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

hetuzozaho

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://streamable.com/w4sdx

Michael Jackson tried to make a difference, and even he couldn't, Greta has no chance.

Greta seems more focussed - he had fingers in a lot of pies.

hetuzozaho

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Her publicist is good

Her publicist has a publicist?

Tell me how

splinter65 wrote: »

Yesterday she was extremely stressed, overwrought and disturbed.
That didn’t just happen while she was making her speech.
It would have been building for a while.
Children need their parents to make decisions for them that are in their best interests.
When you are 16 and not on the Spectrum this nearly always means that you’re not going to agree with the decision.
This applies even more so when you are living with a sensory difference.
I am appalled that her parents allowed her to go ahead and get into that state in front of everyone.
That “how dare you” will come back to haunt them in the future.

You are applying your subjective opinion to items which I'm not sure you are in a position to do. See bold parts.

splinter65

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Just getting a lot of news tweets saying what he said was disgraceful.

Fair enough if you feel he is being attacked and she wasn't...

I hope Michael gets through it, I wouldn't wish personal attacks on anyone.

I really wouldn’t worry about Knowles...

https://youtu.be/wK-XjdN1IKs

splinter65

Tell me how wrote: »

You are applying your subjective opinion to items which I'm not sure you are in a position to do. See bold parts.

Working with teenagers on the spectrum would give me a bit of an insight. But hey, what do I know?

BarryD2

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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.

That would wash out eventually and the relative proportions of the population would even out. But seriously instead of rearranging the deckchairs, maybe people here should be advocating for less children and shorter life spans. Reduce the human population in this carbon demanding western world?

War and epidemics like the flu used to reduce our numbers. But longer life spans are now the norm and I suspect many people would object strongly if we limited the number of children born. It's measures like this though that would have a real impact.

Always Tired

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The look she gave Trump when he came in to the room was like someone who was about to have a temper tantrum.

If you want to get the people on board and change minds about tackling climate change having a rich kid with far left ideas shouting at them isn't the way to go about it.

Leo was all about slapping carbon taxes on us over in NY yesterday, seems like he is forgetting there is an election coming up here.

I can understand how some people were a bit turned off by her delivery, but people suggesting that her being less aggressive and giving a nice little cutesy speech would be more effective, where is the evidence of that? No one would pay attention, she's get a little pat on the back and that's it. It would have no impact it would just be, 'Aw, bless her,' and move on.

Making people uncomfortable is actually way more effective, otherwise she would be totally ignored. And people should be outraged over what we have allowed corporations and governments to get away with in the name of profit.

That's the other thing that people are misguided about, that she somehow shouldn't have a voice as she has a wealthy background. The same people who routinely start threads on here about w1elfare families and their scrotes, shouting that they should be doing something productive. So what income level do people think is acceptable for an activist? Why does that even matter? Does it not seem to make sense that people from wealtheir backgrounds are more able to tackle these issues as they don't have to spend most of their days trying to scrape by?

The corporations that pollute the environment are far richer than this girls family, compared to them she is poor. And if she was a poor kid the same ones on here mocking her for being rich would mock her for that.

She's too loud, she's too rich, she seems like a brat. Pretty weak arguments and seem to suggest the deniers have nothing else to attack with. Any idiot can see climate change is happening, the ice caps are melting, we have more floods and hurricanes around the world than I can remember in my lifetime, the Earth is not just being damaged, it is fighting back and if we continue on the course we're on it will get worse and worse, of that I have no doubt.

hetuzozaho

splinter65 wrote: »

I really wouldn’t worry about Knowles...

https://youtu.be/wK-XjdN1IKs

Yikes - he's an angry man. Reckon he needs some time away from it all.

Tony EH

^

Looks like he has some mental issues himself.

gormdubhgorm

splinter65 wrote: »

I really wouldn’t worry about Knowles...

https://youtu.be/wK-XjdN1IKs

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yikes - he's an angry man. Reckon he needs some time away from it all.

That's not what I took from that video, there were some scary looking individuals in that crowd.
It seemed like skit lots of obese women some with coloured hair shouting things, there was one woman with a 'love fat' T Shirt.

They actually managed to make him seem like the most sane person in the room.
He obviously loves controversy though!

splinter65

Tony EH wrote: »

^

Looks like he has some mental issues himself.

What makes you think that?

Tony EH

splinter65 wrote: »

What makes you think that?

