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

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Where is this seen in nature, where and how is it measured?

How is the link established between the observations measured and specific human activity?

Seriously, are you suggesting you doubt this?

Have you tried a single google search by which to investigate this?

Rockbeast2

I honestly believed you were genuine for for a while, Tell Me Now...

I am here TO REPEAT THE MESSAGE that we need to act, to support the idea that Greta is doing something worthwhile and to reiterate the idea that WE MUST LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.

* That worked out well for Germany and the rest of the world in 30s/40s.

biko

How others recycle
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=TPTH_1571267810&p=1

Tell me how

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

I honestly believed you were genuine for for a while, Tell Me Now...

I am here TO REPEAT THE MESSAGE that we need to act, to support the idea that Greta is doing something worthwhile and to reiterate the idea that WE MUST LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.

* That worked out well for Germany and the rest of the world in 30s/40s.

Hey, if your position is that climate scientists are comparable to those who tried to advance the 3rd Reich, that's your prerogative.

I'm not going to go near it it's so ludicrous.

Jimmy Garlic

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

I honestly believed you were genuine for for a while, Tell Me Now...

I am here TO REPEAT THE MESSAGE that we need to act, to support the idea that Greta is doing something worthwhile and to reiterate the idea that WE MUST LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.

* That worked out well for Germany and the rest of the world in 30s/40s.

People in general tire of repetitive holier than thou slogan chanters very quickly. Even the Nazis jazzed it up a little and didn't just repeat - "listen to the scientists, we must kill the Jews" ... they had science (eugenics) backing their theories too.

Rockbeast2

"climate scientist"

A new discipline, I'm sure.

I've read and heard your type of language before.

You should read up more on the past before you repeat it.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Seriously, are you suggesting you doubt this?

Have you tried a single google search by which to investigate this?

You know I and many others are skeptical when you tell us it's about the rate of change we want to know what is this rate of change and what numbers you are looking at and how they are tied to human activity. Don't keep it to yourself share the data with us.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

...
The events where she speaks are not workshops or academic conferences, both places where the scientists are active. She has raised awareness. Very successfully. She is a figurehead of the movement and it is not at all uncommon for such people to speak in that way. Ellen McArthur does it in a similar fashion in relation to the circular economy.

She is clearly a created figurehead backed by some very powerful interests. The fact she has continuously pushed a bs alarmist message that civilisation is going to end in 10 years shows she is not listening to the scientists at all.

The crossing the Atlantic PR stunt alone did significant harm to what she is claiming with the fact that the voyage + flights generated a bigger carbon footprint than if she and her father had simply bought two flights to get to the US.

And now presently galavanting around the Americas increasing that footprint with even more PR stunts. Though tbh it was her tantrum at the UN conference and blaming all the adults for her allegedly crappy childhood which put the nail in the coffin imo.

Rockbeast2

"People in general tire of repetitive holier than thou slogan chanters very quickly. Even the Nazis jazzed it up a little and didn't just repeat - "listen to the scientists, we must kill the Jews" ... they had science (eugenics) backing their theories too."

*Not disparaging Tell Me How in any way.

As Daddy Rockbeast once said:

"You can always pay a scientist to agree with you."

There's a bang of cult off greta & her super-friends.

Professor Moriarty

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

"People in general tire of repetitive holier than thou slogan chanters very quickly. Even the Nazis jazzed it up a little and didn't just repeat - "listen to the scientists, we must kill the Jews" ... they had science (eugenics) backing their theories too."

*Not disparaging Tell Me How in any way.

As Daddy Rockbeast once said:

"You can always pay a scientist to agree with you."

There's a bang of cult off greta & her super-friends.

Yes, we've had enough of experts.

Rockbeast2

Daddy Rockbeast IS an expert ;-)

*Rockbeast... not quite so much :-(

Rockbeast2

"A scientist told me to do it."

The Greta Defence?

Jimmy Garlic

Rockbeast2 wrote: »

"People in general tire of repetitive holier than thou slogan chanters very quickly. Even the Nazis jazzed it up a little and didn't just repeat - "listen to the scientists, we must kill the Jews" ... they had science (eugenics) backing their theories too."

*Not disparaging Tell Me How in any way.

As Daddy Rockbeast once said:

"You can always pay a scientist to agree with you."

There's a bang of cult off greta & her super-friends.

A circle jerk for trustifarian and communist layabouts.

