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

manual_man

I have no problem with children wanting to do well for the environment. Kids are generally well meaning. There's certainly no harm in teachers - and parents - introducing the idea of environmentally responsibility to children(from a certain age, at least).

However, there's a lot more at play.

First of all, i think most people can agree that scaring our children to death is not the way to go about things. Instances of 'eco anxiety' are on the rise among children and young adults. It's not surprising when you hear people such as AOC, who are very popular with a younger demographic, saying that the world will end in 12 years if we don't take any action. This is disgraceful and irresponsible. Teaching young people about environmentally responsibility and what they themselves can do (particularly with their own consumption habits) is great. Trying to indoctrinate them with fear is not.

Now, as to Greta Thunberg herself: I really have mixed views. I have nothing against the girl herself. Young people should be protected, and their concerns should be listened to. However, they are still children. I'm not comfortable with her being pushed into an adult's world as she has been. It's a fair question to ask if the adults behind her really have her best interests at heart, or if there are more nefarious motives at play. I heard her initial protest was indeed orchestrated by her parents and others (despite them having denied it at first). Also, as has probably been noted, her parents wrote about her and her sister's challenges with mental health issues in a book not so long ago. Is it really responsible for a parent to make their children's struggles so public??? I personally would say no.

So i think it's myopic to immediately accuse anyone who is raising concerns as 'bullying a child' or 'being threatened by a child'. While i've seen a few distasteful remarks thrown her way, the majority of concern i've seen is not directly critical of her but rather is raising concern of the wisdom of thrusting her to the very forefront of what is a very divisive issue (at least in terms of the best way of going about addressing the issue). I think there's better ways to have this debate. Thrusting a child to the forefront of the debate and demanding that she be listened to (but not questioned) seems a bit nefarious to me. We can do better.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

I think your replies are fried my friend. You are making less than zero sense. Take a read back - I've detailed the question 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.

As always, you don't get it. (deliberately I'm sure at this point)
I have said earlier in the thread, and several others have said also, the doomsday timeframe is irrelevant, if it is out by a year, or 5 years or ten.
Damage is being done, it needs to be halted.

What is it about this that annoys you so much? I'd really love to know. It seems you've presented your main reason for being aggrieved with Greta as; concern for her welfare, hypocritical to be sailing to US and crew members flying back, suggesting that she is being manipulated, that she is a puppet for her parents, that she is a puppet for others, that you don't trust the IPCC and now that she may be wrong on the time frame where we will pass the point of no repair.

You can move on to your next angle in due course, first can you explain what exactly your issue is?

(You're not alone of course, I haven't seen a single argument which holds water against her or her message from anyone)

Veritas Libertas

Tell me how wrote: »

As always, you don't get it. (deliberately I'm sure at this point)
I have said earlier in the thread, and several others have said also, the doomsday timeframe is irrelevant, if it is out by a year, or 5 years or ten.
Damage is being done, it needs to be halted.

The thing you call irrelevant is the thing that most people are taking issue with. Most people agree human are adding to the co2 in the atmosphere, therefore making a rise in temperature.

There is an argument to be made about alleviating the 'bystander effect' by sensationalizing and make an emergency of the situation.(because no-one is helping pretend there is an emergency by crying wolf).

But the problem with this tact is that people stop believing you after time..1...2..3....5..10 years.. they stop coming when you cry wolf. They realize its not an emergency as they are rare, unusual and involve threat of actual harm.

Had she gone up and discussed the science as we know it, it would have put everyone to sleep and no-one would have watched.

You don't get to decide what's relevant I'm afraid.

handlemaster

I think this whole Greta stunt is a case of the emperor having no clothes. She is a child talking about climate change which is great but there is no plan been put forward. If you come to the adult table come with an adult plan, there are enough adults behind her to help with this.Alot of this talk is just sound bites .. isnt that what she was giving out about to the poiticians about ? The sailing of the boat to new york another publicity stunt ..the crew some of whom had to fly home. It cost more in climate damaging gases than if she had taken the plane herself. Its as if people are suspending common sence because she is a child and secondly she has a handicap

pjohnson

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

The thing you call irrelevant is the thing that most people are taking issue with. Most people agree human are adding to the co2 in the atmosphere, therefore making a rise in temperature.

There is an argument to be made about alleviating the 'bystander effect' by sensationalizing and make an emergency of the situation.(because no-one is helping pretend there is an emergency by crying wolf).

