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

Micky 32

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://streamable.com/w4sdx

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

I think she will, with her help and her friends we'll be paying 10 euro a litre for fuel and a flight to New York will probably cost 5k. It will be a rich mans world.

SafeSurfer

Micky 32 wrote: »

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://streamable.com/w4sdx

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

I think she will, with her help and her friends we'll be paying 10 euro a litre for fuel and a flight to New York will probably cost 5k. It will be a rich mans world.

And it won’t make any difference.

Micky 32

SafeSurfer wrote: »

And it won’t make any difference.

It will to our pockets.

JJayoo

"She is not at the UN to rub shoulders with world leaders and pose for photos. She is there to save the world."

Saw this posted all over Facebook, this is the bollocxxk that annoys me, virtue signalling sh1te.

https://www.joe.ie/politics/ryan-tubridys-comments-greta-thunberg-whole-new-low-682831

On the other hand I saw this video featuring Greta, well made, easy to follow, no screaming or scaremongering, kids of any age could watch this and make the link between looking after nature =good.

https://youtu.be/w9olVKZd8OQ

weldoninhio

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

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:



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

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



You are proving to be disingenuous...

A theory in science is an idea. Scientists theorise all of the time. Not everything they theorise is/comes true.

Quantum Erasure

Google Scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Veritas Libertas

weldoninhio wrote: »

A theory in science is an idea. Scientists theorise all of the time. Not everything they theorise is true.

You're wrong here I'm afraid. A theory in science is the closest thing we have to known proofs. That's why the strongest theories in Maths are called "Theorems".


A theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms.

A theory is a structure that explains a set of facts. For example, have you ever called Germ theory just a theory before? Or the theory of gravity? or the theory of evolution?

I believe what you have called theory scientists might call a hypothesis or a conjecture. They certainly don't mean what you think they mean.

This is the first point of note on the wikipedia page for 'scientific theory' .

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.

gozunda

YFlyer wrote: »

Science doesn't depend on personality. Greta said listen to the scientist.

Which one? Funny thing from her doomsday rantings she ain't listening to any of them ....

Gaoth Laidir

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is that the crux of your argument, that people are virtually enslaved against their will by an extraordinary force? Reads like a third-rate dystopian caricature. Get real.

Not against their will, but against their better judgement. They see a peer hitting box office and it resonates with them. How many local Gretas have we seen popping up and taking the mike at the strikes, trying to emulate her? The kids in Battery Park on Friday waiting for her to take to the stage and then screaming and clapping her every word. Quite sad to see.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Which one? Funny thing from her doomsday rankings she ain't listening to any of them ....

Wrong.

She referred entirely to IPCC report in at least her two most recent speeches.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote:

SJW Lover wrote:

Why should i listen to Greta?

Because age has warranted invitations from the EU, UN, US Congress and HoC amongst others to communicate her message.

Because she has won numerous awards for her efforts.

Because she has been nominated for a Nobel prize for efforts.

Because she motivated 4M people to March on a single day calling for action on the climate.

Because her message is supported by renowned climate change commentators.

Because she is simply saying listen to the scientists.

Are these enough reasons for you?
If not, why not?

Because Tell me how - Tells you so

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Wrong.She referred entirely to IPCC report in at least her two most recent speeches.

No sir - that is Wrong!

Do keep up...

I asked which particular 'scientist' (singular) as stated by the poster quoted - should we be listening to?

YFlyer wrote:

Science doesn't depend on personality. Greta said listen to the scientist.

And yes she has variously made unsupported doomsday statements which have clearly not come from the IPCC. And yet we are suppose to be listening to some vague 'scientist' figure whose name we dont know!

Also no she did not stick entirely to the IPCC report - she went on at some length about her childhood been stolen and how dare people etc. Hardly the stuff of a rational scientific discussion now is it?

Veritas Libertas

gozunda wrote: »

And yes she has variously made unsupported doomsday statements which the scientists have clearly not come from the IPCC. And yet we are suppose to be listening to some vague 'scientist' figure whose name we dont know!

I bet those "scientists" had something to do with the Green New Deal as well

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Have to say I cringed hard for the girl on stage. Felt like she came across poorly. The message she has is correct, but the delivery was off base to me. Talking about losing your childhood when global weather changes have had precisely zero impact upon your life up to this point is a cheap form of emotional blackmail.