Rockbeast2

"Denier"

"Unbeliever"

Hmmnn...?

Once those words are being thrown, you can bet your bottom dollar it was a Cult that threw them.

* If everyone cleaned up their own mess, then there would be no mess to clean up.

#Environment

Pa ElGrande

It's not just skeptics who hold their own conferences on climate change, the climate science industry hold their own extravagant government funded climate conferences which vastly outnumber the skeptic ones by many orders of magnitude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skilmEHMsMc

This one is from 2017, pay attention to Professor Kevin Anderson. If you are wondering how Greta Thunberg managed to get so off the rails look no further than her climate advisors of which Mr. Anderson is one. The others are Professor Stefan Rahmstorf and Professor Johan Rockström all are well known alarmists within the scientific community especially Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany who has many scare projections to his name.

Rockbeast2

At this stage, you just have to laugh.

"Greta" was a fallacious fraud.

The planet will continue.

* I will remove myself from this thread now, as I have personal experience with cults and how they can change people you care about.

** Who will be the one to resurrect this thread in 11 YEARS after the World has not ended? Again.

James Brown

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

People in general tire of repetitive holier than thou slogan chanters very quickly. Even the Nazis jazzed it up a little and didn't just repeat - "listen to the scientists, we must kill the Jews" ... they had science (eugenics) backing their theories too.

So your argument is if Greta has her way we might have cleaner air and less reliance on fossil rules for nothing? The monster.
I can see the analogy

JJayoo

Tell me how wrote: »

Zero knowledge? About a throwaway comment? I actually worked out using your logic that we'd need over 1M KMs of fencing posts to get to to the few hundred M you spoke about. And that was only using 200M as your proposed number of posts but I said I'd let you off with your plan.

No I meant the A/B/C of questions you posed which demonstrated that you had zero knowledge of forestry or how it actually works, didn't stop you assuming it was wrong tho....

And the above comment about the 1 million km of wire. There are over 100,000km of roads in Ireland, this doesn't count small lane ways or roads to people's houses. If the only wire/posts in the entire country was only erected to fence off the roads you would have over 200,000 km of wire and posts. Have you seen Ireland? It is a patchwork of fields divided, there would be easily 40+million miles of fencing and that is an incredibly conservative estimate.

But it's a great example of the point I made, a constant need to reply and try and put down every point made by one of the 'other team'.

When you do stuff like that the majority of people, who are in the middle of the two sides, will just discredit the good stuff you say.

AllForIt

https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1184745642905755649

Appols if this has been posted already.

I think I said on this thread some time ago that there is bound to be backlash against these protesters which is exactly what the above looks like to me. Someone is going to get hurt. These kinds of demonstrations are unprecedented, it's not like they are just marching thought the streets in a one-off way.

The thing about these ppl is that they just have that 'nutty' aurora about them even if their heart is in the right place. Aren't trains supposed to be more eco friendly than cars use btw. How exactly do ER expect ppl to get to work if not by train or not by car.

JJayoo

Damn he kicked that lad right in the head, not gonna end well.

I think these protests are beyond stupid, oh let's target public transport....what?

But at the same time I think banning the protests is absolutely ridiculous, why not allow protests in parks/open spaces? Surely a middle ground is better than is nonsense

windy shepard henderson

JJayoo wrote: »

Damn he kicked that lad right in the head, not gonna end well.

I think these protests are beyond stupid, oh let's target public transport....what?

But at the same time I think banning the protests is absolutely ridiculous, why not allow protests in parks/open spaces? Surely a middle ground is better than is nonsense

The worst thing to do in terms of any climate change protest or policy is to interfere with the ordinary Joe trying to earn a living

These people if we're delayed at work would have been docked wages because of these dole merchants so next time maybe stay out of the normal guys way when protesting

KyussB

Wow the threads gone full on anti-science now, in recent pages...

That's usually where the denialists try to drag discussions: Try to make science just a matter of opinion, so they can shoehorn in discredited 'scientists' (typically with no background in climate science) who back their political views.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Wow the threads gone full on anti-science now, in recent pages...

That's usually where the denialists try to drag discussions: Try to make science just a matter of opinion, so they can shoehorn in discredited 'scientists' (typically with no background in climate science) who back their political views.

moonage

KyussB wrote: »

Wow the threads gone full on anti-science now, in recent pages...