But the problem with this tact is that people stop believing you after time..1...2..3....5..10 years.. they stop coming when you cry wolf. They realize its not an emergency as they are rare, unusual and involve threat of actual harm.

Had she gone up and discussed the science as we know it, it would have put everyone to sleep and no-one would have watched.

You don't get to decide what's relevant I'm afraid.

Except they dont. A lot of these attacking Greta dont believe any part of science. Hell you've seen Welly delighted he doesnt understand how science works. Some might pretend they do not to instantly disgrace themselves but more often than not they deny climate change exists.

Veritas Libertas

pjohnson wrote: »

Except they dont. A lot of these attacking Greta dont believe any part of science. Hell you've seen Welly delighted he doesnt understand how science works. Some might pretend they do not to instantly disgrace themselves but more often than not they deny climate change exists.

So you believe people are scared to talk about things for fear of disgracing yourself? There's a thread I made about that kind of thing

I don't believe it to be the case in this discussion though as the IDW don't talk about climate change. Everyone who has an opinion seems free and open to express it without fear of being called something that sticks like in other discussions.

weldoninhio

pjohnson wrote: »

Except they dont. A lot of these attacking Greta dont believe any part of science. Hell you've seen Welly delighted he doesnt understand how science works. Some might pretend they do not to instantly disgrace themselves but more often than not they deny climate change exists.

Again, nobody has denied climate change. You keep repeating that even though it’s false.

Veritas Libertas

weldoninhio wrote: »

Again, nobody has denied climate change. You keep repeating that even though it’s false.

pjohnson

weldoninhio wrote: »

Again, nobody has denied climate change. You keep repeating that even though it’s false.

You deny science. Even dafter. Say the line there again Welly go on.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Wait are you agreeing with Welly now re. Man made climate change and CO2?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

As always, you don't get it. (deliberately I'm sure at this point)
I have said earlier in the thread, and several others have said also, the doomsday timeframe is irrelevant, if it is out by a year, or 5 years or ten. Damage is being done, it needs to be halted. What is it about this that annoys you so much? I'd really love to know. ...

Lol. And you make accusations like this against other posters ...

Tell me how wrote: »

..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'.

Fits your comment here to a T. Tell me how

So you say it doesnt matter she is spouting absolute rubbish about the end of civilisation in 10 years yada yada? Thats quite an interesting pov.

Succinctly the main issue is what the teenager is rambling on about both at this conference and previous - has little to nothing to do with the IPCC report which bizarely you keep clutching to your bosom to use as way of reply even where it is clearly irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Rather greta uses doomsdayism and personal histrionics in the stead of any informed logic.

She is indeed been manipulated by others - that much has detailed by a many posters and others outside of this forum.

Why in the gods name some are so utterly infatuated with a teenager who in reality has zero relevant experience and zero qualifications and is no more than a invitee to these events is beyond reason and I reckon is the conclusion of an ever increasing number of people.

I leave you at your apparent need to dominate an entire discussion to the point where what you are posting is as the say in America - garbage

Graces7

Good to read Leo's words on this. Cannot post links, but see rte online. Agree fully with him.

Ulysses Gaze

Nice to see the EU are still spinning their "Global Climate Leaders" bull**** spin whilst increasing it's budget for private jet use by officials by 50%.....

"Do as I say, not as I do"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7498951/EU-increases-budget-officials-private-jets-despite-pledges-tackle-climate-change.html#comments

The European Union is set to spend an extra three million euros on funding private jets for its officials, while also aiming to be a 'global climate leader'.

Although still two years away from the 'air taxi' contract ending, the EU has decided to raise the amount that can be spent to €10.71 million, a 50 per cent increase on the starting amount.

Originally the deal, which runs from 2016 to 2021, had a value of €7.14 million but it is not thought that will not cover all the travel needed, reports Politico.

When agreed two years ago, the contract was for an estimated 871 flight hours and to destinations including Strasbourg, Berlin and Stuttgart.

Jackman25

It is thought that Irelands population will grow by ~1 million over the next two decades. Surely this level of population increase is irresponsible in terms of climate change?

shesty

Apparently Ryan Tubridy made some ill judged remarks about her speech yesterday and an apology is being demanded.

I really dislike him, but I agree with the essence of what he said (badly).I saw her speech and thought Jesus, she is 16 and she is so obsessed with an impending armageddon -she talks about not being able to sleep and being anxious and afraid constantly -that is not right.She does need to just be a teenager for a while. It may be a function of her personality to fixate on stuff like that but surely it would be better to teach her some coping strategies rather than have her up making speeches about how the world is doomed and her childhood has been robbed by anxiety over it.

