Davos and Greta Thunberg

MerylStreep

nanna8

Revolting little girl in every sense.

Sending that right back to you, revolting adult.

Thank you darling.

Actually I haven’t revolted since the March against you British invading the Middle East under that perfectly divine PM you had, Tony Blair.

Katie59

Probably means terawatt TWh which is one million megawatts MWh

Short diversion into scientific notation, then I promise I'll shut up. Maybe 😉.

TkWhr suggests tera kilowatt hour.

Any "really good scientist" would user the prefix peta (P), instead of tera kilo (Tk) which is unheard of.

But I guess its a way of making it more accessible to people who don't really work with numbers a lot in scientific circumstances.

TerriBull

I didn't say that about scientists Volver, I'm interested in your input, I'm not being sarcastic, you almost certainly know more about all of this than me. you say "whatever you think I'd rather they were meeting than developing little individual plans that only are looking at the concerns of one country" I think that's exactly how some countries come across, in spite of what they would like to say to the contrary I think their own national interests are often at the fore.

I'm sorry again, TerriBull, I was apologising for diverting your thread. I didn't mean to suggest that you had said anything against scientists.

That's ok Volver I'm not offended

In a world full of Calvin Robinsons, be more Greta.

twitter.com/calvinrobinson/status/1616456209967599616

nanna8

Actually I haven’t revolted since the March against you British invading the Middle East under that perfectly divine PM you had, Tony Blair.

I take it you meant Greta is revolting in the way one might say "The peasants are revolting" nanna8.

ie fighting for the rights of ordinary people.
🙂

We won't mention Vietnam
(Oh, I just did)

"a movement or expression of vigorous dissent"

Volver sorry to bother you but are you saying that MIT used the wrong notation?

Will you let them know?

nanna8

Actually I haven’t revolted since the March against you British invading the Middle East under that perfectly divine PM you had, Tony Blair.

Nanna8 I understand now what you are trying to say. First of all you may not realise that Tony Blair instigated six wars during his time in office. I don’t think many ordinary voters understood what was going on. Master of spin.

Secondly the ordinary person now in England is feeling completely let down and alienated by the current administration. So please don’t be too hard on us!

ronib

Volver sorry to bother you but are you saying that MIT used the wrong notation?

Will you let them know?

What, regarding this miraculous MIT paper that none of us have seen but you?

I'll pass.

Yup Volver it’s a miracle… nuclear power is less dangerous than wind … somehow the point of the paper got lost in the argument. Funny that.

Still no paper then? And I was so looking forward to reading it.

Okey doke.

Nuclear power is less dangerous than wind. What next. 🤣

Volver there’s a wealth of evidence for those who wish to look. Happy hunting

But you just can't show us any.

I'm not convinced 😼

To answer the OP,
I think she and anyone else who is worried about the planet will think she has a point.
But, politicians also have to answer to the people of their country and think about the economics and of how fast they can move on the ecology front.I can’t see people wanting black outs or a minimum use of electricity, so in the end I think it’ll have to be nuclear power, with as much as possible other means, off shore wind farms being one.Yes, another worry then for possible accidents at nuclear power stations but it’s probably the only realistic option.

volver

But you just can't show us any.

I'm not convinced 😼

Well let’s just say as part of the scientific method, you should be able to weigh up both sides of the argument independently of my input.

You wouldn’t want anyone to think you are the Tony Blair of spin would you?

You have covered the philosophy of the scientific method? That’s really what it’s all about…. End of story

Ooohh, look what I found...

Nuclear is responsible for 0.07 deaths per TWhr

Wind, 0.04 deaths per TWhr. That's nearly half as many.

No sign of the elusive TkWhr, though.

This is getting childish.

I know. Sorry... you're right.

Given that nuclear kills twice as many people as wind and 3 times as many as solar, do you think its a good idea? Especially since we can get wind and solar power sources up and running in months and nuclear takes decades?

I think we have to continue building nuclear power stations but do all the other things we can in the meantime.
All countries will have to do these things, but countries with large populations will never manage just on solar and windpower.Not much sun in Winter in the UK is there.

In the interest of science, even if everyone else has given up the will to live,death rates per unit of electricity production

Wind 0.04
Nuclear 0.03

Our world in data

I beg to differ. But I'll stop going on about it.

Not much sun in winter in the UK. Aye, nobody thought of that, did they. And what will we do when the wind doesn't blow? (sarcasm emoji)

Heat ourselves off the people glowing in the dark due to the nuclear plants, I suppose.

🌊

Och it’s all the wind from the spin that’s cooling us down