Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Tell me how

BarryD2 wrote: »

We may all take note of the advice of scientists. But we should also be aware of how scientists and academics offering advice are funded. Sexy topics like 'climate change' without doubt attract funding bursaries. There are businesses out there looking to develop whole new markets based on solutions that offer alternatives to 'climate change'. Even researchers directly employed by states have a duty towards their employers. So I find it hard to take everything they say, at face value. Doubtless there is change, we can see that about us, but I don't think anyone can predict the ramifications. When I hear people pronouncing that the sea will reach Ranelagh or wherever in Dublin, my bull**** filter comes on.

Don't hear many suggesting that we use less energy, make do with less. The emphasis seems to on looking for different ways to generate more.

By way, not sure you gave your views on this: http://www.dublinarray.com/index.html

That'll test the real resolve of many of our capital's residents who are concerned about use of excessive fossil fuels, the view from Killiney Hill will be marred. http://www.saveourseafront.net/dubli...-proposal.html

You can doubt sciences motives if you wish but where then do you turn to, or where should anyone turn to for objective evidence when developing strategy.

I have absolutely zero problem with an offshore windfarm. Wave technology is also being developed to harness that power to generate electricity and that would be less visually intrusive.

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

It's funny how everyone is falling over themselves about this girl, Ethiopia broke a record by planting 350million trees in one day but you won't see the celebrities falling I've themselves to congratulate this. Or what about the green wall they are planting across Africa? Any Irish press mentioning this? Naaaaa sell more papers screaming about the world ending.

RTE covered ethiopia planting 350M trees.

Green wall has been covered in several locations.

What's your point?

Tony EH

SJW Lover wrote: »

She's talking crap. Engaging in soundbites and generalities with zero solutions put forward. She is presenting a case against 5 countries yet ignores the two countries causing a significant amount of the damage in China and India - there's some commentary for you. What is your commentary on it? She's a young girl so any old crap gets a free pass?

Why damn her so much. What are afraid of internet hard man? She's a 16 year old girl, who crossed the sea to make a point and her point seems to be just "listen to the scientific community" on an issue that she feels strongly about.

Your commentary is worthless, because it offers nothing but an attempt to down play someone who shouldn't be any concern of yours. She' just a kid who did something.

Get over it.

BarryD2

Tell me how wrote: »

You can doubt sciences motives if you wish but where then do you turn to, or where should anyone turn to for objective evidence when developing strategy.

I have absolutely zero problem with an offshore windfarm. Wave technology is also being developed to harness that power to generate electricity and that would be less visually intrusive.

Therein lies a problem and I have no answer but I suspect that as with many aspects of life, that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. We'll neither have the Climate Armageddon that poor Greta worries about but we will see continued loss of habitat for both humans and other animal species. We might be better to put our efforts into controlling human population growth, even reducing lifespans because the growth of our population and it's expectations are core to these issues. But who will tell people, a la China, that they can only have one child or that three score years & ten is their average allotted span?

randd1

JJayoo wrote: »

It's funny how everyone is falling over themselves about this girl, Ethiopia broke a record by planting 350million trees in one day but you won't see the celebrities falling I've themselves to congratulate this. Or what about the green wall they are planting across Africa? Any Irish press mentioning this? Naaaaa sell more papers screaming about the world ending.

There’s many multiples more money to be made in panic than in hope.

Tell me how

BarryD2 wrote: »

Therein lies a problem and I have no answer but I suspect that as with many aspects of life, that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. We'll neither have the Climate Armageddon that poor Greta worries about but we will see continued loss of habitat for both humans and other animal species. We might be better to put our efforts into controlling human population growth, even reducing lifespans because the growth of our population and it's expectations are core to these issues. But who will tell people, a la China, that they can only have one child or that three score years & ten is their average allotted span?

That part in bold alone warrants action.

There has never been immediate consensus on any topic.