I am absolutely not denying climate change -it is happening-and she is doing an excellent job of forcing people to listen but the only person losing out in the whole process is her.Her youth is a disadvantage in some ways because i don't think she really gets that it won't - and can't- happen overnight.For all she states that world leaders are promising change with technology that doesn't exist, the technology to achieve what she demands doesn't fully exist yet either (or is not viable) -the two have not met in the middle.

batman_oh

Some actual ideas would be nice instead of just shouting and probably more tax on the average person - something that won't have any effect on the rich/elite and their lifestyle.

There are too many people for a start, this is probably the most significant drain on the planet

NIMAN

I'll be honest, of course I know who she is but I hadn't really seen many clips of her over the last few months. Don't think I was ignoring her deliberately but just hadn't seen much.

Anyway, I decided to watch one of her clips from this forum she is at.

She looks like she is deeply disturbed when she is talking. I know folk might say, yes she cares so much and is emotional about the cause, but its not that. There is just something about her.

Is she letting this cause affect her life so much that she is being damaged? Or perhaps its her Aspbergers? I don't know. But she looks in pain when she's chatting.

I do hope she doesn't get damaged from all this.

gozunda

pjohnson wrote: »

Except they dont. A lot of these attacking Greta dont believe any part of science. Hell you've seen Welly delighted he doesnt understand how science works. Some might pretend they do not to instantly disgrace themselves but more often than not they deny climate change exists.

Thats the thing - the majority are not directly "attacking" anyone. That many are genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of greta and have voiced this is good. But it is informing indeed to see that charge levied against any criticism whether that relates to the validity of what is being said or the evident dog and pony show that goes along with this whole debacle.

The old 'attack' accusation is simply used to try and shut every other opinion down on the basis 'because she is a child!'

Those who should face disappropriation are the adults who have put the 'child' in this position and and are attempting to use her presence to silence any criticism. Shame on them.

begsbyOnaTrain

It must be quite the mental strain for all the folks who believe we're 12 years from doomsday. I dunno what I'd do if that were me.

Jackman25

gozunda wrote: »

Thats the thing - the majority are not "attacking" anyone. But it is informing indeed to see that charge levied against any criticism whether that relates to the validity of what is being said or the evident dog and pony show that goes along with this whole debacle.

The old 'attack' accusation is simply used to try and shut every other opinion down on the basis 'because she is a child whaaaaa!'

Those who should face disappropriation are the adults who have put the 'child' in this position and and are attempting to use her presence to silence any criticism. Shame on them.

There seems to be this narrative that middle-aged white men are losing their **** over Greta.
I'm not really seeing this at all. Seems to me any criticism of her has people losing their ****. Look at the reaction to fairly innocuous comments by Tubridy yesterday

gozunda

Jackman25 wrote: »

There seems to be this narrative that middle-aged white men are losing their **** over Greta.
I'm not really seeing this at all. Seems to me any criticism of her has people losing their ****. Look at the reaction to fairly innocuous comments by Tubridy yesterday

I listened to that piece and it came across as he was thinking of gretas well being as if his own child was in the same position. And rightly so - he was concerned. Not a great fan of the guy - but absolutely nothing wrong in what he and thousands of others have already empathised.

"I was thinking about my daughter and what would I do if I saw my 16-year-old's face contorted, talking about her childhood and life being robbed of her in that audience...It just got to a tipping point last night where I just feel she needs to be brought home and watch a movie. Just go for a walk with your da or your ma," he said.

KyussB

handlemaster wrote: »

I think this whole Greta stunt is a case of the emperor having no clothes. She is a child talking about climate change which is great but there is no plan been put forward. If you come to the adult table come with an adult plan, there are enough adults behind her to help with this.Alot of this talk is just sound bites .. isnt that what she was giving out about to the poiticians about ? The sailing of the boat to new york another publicity stunt ..the crew some of whom had to fly home. It cost more in climate damaging gases than if she had taken the plane herself. Its as if people are suspending common sence because she is a child and secondly she has a handicap

That's not true - and the same posters backing you know it, as they've been in discussions involving it: The Green New Deal and variants of it, are becoming mainstream throughout the western world, as the primary plan in response to it.

3...2...1...before same posters try to goalpost shift, by taking issue with parts of the plan - when the question was whether or not a plan was put forward.

randd1

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

It must be quite the mental strain for all the folks who believe we're 12 years from doomsday. I dunno what I'd do if that were me.