I'm fully on board with the Climate Change message. I think the biggest thing any government can do is make corporations liable for it in the most part.

Incentives to make goods have a good energy rating while also lasting a long time is important. Planned obsolescence should be a crime.

Then on the individual level there are many small changes everyone can make with some help and education. For example, there's no reason that I should have to buy a new plastic bottle of hand soap every couple of weeks, you should be able to buy a large concentrated bottle of soap where you add water to it so you can refill the same bottle over and over. Or McDonald's having a big ketchup bottle instead of loads of small sachets. Educate people on how to reduce their food waste. Reward people who use their own reusable drinking mug. Encourage people not to buy so much cheap tat in the €2 shop.

There's ways that the whole of society can reduce waste and pollute less. But it has to be all encompassing and can't involve simply taxing everyone more for no tangible return.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

No sir - that is Wrong!

Do keep up...

I asked which particular 'scientist' (singular) as stated by the poster quoted - should we be listening to?



And yes she has variously made unsupported doomsday statements which the scientists have clearly not come from the IPCC. And yet we are suppose to be listening to some vague 'scientist' figure whose name we dont know!

Also no she did not stick entirely to the IPCC report - she went on at some length about her childhood been stolen and how dare people etc. Hardly the stuff of a rational scientific discussion now is it?

Seriously, is that the basis of your argument at this point?

You want a singular name. Why, so you can target their motives, lifestyle, education, history.

How about Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, head of Science at the IPCC.

Scientists from 120 countries contributed to the report in question. Is that sufficient for you?

Veritas Libertas

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Planned obsolescence should be a crime.

+1 , how the world would be a better place if this was so!

YFlyer

gozunda wrote: »

Which one? Funny thing from her doomsday rantings she ain't listening to any of them ....

Hahaha

YFlyer

Tell me how wrote: »

Seriously, is that the basis of your argument at this point?

You want a singular name. Why, so you can target their motives, lifestyle, education, history.

How about Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, head of Science at the IPCC.

Scientists from 120 countries contributed to the report in question. Is that sufficient for you?

I left out the letter s by mistake.

um7y1h83ge06nx

The sooner people like her and Trump leave the world stage the better. All the dramatics, hyperbole and stroppy behaviour is getting a bit old.

Although they get the necessary responses from the media and some of the public so why should they stop.

Mongfinder General

Saw her speak today for the first time, narky little cow. She reminds me of veruca salt.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Seriously, is that the basis of your argument at this point? You want a singular name. Why, so you can target their motives, lifestyle, education, history.
How about Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, head of Science at the IPCC.Scientists from 120 countries contributed to the report in question. Is that sufficient for you?

Quite elementary my dear Watson. I was asking the quoted poster to clarify and you jumped in with both feet without reading what was written.

So now your saying that there is only one scientist we should be listening to?

And yes I've read the IPCC report cover to cover. So indeed I do know what is and what is not in it. And also how many scientists have left the IPCC and also various criticisms of how such reports are compiled. A whole load of stuff really. And funnily enough a whole bunch of gretas ramblings are definitely not taken from said report. Care to comment on that no?

gozunda

YFlyer wrote: »

I left out the letter s by mistake.

Thank you for clarifying. And no not completly serious btw The previous over eager poster answered for you but somehow managed to get it completely about face


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Overheal

Veritas Libertas

Overheal wrote: »

...

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/70272392_2776014212410194_3807873921089273856_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeEM5pjF240n4B0awcXhO81XUH85EiQhIL1JyPlfeE8plBbYMtMbvXTxP4mpsjaarvs7Q3v3ubLKm2GQDMRoroOI4WjdarJLY-WDGCpg9mRYpQ&_nc_oc=AQnNE1tJW1qTcbodHn0F6c9WyjTvxiAJMuRlAhg3dZW2bDq9Rpdy2WTd-BqIVxjD8H4&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=4ec828c014d53cd8ce252133e662345d&oe=5DF1BADB

A jpg of some daft comment already made by a bunch of others who also had really nothing to discuss?