If the EU started to act on Climate Change, and then put pressure on US to do so and then the US put pressure on South America and then they all put pressure on China, there may be change.

It most certainly isn't going to happen quickly, easily, or uniformly, but, that is no excuse not to advocate for change.

Some people in the country fly tip, thankfully, the other 99% of the population don't use that as an excuse as to why they should do it as well.

Tony EH

SJW Lover wrote: »

I am noticing that the insults seem to be coming from only one side of this Greta argument.

SJW Lover wrote: »

Crikey you're a fool.

SJW Lover wrote: »

Haha from someone who isnt laughing is just sad. Good luck with hanging on the words of a manipulated kid. You fool.

SJW Lover wrote: »

I've learnt you are an easily manipulated person. Let me find a 15 year old to convince you of that

SJW Lover wrote: »

You're nothing but useful fodder.

Tell me how

Tony EH wrote: »

Familiar tactic

Sean.3516

Michael Knowles did nothing wrong on Fox News.


The important question is: Did he or did he not say she was a “mentally ill Swedish child” for the purposes of mocking her?

The answer his no. He said it in order to chastise the people he believes are exploiting her.

The quotes in context is “If this were about science, it would be led by scientists and not by a mentally ill Swedish girl who is being exploited by her parents and the international left.”

There no way to read this in which he is attacking her as opposed to the people he is saying are exploiting her.

It would be very strange if he was to mock someone’s mental illness and then in the same sentence chastise people for exploiting them (which he literally does in the same sentence and nobody who watches the clip can dispute that).

Most people and news outlets are only quoting the first half of what he said (“Mentally ill Swedish child”) and completely leaving out (“who is being exploited by her parents and the international left”).

The second part is the most important part of what he is saying.

So he did absolutely nothing wrong.

(For the record, Thunberg has several mental and developmental disorders.)

Tell me how

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Michael Knowles did nothing wrong on Fox News.


The important question is: Did he or did he not say she was a “mentally ill Swedish child” for the purposes of mocking her?

The answer his no. He said it in order to chastise the people he believes are exploiting her.

The quotes in context is “If this were about science, it would be led by scientists and not by a mentally ill Swedish girl who is being exploited by her parents and the international left.”

There no way to read this in which he is attacking her as opposed to the people he is saying are exploiting her.

It would be very strange if he was to mock someone’s mental illness and then in the same sentence chastise people for exploiting them (which he literally does in the same sentence and nobody who watches the clip can dispute that).

Most people and news outlets are only quoting the first half of what he said (“Mentally ill Swedish child”) and completely leaving out (“who is being exploited by her parents and the international left”).

The second part is the most important part of what he is saying.

So he did absolutely nothing wrong.

In your opinion. Not even Fox News agrees with you.

hetuzozaho

Tell me how wrote: »

Not even Fox News agrees with you.

And that's not a good look!

Tony EH

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So he did absolutely nothing wrong.

He made a silly statement to score a cheap political point and got called out on it.

gormdubhgorm

Tony EH wrote: »

Why damn her so much. What are afraid of internet hard man? She's a 16 year old girl, who crossed the sea to make a point and her point seems to be just "listen to the scientific community" on an issue that she feels strongly about.

Your commentary is worthless, because it offers nothing but an attempt to down play someone who shouldn't be any concern of yours. She' just a kid who did something.

Get over it.

I thought the idea was to make it a concern of ours?
That the world is dying and we must change etc.
Also her main point seems to have moved from 'listen to the scientists' to 'my childhood has been taken away - how dare you"
The age thing is an interesting one when she she challenged and her followers do not like the question posed - the attitude is 'she is just a child' leave her alone.
If her followers do agree with a comment she makes suddenly being a child, is highlighted as incredible and inspiring.

Therefore fact she is called a 'child' seems to be a win win for her in this respect.

Despite the fact that Swede's can drive at 16.
And the age of consent in Sweden is 15!
Therefore the law in Sweden does not consider her as much of child as some people seem to claim she is.

