during Sweden's hottest summer in 262 years. Her demands were that the Swedish government reduce carbon emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement, and she protested by sitting outside the Riksdag every day for three weeks during school hours with the sign Skolstrejk för klimatet (school strike for the climate). She also handed out leaflets that stated: "I am doing this because you adults are #^&#^&#^&#^&ting on my future."
i see lots of kids in their early 20s saying they have no desire to get
married or have kids or start a career, because the world
is going to end in 12 years. 10 years, whatever the latest fabricated deadline is.

Many people say

the fanatics are creating a generation of young adults with zero interest in normal, productive things. Meanwhile
Harrison Ford, who also spoke
at the UN on climate change, has
multiple homes and multiple private aircraft. So HE can indulge in all his interests regardless of the impact to the environment, but everyone else is supposed to make sacrifices.

He probably has a yurt

do you ever think of the effect your rhetoric has on impressiomable kids?

Yes, yours also.

If you are willing to risk the world as we know it, that's your choice.

If we think about climate risks in the same fashion we think about risks in other contexts, we should most certainly hedge—and hedge aggressively—by removing fossil fuels from the economy as quickly as possible.

The big debate in climate science right now isn’t whether or not climate change is occurring—or whether human activity is the main cause. The big debate is about scale: How much change will there be, over how long a time frame, and how large (or small) will be the follow-on effects.

The difference between the low-end and high-end estimates is the difference between a passing event of modest consequence and global environmental and economic convulsion the likes of which we’ve never seen.

The answer is that we can’t be sure. And that’s okay. Because in life you rarely know for certain what’s going to happen next. You plan for a range of outcomes and try to mitigate your exposure to the worst possible risks. There’s an entire economic discipline on this subject. It’s called risk management.

When it comes to managing large-scale risks, straight-forward economics suggests that we ought to take climate change very seriously.

Current administration policy is the opposite on the whole gamut from light bulbs to fuel and just think about how many children are scared of getting windmill cancer.

https://thebulwark.com/what-changed-...limate-change/