So you think some criticism of the whole shebang is "attack"? That's definitly an interesting point of view. You need to watch this video - oh and maybe read the thread.

https://twitter.com/MAR33124085/status/1176462302503153664?s=20

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Quite elementary my dear Watson. I was asking the quoted poster to clarify and you jumped in with both feet without reading what was written.

So now your saying that there is only one scientist we should be listening to?

And yes I've read the IPCC report cover to cover. So indeed I do know what is and what is not in it. And also how many scientists have left the IPCC and also various criticisms of how such reports are compiled. A whole load of stuff really. And funnily enough a whole bunch of gretas ramblings are definitely not taken from said report. Care to comment on that no?

This is similar to the topic of the trustworthiness of the institutions which Greta has spoken about.

If you cast doubt about the validity of the IPCC, can you enlighten us as to which body whose publications you trust implicitly.

Your post is full of the vague ramblings and hints in a similar style to someone much loved by many here who is fond of phrases such as 'many people say'.

Care to put some solid basis to your argument or is ambiguity going to be the other of the day once again?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

This is similar to the topic of the trustworthiness of the institutions which Greta has spoken about. If you cast doubt about the validity of the IPCC, can you enlighten us as to which body whose publications you trust implicitly.

Your post is full of the vague ramblings and hints in a similar style to someone much loved by many here who is fond of phrases such as 'many people say'.Care to put some solid basis to your argument or is ambiguity going to be the other of the day once again?

Nope. Still not answered that simple question after how many posts? Avoiding it again are we?

Do you really have to summon the child/ teenager greta at every single opportunity?

And I'm not casting doubt on squat. I'm saying I've read the report and reviews of said report, in the spirit of enquirey and rational thought I detailed that yes I have read same etc. Even when you again brought it up - although that was not relevant to what was asked.

For some strange reason you seem to tolerate absolute zero comment on anything which does not tow your party line.

You also bizarely answer other posters comments and either get it completely assways or go off on some weird tangent about greta for the millionth time. But if you could answer what was asked instead that would be great. So again..

And funnily enough a whole bunch of gretas ramblings are definitely not taken from said report. Care to comment on that no?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Still not answered that simple question after how many posts? Avoiding it again are we?

Do you really have to summon the child/ teenager greta at every single opportunity?

And I'm not casting doubt on squat. I'm saying I've read the report and reviews of said report when you again brought it up - even though was not relevant to what was asked.

For some strange reason you seem to tolerate absolute zero comment on anything which does not tow your party line. So in the spirit of enquirey and rational thought I detailed that yes I have read same etc.

You also bizarely answer other posters comments and either get it completely assways or go off on some weird tangent about greta for the millionth time. But if you could answer what was asked instead that would be great.

Ooh I'm so bad at challenging weak opinions on a discussion board. Seriously, what are you doing here, or do you not know how it works at this stage?

I don't even know what question you are specifically asking given the warbling you are prone to.

Is it about Greta's 'rambling's' as you call them? Which one, or am I going to respond to something to have you say 'not that, I meant another one'.

Veritas Libertas

Tell me how wrote: »

trustworthiness of the institutions which Greta has spoken about.

If you cast doubt about the validity of the IPCC, can you enlighten us as to which body whose publications you trust implicitly.

Things Greta has said that strike me as being sensational, but please correct me if they are in the IPCC report:

• According the IPCC we are less than 12 years away from not being able to undo our mistakes.
• Either we avoid 1.5 degree of warming or we don't
• We either set off an irreversible chain reaction or we don't.

Does the IPCC say that we will warm the climate by 1.5Cdegrees in 12 years and this will set of an irreversible chain reaction?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Ooh I'm so bad at challenging weak opinions on a discussion board. Seriously, what are you doing here, or do you not know how it works at this stage?
I don't even know what question you are specifically asking given the warbling you are prone to.Is it about Greta's 'rambling's' as you call them? Which one, or am I going to respond to something to have you say 'not that, I meant another one'.

I think your replies are fried my friend. You are making less than zero sense. Take a read back - I've detailed the issue about her doomsday predictions in a bunch of comments already - which you chose to ignore.

You are right about one thing though - greta certainly has produced a lot of ramblings.

If you are simply going to keep making daft replies like the 'scientist' one above - seriously dont bother. Theres a limit to the amount of rubbish I will wade through for the purposes of proper discussion.