Attempting an ambitious multi-quote
And she cited the UN to back up her claims haha!
Way more worried about people like her running the country one day, then Al Gore's now refuted claims that the world should have ended by now.
Why do celebrities and leftie politicians get to fly all over the world on their private jets and go cruising on their mega yachts, and get to tell us with a straight face to chill out on our comparatively inconsequential carbon footprints?
Why do they not practice what they preach at all?
Never heard of 'AOC' before, but it's very clear to me why people are upset, LOL.
Anyway, the 'private jet' argument; Environmentalists flying all over the world vs the total carbon footprint is of course a laughable comparison, even if it would set the wrong example for the average consumer. What they’re actually trying to accomplish with those flights could easily compensate for it I'd imagine. Just look at
my previous comment, comparing Apple's business travel by air versus their entire carbon footprint.
[...]And I fully understand your general uncomplex plot: you love liberal politicians and think they selflessly got your back like their Hollywood puppet counterparts whose lifestyles dont reflect their message; therefore, respectfully agree to disagree
I've discussed climate change before with someone who would never agree with me, from my point of view I could make the same argument about an 'uncomplex plot'. It basically came down to not trusting the government, something about money and a limited view of the world ("..but in my home state.."). Of course it's not fair to judge people like that, right?
Genuine question not just a rhetorical one - How do things like this make people who think climate change is a very real and immediate threat to our downfall, one of most importance ( not corrupt and reckless, self-interested globalist politicians who want to de-populate us) feel?
When AOC says in 12 years thats it? That we’re Essentially ‘fighting in WWII’ when fighting with climate change, and Apple now says this crap? These arbitrary timelines and conclusions.
Is it
1) confidence instilling in one’s beliefs? That total lunes that are on board with this belief make you think your conclusions are that much more rational and rooted in logic?
2) Does it make you at least stop and question the severity by which you believe what you do based on what you’ve been told, and open up the possibility to at least being challenged/possibly being wrong/ something you would de-prioritize at a later point in time?
3) un-shook one way or another, it’s all just more categorical noise and you’re numb to all of it by now?
4) Or are you completely abandoning the concept and this either is or is approaching the final straw?
So I believe that: a) the global climate is changing which is a thread to a lot of people's lives and b) the main cause is man-made pollution
I would say that most people can agree that 'a' is actually happening and that 'b' is the reason we're arguing about it.
And of course, sustainability goes beyond just CO2 output. The world population is growing rapidly so food and energy supply need to keep up. Our great reliance on fossil fuels is definitely not sustainable.
Politicians make these wild claims and of course many of them did not actually come true as we can see now. However, this to me is not evidence that the science is completely wrong. Maybe that 2 degree increase in temperature
will lead to those scenarios they're describing, but maybe it'll be 30 years instead of 12. There's many different elements in play here.
I hope that means 'no bashing'?
Al Gore science Bill Nye science or science science, just to clarify?
A 700-page report... Either it's completely true or they're trying to get people's attention, lol. Either way, the results they'd like to see (net zero CO2 emissions in 2055
or 2040) are way too optimistic. It's very clear here in The Netherlands that the politicians are not capable of making that happen because that'd require way too much money and effort.