From 0:14 doesn't look that stable. :pac:

Tony EH

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They actually managed to make him seem like the most sane person in the room.
He obviously loves controversy though!

Not a single person in that room is coming off that well.

America. :rolleyes:

hetuzozaho

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

there were some scary looking individuals in that crowd.

Subjective I spose, didn't see any scaries myself.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It seemed like skit lots of obese women some with coloured hair shouting things, there was one woman with a 'love fat' T Shirt.

Not sure what you mean by this?

Just thought he seemed a bit angry with the outburst at the end.
Whatever he needs to get through whatever he is getting through, not sure what he does so pretty ignorant here, but good luck to him.

weldoninhio

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Source

Its far more than equations. Its satellite data from space saying the earth is reflecting decreasing amounts of wavelengths of energy associated with CO2, which means co2 is trapping wavelengths of light.

Also the radiation down to the planet from the atmosphere is increasing.

Not only this but the increased CO2 in the atmosphere allows the atmosphere to become 'wetter' this extra h20 has an ever larger effect on trapping heat.

Would you dispute the levels of co2 that have bee on the increase since the industrial era, or would you not attribute them to being 'mad-made'? It seems the people most in disagreement here would argue that the extra co2 is not a result of humans, which quite frankly I find ridiculous.

You can prove me wrong also here.. I'm no expert. Its difficult to sort the facts from the myths in this debate.

From your source:

Good scientific theories are said to have ‘PREDICTIVE power’. In other words, armed only with a THEORY, we should be able to make PREDICTIONS about a subject. If the THEORY’S any good, the PREDICTIONS will come true.

One THEORY alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

The THEORY of greenhouse gases PREDICTS that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

These data provide empirical evidence for the PREDICTED effect of CO2.

So as I said, no evidence, just theories and predictions. You’ve proved exactly what I was saying hahahahaha.

Sean.3516

splinter65 wrote: »

If you know anything about knowles then you will know that he has searched everywhere today for a “****” to give, and he can’t find any, anywhere.

For a what? I’m not sure what you mean? Fword?

That’s pretty obvious. I listened to his podcast today. He’s clearly handling it in stoic fashion. He only made some playful abstract references to the controversy.

Still he’a surely going to lose out some over it. For nothing.

gormdubhgorm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Subjective I spose, didn't see any scaries myself.



Not sure what you mean by this?

Just thought he seemed a bit angry with the outburst at the end.
Whatever he needs to get through whatever he is getting through, not sure what he does so pretty ignorant here, but good luck to him.

I mean they seemed to have a number of people in the crowd with thier own issues, but skewed views of how to managed those issues - 'love fat' etc.

Plus it did not seem like an angry outburst by Knowles to me. He was just responding back to taunts from the crowd after being punched and something was thrown at him?
If I am honest Knowles seemed very effeminate and timid, and the women shouting at him seemed more masculine than he did!
I enjoyed the contrast.

Sean.3516

Calhoun wrote: »

I would think if he is calling her mentally ill then, he deserves some of it regardless if he mentioned the exploitation.

Autism is a fairly wide and broad term and people with the condition come across a wide spectrum

She’s had issues other than autism, OCD, depression, that’s according to her own mother.

Knowles’s statement wasn’t inaccurate.

hetuzozaho

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I mean they seemed to have a number of people in the crowd with thier own issues, but skewed views of how to managed those issues - 'love fat' etc.

Plus it did not seem like an angry outburst by Knowles to me. He was just responding back to taunts from the crowd after being punched and something was thrown at him?
If I am honest Knowles seemed very effeminate and timid, and the women shouting at him seemed more masculine than he did!
I enjoyed the contrast.

Ah right, well whatever floats your boat - I'll be fixing my Youtube algorithm for the next few refreshes of my home page.

Tell me how

Sean.3516 wrote: »

She’s had issues other than autism, OCD, depression, that’s according to her own mother.

Knowles’s statement wasn’t inaccurate.

She had issues in the past. He implied she currently has them.
Mental illness is not something you forever identify as having just because you suffered at one point.

splinter65

Tony EH wrote: »

From 0:14 doesn't look that stable. :pac:

He was invited to speak at a uni in the US by the uni Republican club.
It was a free event but ticketed.
The large socialist club in the uni who want diversity and free speech and safe spaces for all decided that they didn’t think people should be able to go to hear knowles speak.
So they plotted a “surprise” protest at the event which backfired on them when he was alerted to the plot before the event started.
What are you looking at that indicates poor mental health on his behalf? I don’t see it.