I can see it now.

The break down of civilisation. Random acts of rape, murder, arson, theft, vicious assaults, rampant drug use.

You never know, it might be a bit of craic.

weldoninhio

pjohnson wrote: »

You deny science. Even dafter. Say the line there again Welly go on.



Wait are you agreeing with Welly now re. Man made climate change and CO2?

Nobody in this thread had denied climate change. Climate change has happened from the birth of the earth and will continue until the death of the earth. It happened before humans, it will happen after humans. :rolleyes:

Won't be engaging with your waffle any more.

Mebuntu

NIMAN wrote: »

I do hope she doesn't get damaged from all this.

She is already damaged, severely, and the fallout from this for her will not be good. Worse still, allowing her to pontificate nonsense and untruths without challenge means that countless other children are being damaged on a daily basis. Just ask the parents who try to shield their young children as best they can from the adult world who have to deal with this when their children come home from school with tales of terror.

This damaged child should be gagged from robbing other children of their childhood.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Thats the thing - the majority are not directly "attacking" anyone. That many are genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of greta and have voiced this is good. But it is informing indeed to see that charge levied against any criticism whether that relates to the validity of what is being said or the evident dog and pony show that goes along with this whole debacle.

The old 'attack' accusation is simply used to try and shut every other opinion down on the basis 'because she is a child!'

Those who should face disappropriation are the adults who have put the 'child' in this position and and are attempting to use her presence to silence any criticism. Shame on them.

You were shouting down actual plans/solutions to resolving climate change issue earlier in this thread, by screeching 'Communism!' all the time - to shut down discussion pretty much.

Nobody believes you or others are 'concerned' for her wellbeing, when you're backslapping the same posters using her being mentally ill, as a term of disparagement.

It's visible that you fully know yourself, that you have no 'concern' for her - given how the faux nature of it is obvious to just about anyone regularly following the thread - and it shows that your posts are not in good faith and not genuine, that you're pushing a talking point without giving a toss about whether it's true or not.

Micky 32

batman_oh wrote: »

Some actual ideas would be nice instead of just shouting and probably more tax on the average person - something that won't have any effect on the rich/elite and their lifestyle.

There are too many people for a start, this is probably the most significant drain on the planet

Whether climate change is man made or not this is an excuse about taxing people more the rich will get richer the poor will get poorer. They are rubbing their hands on all this extra money they'll bring in over the next few years. They should only charge carbon tax when all the other options and incentives are all in place.

Also not only will the taxpayer have to foot the bill for their own carbon tax you'll be footing the carbon tax bill for the morons in the dail. You'll be paying for the extra expenses that Leo fella and friends will incur, especially on the fuel when they jet everywhere especially on Paddy's day to New York. None of them will curb their carbon footprint because we'll be paying for it for them.

KyussB

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

It must be quite the mental strain for all the folks who believe we're 12 years from doomsday. I dunno what I'd do if that were me.

Nobody says that.

begsbyOnaTrain

randd1 wrote: »

I can see it now.

The break down of civilisation. Random acts of rape, murder, arson, theft, vicious assaults, rampant drug use.

You never know, it might be a bit of craic.

I'd be pissed off at having contributed to a pension, taking on a mortgage and engaging in the career rat race.

And we only have three World Cups left, and one of them is that crap Winter one in Qatar.

begsbyOnaTrain

KyussB wrote: »

Nobody says that.

Nobody? I've seen it at plenty of climate protests. Saw it only last week. That AoC was spouting it in the states. I'm *sure* I've heard it from other quarters also in the media.

KyussB

Micky 32 wrote: »

Whether climate change is man made or not this is an excuse about taxing people more the rich will get richer the poor will get poorer. They are rubbing their hands on all this extra money they'll bring in over the next few years. They should only charge carbon tax when all the other options and incentives are all in place.

Also not only will the taxpayer have to foot the bill for their own carbon tax you'll be footing the carbon tax bill for the morons in the dail. You'll be paying for the extra expenses that Leo fella and friends will incur, especially on the fuel when they jet everywhere especially on Paddy's day to New York. None of them will curb their carbon footprint because we'll be paying for it for them.

It's simply not true that the efforts for fighting climate change involve crippling taxes for the average joe. That's just a basic misconception about government finances, thinking that governments run balanced budgets all the time, and thus the idea government spending matches up 1:1 with taxes - utter horeshit.