That's usually where the denialists try to drag discussions: Try to make science just a matter of opinion, so they can shoehorn in discredited 'scientists' (typically with no background in climate science) who back their political views.

Making science just a matter of opinion to back their political views?

Hmm, it sounds a bit like the IPCC process.

Tell me how

moonage wrote: »

Making science just a matter of opinion to back their political views?

Hmm, it sounds a bit like the IPCC process.

Does it? In what way?

Why do you doubt the integrity of the process and the contributors?

What part of the report have you an issue with?

KyussB

The IPCC is the the authority on the scientific consensus on climate change - that's literally the entire point of its existence: To gather and report on the scientific consensus on climate change, which it does with the full support of the vast vast majority of climate scientists and institutions involved in climate science.

Questioning the content of specific parts of their reports is one thing - that's fair game - trying to portray the IPCC as merely producing opinion-based or politically motivated reports: That's Science Denialism. You might as well be a fucking astrologist or homeopath - that's where it leaves your own credibility...

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

People still banging on about the non-peer reviewed flawed IPCC report? Yeah?

It’s the equivalent of picking a report by a flat earther and constantly using it as evidence.

But it’s in the report, derp.

The report is flawed, the scientists have even admitted it.

But it’s in the report, derp derp.

It’s not peer reviewed.

But it’s in the report, derp derp derp.

Do you have any other evidence?

But the report derp, derp.

Okaaaay then...

Tell me how wrote: »

So, where do you go to for information you trust?
What parts of the report are false? Links please.


Derp?

Tell me how wrote: »

Does it? In what way?

Why do you doubt the integrity of the process and the contributors?

What part of the report have you an issue with?

KyussB wrote: »

The IPCC is the the authority on the scientific consensus on climate change - that's literally the entire point of its existence: To gather and report on the scientific consensus on climate change, which it does with the full support of the vast vast majority of climate scientists and institutions involved in climate science.

Questioning the content of specific parts of their reports is one thing - that's fair game - trying to portray the IPCC as merely producing opinion-based or politically motivated reports: That's Science Denialism. You might as well be a fucking astrologist or homeopath - that's where it leaves your own credibility...

It’s like a broken record at this point.

Someone refers to the IPCC report, asks which parts are false, gets a response and completely ignores it. Then asks the very same question again a few pages later.

‘la la la, fingers in my ears, I can’t hear you”

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111519359&postcount=5856

biko

IPCC scientist Micheal Mann went to court with another scientist, Tim Ball

Mann is director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University

Ball is a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and author of numerous books on climate science.

In 2011, climate scientists Michael Mann filed a libel claim against Timothy (“Tim”) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc., and an unnamed defendant (“John Doe”). The defendant Ball participated in an interview with the FCPP and John Doe during which Ball made false and defamatory statements inferring that Michael Mann is guilty of criminal fraud in relation to the alleged “Climategate” scandal or alternatively that there are probably grounds to find Mann guilty.

The plaintiff sought damages, an injunction against further publication of the defamatory statements, and a court order for the defendants to remove the interview containing the defamatory statements from all electronic databases, including the FCPP website. In June 2019, the FCPP settled with Mann and issued a retraction and apology on their website.

According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer, on August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay.
This dismissal was apparently responsive to Ball’s request which stressed his poor health.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

Pa ElGrande

biko wrote: »

IPCC scientist Micheal Mann went to court with another scientist, Tim Ball

Mann is director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University

Ball is a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and author of numerous books on climate science.


http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

This is the key part "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer . ." What about Timothy Balls opinion? He was also awarded costs by the court which should be a strong indicator why Mann lost his case. I've been following this since its inception in 2011. This case was an attempt by Michael Mann and his lawyers using a technique known as strategic lawsuit against public participation against Timothy Ball.

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann

As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

source

Mann lost his own case because of his own obstruction and has been ordered by the court to pay Tim Balls legal costs. You can read the judges opinion here. The judge took factors such as Mr. Balls age and the death of witnesses on Mr. Balls behalf into account in his dismissal, that was not the primary reason.


Michael Mann also has a case against Mark Steyn that has been dragging on for several years as well. He does not seem to be in a hurry to settle that one either. That will rumble on for a while as well.


Manns work is discredited because his Hockey Stick model wiped out both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which were well documented in history, literature, art and science. His unwillingness to release his data and model so others could attempt to duplicate his results took this from the realm of science to mere political activity.

