All
← Back to Squawk list
IATA Set To Combat Greta Thunberg’s Flight Shaming Movement
The aviation industry is set to launch a campaign to combat the growing flight shaming movement led by Greta Thunberg. The campaign comes as weakened demand has been reported in Europe. (simpleflying.com) More...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
People need to realize that Greta Thunberg is a proxy of folks like George Soros and those who want to do away with fossil fuels--and pretty much civilization as we know it. Greta Thunberg doesn't understand that a jet engine will not run on biodiesel or anything else and if she gets her way the entire planet will reach 3rd world status in no time.
OK Boomer. I guess you confirmed all of this by watching FOX? You haven't heard that parts of Europe can already run their country for days on end with renewables? And they've only just begun to build them out? Not aware of the Tesla battery in Australia that almost paid itself off in a year? Not aware that jet fuel can be created to be carbon neutral?
The alternative is not to live like the 3rd world (which is hardly carbon neutral). It's to allow our technology to advance past the Oil Age. Like we advanced past the Steam Age (Coal Age). Do you look at history books and say "what a bunch of morons, letting horses be replaced by engines!"??
Technology is already changing and will continue to change, whether you like it or not. Economics are driving it. The only problem is with knuckle-draggers who are terrified of change and will do anything to delay. They tend to put it in terms like '3rd world status'... SMH
But yeah, I'm sure it's all the doing of George Soros... LMFAO
The alternative is not to live like the 3rd world (which is hardly carbon neutral). It's to allow our technology to advance past the Oil Age. Like we advanced past the Steam Age (Coal Age). Do you look at history books and say "what a bunch of morons, letting horses be replaced by engines!"??
Technology is already changing and will continue to change, whether you like it or not. Economics are driving it. The only problem is with knuckle-draggers who are terrified of change and will do anything to delay. They tend to put it in terms like '3rd world status'... SMH
But yeah, I'm sure it's all the doing of George Soros... LMFAO
Brock, your opinions don’t sound much different than mine. I am a firm believer in economic driven technological solutions to the world’s problems. However, I am surprised that you SEEM to be championing Greta Thunberg, who is not in agreement with us. She believes the answer is reducing our standard of living, of doing without. But, perhaps you are with the majority of the rest of us who see that. You just have a weird way of saying it.
That's where you're losing me Dan. Greta only says that we must make changes to ensure our ongoing survival as a species. The scientific community is in full agreement with that. It's only delayists, denialists and politicians in the pocket of big corporations who take issue with it. And try to convince us with BS living-in-a-cave scenarios. She says that we must listen to science and the scientists, rather than decide what we want to 'believe'... which seems to trend towards what is easiest and cheapest - quelle surprise.
The scientific community is not in full agreement. Dig deeper. Just as you have joined the abuse of those who question the unproven theories, so has the media. There are many scientists who question the alarmists’ claims, but instead of proof being presented to satisfy their doubts, they are shamed. Again, religious behavior not worthy of true scientists.
Stop abusing those who ask for scientific proof. Dig deeper. Ask intelligent questions. When you don’t get good answers, you may just open your eyes and your mind and realize we are being taken for a ride. And Greta is just a tool who has nothing to offer but her vulnerability, which is why she is being cultivated as a spokesperson.
Climate alarmism is the unproven ‘belief’. If it isn’t, there would be proof behind the claims. I have searched high and low for it, but there is none, and all that is offered is unfounded claims, ‘consensus’, and abuse of those who would even dare to play the role of doubter as required by good science.
Stop abusing those who ask for scientific proof. Dig deeper. Ask intelligent questions. When you don’t get good answers, you may just open your eyes and your mind and realize we are being taken for a ride. And Greta is just a tool who has nothing to offer but her vulnerability, which is why she is being cultivated as a spokesperson.
Climate alarmism is the unproven ‘belief’. If it isn’t, there would be proof behind the claims. I have searched high and low for it, but there is none, and all that is offered is unfounded claims, ‘consensus’, and abuse of those who would even dare to play the role of doubter as required by good science.
'not in full agreement'... you mean those three discredited hacks who disagree with the (literally) thousands of scientists who have found consensus? The 'scientists' whose work has been found sorely lacking or flawed through peer review (what real scientists do)? Yeah, I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of those nutjobs. Clearly you're not asking any questions, let alone intelligent questions if you're taking their word over that of the thousands who aren't paid by Big Oil, the military industrial complex, etc.
It's sad that your vision of the world is so narrow and easily influenced by nonsense. If we all went your way, there would be consensus that the world is flat and smoking Camels is great for your throat.
Let me guess... you also believe in God, right? Pretty sure I'm right about that, because your sort of blind belief fits squarely with religion... which absolutely requires blind faith and compliance to control its congregation. If anyone starts to think for themselves, the gig is up.
It's sad that your vision of the world is so narrow and easily influenced by nonsense. If we all went your way, there would be consensus that the world is flat and smoking Camels is great for your throat.
Let me guess... you also believe in God, right? Pretty sure I'm right about that, because your sort of blind belief fits squarely with religion... which absolutely requires blind faith and compliance to control its congregation. If anyone starts to think for themselves, the gig is up.
Again, you’ve offered no scientific proof, only hearsay and consensus. But that’s OK, it befits you.
It looks like you are the one who has blind faith.
It looks like you are the one who has blind faith.
You didn't answer my question. I'll take that as a 'yes', which only confirms your inability to critically question what is right in front of your eyes.
No point in arguing colors with a blind man.
No point in arguing colors with a blind man.