Senaste sökningarna
Sökalternativ
@gretathunberg in Germany forests are renewable and have to be renewed. Spruce has no future and has to be replaced with climate resistant tree species.
@Kurt @gretathunberg In Germany forests get destroyed by RWE to make place for coal mines
@gretathunberg Can you explain the slogan "Forests are not renewable"? I know that a lot of forests have burned down due to the droughts in a lot of countries, and I think we should get them back as soon as possible (which still takes too long).
Do you mean biomass is not a sustainable fuel?
@gretathunberg in the end, we are part of the nature we're trying to protect
@gretathunberg And they want us to believe that an industry which consumes an enormous amount of fossil fuel to destroy the forest is a carbon-neutral industry. https://spore.social/@_noelamac_/111754076099375687
@gretathunberg I support you with all my heart my Queen I love you! 
99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans.
Greta is saying to listen to the scientists.
Meanwhile, Dr. Curry has left academia.
@flyonthewall
Left, chased off; potayto, potahto.
@Flyy I was quicker than you to reply and it's not "potayto, potahto" - it's chess with a pidgeon.
@flyonthewall
Pollster’s argument.
@Flyy And yours is a charlatan's argument.
@flyonthewall @Flyy
I haven’t made the scientific argument. No one here has. For example, is cherry-picking evidence acceptable in science? Look at the datasets used for surface temperature. You would think avoiding the urban heat sink effect would be important when measuring for temperature over time, but doing so breaks the ‘desired’ conclusion, so the flawed dataset is allowed, and the other dataset is ignored. You would expect a valid theory to hold up using either dataset.
@gretathunberg Thank you all!