Venom

AllForIt wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1184745642905755649

Appols if this has been posted already.

I think I said on this thread some time ago that there is bound to be backlash against these protesters which is exactly what the above looks like to me. Someone is going to get hurt. These kinds of demonstrations are unprecedented, it's not like they are just marching thought the streets in a one-off way.

The thing about these ppl is that they just have that 'nutty' aurora about them even if their heart is in the right place. Aren't trains supposed to be more eco friendly than cars use btw. How exactly do ER expect ppl to get to work if not by train or not by car.

I saw a couple of videos taken at the train station that ER were protesting at yesterday and I'm totally at a loss for understanding what they were trying to accomplish? The trains in question ER delayed were electric trains so what's the problem?

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

IPCC scientist Micheal Mann went to court with another scientist, Tim Ball

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

This is the key part "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer . ." What about Timothy Balls opinion?

The publication in which Balls words on Mann were printed issued an apology to Mann so you could equally argue that they agreed with him that Ball was incorrect to say what he said. The case being dismissed was done due to delay which is different to suggesting it was a frivolous case in the first place.

Mann was a lead scientist on an IPCC report 18 years ago? Is that what you're trying to use to discredit the current publication? Is it really expected that with so many scientists involved with the IPCC that there will not be some who have had their work commented on in such ways as this.

What about the 'no issue with climate' side, given the absence of large bodies of scientists saying climate change is not an issue, we have to revert to 'notable others'.

Who do you want to discuss? Donald Trump? The Healy-Raes? Jeremy Clarkson? I mean, all of these are sensible, logical people aren't they, we'd never find any evidence of them to discredit their opinions I'm sure.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

What about the 'no issue with climate' side, given the absence of large bodies of scientists saying climate change is not an issue, we have to revert to 'notable others'..

Why would anyone say such a thing. Catastrophic climate change (whether man made or not) is pretty much certain in the long run.

Tell me how

jackboy wrote: »

Why would anyone say such a thing. Catastrophic climate change (whether man made or not) is pretty much certain in the long run.

Some in this thread would query that.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

. . .
Mann was a lead scientist on an IPCC report 18 years ago? Is that what you're trying to use to discredit the current publication? Is it really expected that with so many scientists involved with the IPCC that there will not be some who have had their work commented on in such ways as this.
. . . .

I'm still waiting for you to share the data with us, you would not stoop as low as Michael Mann and not share the data now would you?

Michael Mann also claimed he was awarded the Nobel peace prize, until he was put right on the matter by the IPCC no less.

Keep in mind the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) are a committee they are not experts on climate and their remit is ONLY to report on climate change that can be attributed to humans, meaning there is bias in their reports.

The shoddy methods and antics of the IPCC process are described in the book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert. I am registered as a reviewer for Working Group I of the future IPCC AR6 reports and you can be too. You have until the 13th December if you want to get in on working group II.

I had to agree to this

Self Declaration of Expertise

I declare that I have scientific, technical or socioeconomic expertise in one or more areas relevant to the report and am therefore qualified to serve as an Expert Reviewer on the chapter(s) indicated.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to share the data with us, you would not stoop as low as Michael Mann and not share the data now would you?

Michael Mann also claimed he was awarded the Nobel peace prize, until he was put right on the matter by the IPCC no less.

Keep in mind the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) are a committee they are not experts on climate and their remit is ONLY to report on climate change that can be attributed to humans, meaning there is bias in their reports.

The shoddy methods and antics of the IPCC process are described in the book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert. I am registered as a reviewer for Working Group I of the future IPCC AR6 reports and you can be too. You have until the 13th December if you want to get in on working group II.

I had to agree to this

:D:D:D:D:D

Well done on being appointed a reviewer. Do you care to share with us your field of study? And the degree you hold in it? I find it very curious that you have not mentioned you have expertise in this field until this point.

I struggle to believe it given the content which you have been posting on this thread and how you only mention this now.

I am glad however that you can see the systems which the IPCC have in place and so I trust you have a new found respect for their report of last year.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to share the data with us, you would not stoop as low as Michael Mann and not share the data now would you?

NASA has produced some work on it.
They state that 97% of scientists believe that climate-warming trends over the last century are extremely likely due to human activity.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

:D:D:D:D:D
. . . . I trust you have a new found respect for their report of last year.