KyussB

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I’m not surprised seeing how it’s not going to cost taxpayers a penny. The government can just shake the magic money tree and roll over the debt without having to spend a cent in tax on servicing it.
Isn’t that what you believe?

You say "magic money tree" as if the concept of money being created from nothing is ridiculous or farcical - which shows how clueless you are about economics and money, as that is precisely how money is created all the time - 'magicked' from thin air, whenever banks give out loans, through double-entry accounting.

You must think we still live in the Gold Standard or something - with money being backed up by physical currency - something which hasn't been the case in major economies for almost 100 years...

That - people holding economic views which are a century out of date - still raving about non-existant Communist conspiracies etc. - is the level of idiocy encountered among climate change deniers.

Calhoun

Sean.3516 wrote: »

She’s had issues other than autism, OCD, depression, that’s according to her own mother.

Knowles’s statement wasn’t inaccurate.

It more than likely wasn't inaccurate but the funny thing about communication is how you say it matters as much as what you say.

SafeSurfer

BarryD2 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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.

That would wash out eventually and the relative proportions of the population would even out. But seriously instead of rearranging the deckchairs, maybe people here should be advocating for less children and shorter life spans. Reduce the human population in this carbon demanding western world?

War and epidemics like the flu used to reduce our numbers. But longer life spans are now the norm and I suspect many people would object strongly if we limited the number of children born. It's measures like this though that would have a real impact.

Sounds like a dystopian future like Logan’s Run. I’ll take my chance with warmer weather thank you very much.

SafeSurfer

KyussB wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I’m not surprised seeing how it’s not going to cost taxpayers a penny. The government can just shake the magic money tree and roll over the debt without having to spend a cent in tax on servicing it.
Isn’t that what you believe?

You say "magic money tree" as if the concept of money being created from nothing is ridiculous or farcical - which shows how clueless you are about economics and money, as that is precisely how money is created all the time - 'magicked' from thin air, whenever banks give out loans, through double-entry accounting.
You must think we still live in the Gold Standard or something - with money being backed up by physical currency - something which hasn't been the case in major economies for almost 100 years...

That - people holding economic views which are a century out of date - still raving about non-existant Communist conspiracies etc. - is the level of idiocy encountered among climate change deniers.

You are the one claiming taxation isn’t used to service the national debt.

It underlined the danger of thinking you understand debt economics after watching a couple of YouTube videos on the Green New Deal and some conspiracy nonsense about the Fed.

I’ll ask you again.

Does the €5.2 billion a year it costs to service the Irish national debt come in part from taxation. Yes or no?

Fr_Dougal

She had quit school due to her mental health issues, this whole climate change malarkey came after she had dropped out.

Looks like she’s trying to rewrite the past by blaming everything now on climate change...lost childhood indeed.

He parents should recognise that pushing her into this climate change campaign is having a serious effect on her mental health, she looks as if she’s going to have a breakdown.

Gaoth Laidir

If you remove the subject matter for a minute and focus just on people's actions, this looks for all intents and purposes exactly like a cult religion taking shape. Masses of frenzied brainwashed followers (those thick kids) following a sick evangelist (GT), who, I might add, will be making quite a killing on the huge social media following she's been amassing. Look at those huge American religious gatherings with idiots running around speaking in tongues while your man with the mike outs the demons. It's exactly the same. And everyone's falling for it, everyone.

The One Doctor

She's being used as a cult figure for the climate change movement. She's going to break and it will not be pretty. Her parents are to blame to allow her to be used in this way for media attention. She'll be affected for life by this circus. This is also bad press for those with ASD.

BorneTobyWilde

https://streamable.com/8m6cl

Jackson started the quest for change in the 80's , and it changed nothing even with all his power. I admire her stance, but it will not change a thing until the old farts that are in power all over the world are long gone.

Veritas Libertas

weldoninhio wrote: »

So as I said, no evidence, just theories and predictions. You’ve proved exactly what I was saying hahahahaha.

I think the only thing you've proven is your inability to comprehend the meaning of the world 'theory' in a scientific sense.

If you also think gravity is just a theory why not try stepping outside the window and flying up :pac:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Theory does not mean 'guess' in a scientific sense.

You also left out the most important part of that paragraph that you quoted:

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

You are proving to be disingenuous...