Sean.3516

Tell me how wrote: »

In your opinion. Not even Fox News agrees with you.

Please point out to me where I’m wrong in my line of reasoning as I’ve layed out above.

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I thought the idea was to make it a concern of ours?
That the world is dying and we must change.
Also her main point seems to have moved from 'listen to the scientists' to 'my childhood has been taken away - how dare you"
The age thing is an interesting one when she she challenged and her followers do not like the question posed - the attitude is 'she is just a child' leave her alone.
If her followers do agree with a comment she makes suddenly being a child is highlighted as incredible and inspiring.

Therefore fact she is called a 'child' seems to be a win win for her in this respect.

Despite the fact that Swede's can drive at 16.
And the age of consent in Sweden is 15!
Therefore the law in Sweden does not consider her as much of child as some people seem to claim she is.

Fine, she's a young adult. Doesn't change anything.

Tell me how

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Michael Knowles did nothing wrong on Fox News.


The important question is: Did he or did he not say she was a “mentally ill Swedish child” for the purposes of mocking her?

The answer his no. He said it in order to chastise the people he believes are exploiting her.

The quotes in context is “If this were about science, it would be led by scientists and not by a mentally ill Swedish girl who is being exploited by her parents and the international left.”

There no way to read this in which he is attacking her as opposed to the people he is saying are exploiting her.

It would be very strange if he was to mock someone’s mental illness and then in the same sentence chastise people for exploiting them (which he literally does in the same sentence and nobody who watches the clip can dispute that).

Most people and news outlets are only quoting the first half of what he said (“Mentally ill Swedish child”) and completely leaving out (“who is being exploited by her parents and the international left”).

The second part is the most important part of what he is saying.

So he did absolutely nothing wrong.

(For the record, Thunberg has several mental and developmental disorders.)

Right there buddy.

What, you disagree? Well, you have your opinion, I have mine. And, for probably the first time ever, I agree with Fox News.

Sean.3516

Tony EH wrote: »

He made a silly statement to score a cheap political point and got called out on it.

If you want to argue he should have phrased the statement in a more sensitive manner, I’m with you there.

But was he attacking and/or mocking her for having a mental illness? The words he actually said would suggest he wasn’t.

hetuzozaho

Tell me how wrote: »

Right there buddy.

What, you disagree? Well, you have your opinion, I have mine. And, for probably the first time ever, I agree with Fox News.

Me too.

No doubt the liberal media will agree with Sean.3516

Tony EH

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I thought the idea was to make it a concern of ours?

Her point, I presume, is to create a conversation on a topic she cares about.

If all one can do is respond to that by being an arse, well then that concern isn't worth a damn.

It's just someone being an arse.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Also her main point seems to have moved from 'listen to the scientists' to 'my childhood has been taken away - how dare you"

So what. Why is that such an attack on you? Her "listen to the scientists" is an ok statement. Her "my childhood has been taken away - how dare you" is a statement that she doesn't really want to be doing this, but feels the need to do so. Irrespective of whether she's right or wrong to feel that way, it still shouldn't matter to you.

Unknot your knickers and get over it.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The age thing is an interesting one when she she challenged and her followers do not like the question posed - the attitude is 'she is just a child' leave her alone.
If her followers do agree with a comment she makes suddenly being a child, is highlighted as incredible and inspiring.

Therefore fact she is called a 'child' seems to be a win win for her in this respect.

Despite the fact that Swede's can drive at 16.
And the age of consent in Sweden is 15!
Therefore the law in Sweden does not consider her as much of child as some people seem to claim she is.

Just because someone can fuck or drive, it doesn't mean they're an adult.

Sean.3516

Tell me how wrote: »

Right there buddy.

What, you disagree? Well, you have your opinion, I have mine. And, for probably the first time ever, I agree with Fox News.