My technical expertise on climate - I just lick my finger, put it the air to see which way the wind is blowing. I do a bit more besides that, as for signing up for the IPCC as they say nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

My technical expertise on climate - I just lick my finger, put it the air to see which way the wind is blowing. I do a bit more besides that, as for signing up for the IPCC as they say nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Seems to me to be more like a plan to undermine future reports.

'Sure anyone can have an impact on what goes in to that, I even signed up and I know nothing about the science'.

Well played.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

NASA has produced some work on it.
They state that 97% of scientists believe that climate-warming trends over the last century are extremely likely due to human activity.

You are basing your claim on consensus rather than science. You should also be aware that the so called 97% consensus has been discredited these are the list of papers that John Cook (an activist behind the website skepticalscience) used, and of the of the 11,944 abstracts that Cook et al examined, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming. NASA have been asked to remove that claim.

While NASA asserts the “97 percent” claim is supported by a number of studies, CEI contends that claim has major flaws that have been documented by critics. These include:

• Incorrectly categorizing scientists who take “no-position” as endorsing the view that humans are responsible for climate change.
• Failing to include relevant sources without explanation.
• Failing to match the terms used as the basis for a study to the claim actually made by NASA.

source

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

You are basing your claim on consensus rather than science. You should also be aware that the so called 97% consensus has been discredited these are the list of papers that John Cook (an activist behind the website skepticalscience) used, and of the of the 11,944 abstracts that Cook et al examined, only 64 claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming. NASA have been asked to remove that claim.

If you want to be pedantic over consensus rather than science I will freely accept that I am basing my claim on the consensus of scientists.

There are very few scientific fields which do not contain outliers, we saw it in the abortion debate here where the majority of experts advocated for it but there were still those who were qualified medical professionals who disagreed.
I also reckon you are being a bit cute when suggesting only 64 claimed explicitly given the very nature of science is to not claim specifically and that it still does not dispute NASA's statement that human activity is extremely likely to be a cause of climate warming trends.

Just because there is not unanimous support, does not invalidate the argument.

Until you can show me, an, in any way, comparable level of consensus denying the impact of humans on the climate, I am going to go with the view that action is needed.

JJayoo

"NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers"

"Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies"

Said in 2006

''the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophetunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe"

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/

I remember 2006 with Al Gore and manbearpig and the surge in Climate activity and how the exact same "we are all doomed" sh1te was thrown around.

This is why I roll my eyes when I see the scaremongering stuff in the media.

Do I think mankind is playing a role in global warming...well obviously.

Am I worried about the temperature increasing? Not really, I would be far more worried about air quality from all the sh1te that is being pumped into the atmosphere. Hundreds of millions of people spending their entire lives in big cities breathing in sh1t.

And when I see all these protesters on the news I wonder why they are so worried about something that might happen in the future when so many things in the world at the moment are in a heap. Virtue signalling really annoys me. Do something productive.

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

"NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers"

"Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies"

Said in 2006

''the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophetunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe"

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/

I remember 2006 with Al Gore and manbearpig and the surge in Climate activity and how the exact same "we are all doomed" sh1te was thrown around.

This is why I roll my eyes when I see the scaremongering stuff in the media.

Do I think mankind is playing a role in global warming...well obviously.

Am I worried about the temperature increasing? Not really, I would be far more worried about air quality from all the sh1te that is being pumped into the atmosphere. Hundreds of millions of people spending their entire lives in big cities breathing in sh1t.

And when I see all these protesters on the news I wonder why they are so worried about something that might happen in the future when so many things in the world at the moment are in a heap. Virtue signalling really annoys me. Do something productive.

Greta is doing something productive. She is drawing attention to the issue on a global scale.
If you believe so much is wrong, why do you have a problem with someone doing what they can, trying to live by example and encouraging others to do the same.

A world wildlife report recently detailed the loss of animal numbers, largely because of human action. When are we going to say 'oh, let's do something.'? when it is in fact too late?

This thread has now developed in to a lot of people saying 'well yes, there's a problem', but at the same time decrying Greta for trying to promote action.
Think about that, it really is bizarre.

JJayoo

Tell me how wrote: »

Greta is doing something productive. She is drawing attention to the issue on a global scale.
If you believe so much is wrong, why do you have a problem with someone doing what they can, trying to live by example and encouraging others to do the same.