You’re the one claiming I’m wrong. The burden is on you to tell me exactly how I’m wrong so I can argue back and if my argument is unsustainable, I’ll have to adjust my position. I’m genuinely interested in being proved wrong if I am in fact wrong.

This is a discussion forum is it not?

Sean.3516

Can anybody tell me how Michael Knowles attacked and/or mocked Greta Thunberg for having a mental illness?

Tony EH

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If you want to argue he should have phrased the statement in a more sensitive manner, I’m with you there.

But was he attacking and/or mocking her for having a mental illness? The words he actually said would suggest he wasn’t.

I'm not talking about sensitivity. I'm talking about someone who was simply trying to score a cheap political point using the actions of a kid who's motives aren't political.

His comment was silly and he got called out on it. Simple as that.

hetuzozaho

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Can anybody tell me how Michael Knowles attacked and/or mocked Greta Thunberg for having a mental illness?

The video is here: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/24/fox-news-greta-thunberg-michael-knowles

Disgraceful.

SafeSurfer

BarryD2 wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

You can doubt sciences motives if you wish but where then do you turn to, or where should anyone turn to for objective evidence when developing strategy.

I have absolutely zero problem with an offshore windfarm. Wave technology is also being developed to harness that power to generate electricity and that would be less visually intrusive.

Therein lies a problem and I have no answer but I suspect that as with many aspects of life, that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. We'll neither have the Climate Armageddon that poor Greta worries about but we will see continued loss of habitat for both humans and other animal species. We might be better to put our efforts into controlling human population growth, even reducing lifespans because the growth of our population and it's expectations are core to these issues. But who will tell people, a la China, that they can only have one child or that three score years & ten is their average allotted span?

The Chinese government has told its citizens they can only have one child before and could do so again. Now they see an aging population and high dependency a problem so are encouraging more kids.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm talking about someone who was simply trying to score a cheap political point using the actions of a kid who's motives aren't political.

His comment was silly and he got called out on it. Simple as that.

You're talking about Greta's parents here yeah?

She's being used as a political football; at least call it out from all sides.

Sean.3516

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not talking about sensitivity. I'm talking about someone who was simply trying to score a cheap political point using the actions of a kid who's motives aren't political.

His comment was silly and he got called out on it. Simple as that.

But how was it silly? How was it cheap?

Care to actually explain your line of thought as opposed to just making a statement and expecting to be believed?

I realized I was saying something people would disagree with so I took care to lay out exactly why I thought that. Wish other people would show the same courtesy.

Thus far, nobody has made a coherent case as to how Michael Knowles was in the wrong.

Tony EH

Sean.3516 wrote: »

But how was it silly? How was it cheap?

Care to actually explain your line of thought as opposed to just making a statement and expecting to be believed?

I realized I was saying something people would disagree with so I took care to lay exactly why I thought that. Wish other people would show the same courtesy.

Thus far, nobody as made a coherent case as to how Michael Knowles was in the wrong.

If you can't understand why this:

“If this were about science, it would be led by scientists and not by a mentally ill Swedish girl who is being exploited by her parents and the international left.”

is a cheap political statement, then I can't help you.

Veritas Libertas

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Thus far, nobody has made a coherent case as to how Michael Knowles was in the wrong.

He referred to greta as a 'mentally-ill' swedish child, who is being exploited by her parents and international left'

I believe his comments were accurate and truthful.

Some people see this as an 'attack' on Greta? Absolutely ridiculous.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1176284552387538949

Sean.3516

hetuzozaho wrote: »

The video is here: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/24/fox-news-greta-thunberg-michael-knowles

Disgraceful.

The article just flies completely over the very point I was making.

Knowles only mentioned the illness so that he could chastise her parents and the left for using her. He wasn’t using the illness to attack her.

hetuzozaho

Sean.3516 wrote: »

He wasn’t using the illness to attack her.

We'll have to agree to disagree.