A world wildlife report recently detailed the loss of animal numbers, largely because of human action. When are we going to say 'oh, let's do something.'? when it is in fact too late?

This thread has now developed in to a lot of people saying 'well yes, there's a problem', but at the same time decrying Greta for trying to promote action.
Think about that, it really is bizarre.

I didn't mention Greta once in my post....but hey don't let that stop you from making stuff up to complain about lol

I have zero problem with Greta, I don't use Twitter or live on Facebook so the last time I saw or heard from her was the how dare you speech a few weeks ago that was on the news.

When I said I hate virtue signalling people who just complain and do nothing productive I was on about people who spend their entire days posting sh1te on social media /forums constantly bitching....

Actually since you have brought up Greta and how you find her inspiring what have you done to positively contribute to the environment/climate?

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

I didn't mention Greta once in my post....but hey don't let that stop you from making stuff up to complain about lol

Ok, so sometimes the argument is 'this thread is about Greta, we can't discuss anything else' and more times its 'Who's talking about Greta'

JJayoo wrote: »

When I said I hate virtue signalling people who just complain and do nothing productive I was on about people who spend their entire days posting sh1te on social media /forums constantly bitching....

Annoying isn't it! (Have a good read of the thread there till you see the b*tching posts)

JJayoo wrote: »

Actually since you have brought up Greta and how you find her inspiring what have you done to positively contribute to the environment/climate?

This isn't about me but, that's the same BS approach people used suggesting there was an outboard engine used to manoeuvre the yacht she was on in the harbour.

But, as you asked, and because you'll try to suggest I shouldn't have an opinion if I don't somehow practice it;
I recycle to a very high degree.
I hold on to goods for as long as possible (radio is 19 years old, TV is 13)
I use public transport and cycle a lot.
I have done a thesis on the excessive use of materials in a certain aspect of today's society.

You going to ask the same question of people who say that they know there is a problem but everything Greta is saying is wrong?

JJayoo

You recycle and take the bus wow really putting in the effort for the cause, don't forget to mention sitting in front of the computer 24/7 to reply to every post, that's definitely gonna help.

"You going to ask the same question of people who say that they know there is a problem but everything Greta is saying is wrong?"

If you point them out and if they are virtue signalling little ****s then ya of course.

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

You recycle and take the bus wow really putting in the effort for the cause, don't forget to mention sitting in front of the computer 24/7 to reply to every post, that's definitely gonna help.

"You going to ask the same question of people who say that they know there is a problem but everything Greta is saying is wrong?"

If you point them out and if they are virtue signalling little ****s then ya of course.

Exactly like the BS about the outboard motor or wondering about there not being a toilet on the yacht.

You just rant. That's it. Empty vessels and so on.

P.S. We have the internet on phones now.

JJayoo

Tell me how wrote: »

Exactly like the BS about the outboard motor or wondering about there not being a toilet on the yacht.

You just rant. That's it. Empty vessels and so on.

P.S. We have the internet on phones now.

You do love a good strawman

Twice now you have mentioned a motor on a boat in reply to me, why? When have I ever mentioned rubbish like this or talking about toilets on boats.

When you have to make up stuff to complain about that should be a little warning sign that maybe you're talking shooiiittteee

Tell me how

JJayoo wrote: »

You do love a good strawman

Twice now you have mentioned a motor on a boat in reply to me, why? When have I ever mentioned rubbish like this or talking about toilets on boats.

When you have to make up stuff to complain about that should be a little warning sign that maybe you're talking shooiiittteee

See Jjayoo, this is what I said.

Tell me how wrote: »

that's the same BS approach people used suggesting there was an outboard engine used to manoeuvre the yacht she was on in the harbour.
?

I didn't say you said it. If you can't understand the difference or why I used that example, then I can't help you.

Similar thing with Greta, people deliberately unable to understand her message.

JJayoo

Tell me how wrote: »

See Jjayoo, this is what I said.



I didn't say you said it. If you can't understand the difference or why I used that example, then I can't help you.

Similar thing with Greta, people deliberately unable to understand her message.

You quoted my post, which had no mention of Gretta or her boat. If you are going to take a post of mine and argue every word then argue against the actual content of the post and not things that other people have said.

But I suppose that's the 'my side Vs your side'
mentality.

youknowitstrue

She has a book coming out just in time for Christmas, i imagine there will be many disappointed children getting that turkey for a present.