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

hatrickpatrick

Omackeral wrote: »

Obviously she's a victim of the patriarchy. Only way it makes sense.

She's also one of the staunchest pro-life advocates I know (travelled the length and breadth of the country to campaign for a no vote last year and is currently involved in the Northern Ireland pro-life campaign) so she's had that "internalised misogyny" allegation levelled against her before. If any of those who attack her would actually listen to what she has to say beforehand, they might understand where her views come from - but unfortunately we're living in an age in which nobody seems to want to do that, and as I've been saying for several years, my own 'side' (the left generally) have become the villain as far as political intolerance goes.

Tell me how

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The Catholic church often used child visionaries/prophets to copperfasten obedience.Nearly always young girls too., always with some prediction of doom. Criticising Greta would almost be akin to saying Fatima or Lourdes was a load of horse**** back in 1955

It would be if the Church had thousands of scientists presenting data from tests, recordings, analysis and comparison to support their position.

If they had, yes, it would be the exact same thing. But they didn't have that Jimmy did they?

hatrickpatrick

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I'm more talking about our incessant need for immigrants to 'pyramid scheme' our pensions.
If someone has to take the hit, why not our generation? Let's take it in the gut so that others won't have the same problem coming after us.

Absolutely. Population decline desperately needs to happen, and to be quite frank I don't give a f*ck if my generation suffers in our old age as a result. If people would think outside their own comfort bubble for two seconds, they'd realise that eventually, someone, somewhere is going to have to take this hit, or life will become more and more miserable for each individual as the world becomes more and more crowded.

KyussB

joseywhales wrote: »

I do agree, they should not conflate climate change with economic system change, two completely separate issues that can be tackled independently.

I think she is a very impressive child, when i was 16 I could not do that, I know that much.

It's the current economic system that is causing accelerated climate change.

We can't arrest our contribution to climate change, without fixing our economic system - they can't be tackled independently, we have to fix the problems with our economic system first, before we can mount a proper effort to arrest our contribution to climate change.

PostWoke

Hector Savage wrote: »

Good man Frankie, such a moral man, has never slagged off children that are disabled or vulnerable.

What's sadder, the endless, and I mean absolutely endless, deflection of alt-righters...

... or the fact they're so shook this thread is already 283 pages long? They've only been aware of her existence about two weeks!

Why does this little girl scare them so much? Is it because she dares to speak up?

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely. Population decline desperately needs to happen, and to be quite frank I don't give a f*ck if my generation suffers in our old age as a result. If people would think outside their own comfort bubble for two seconds, they'd realise that eventually, someone, somewhere is going to have to take this hit, or life will become more and more miserable for each individual as the world becomes more and more crowded.

How exactly do we bring about global population decline. I know you don't mean a cull or genocide so what other mechanism is there.
A one child policy like china?

Tony EH

joe40 wrote: »

How exactly do we bring about global population decline. I know you don't mean a cull or genocide so what other mechanism is there.
A one child policy like china?

Sure we can't do that. That's "Communism". :rolleyes:

ToBeFrank123

joe40 wrote: »

How exactly do we bring about global population decline. I know you don't mean a cull or genocide so what other mechanism is there.
A one child policy like china?

Education and family planning in developing countries. In western countries reduced child support for 3rd and subsequent children.

KyussB

joseywhales wrote: »

...

Its all for nothing, humans can't comprehend a problem until it is literally affecting them personally and they can see cause and effect. We will adapt when it's too late but aren't going to all die or something, it's not a doomsday, just a much ****ter world, particularly bad if you are not wealthy and don't live in a temperate climate.

China for example seem like unlikely leaders in environmental issues but they have invested recently due to necessity, after choking on smog and being hit by massive sand storms for a few decades.

One of the principal problems, is that there are going to be water shortages and desertification of land that used to support agriculture - and that pattern is going to get worse the further we push things, in terms of climate change - and this is going to endanger the abiltiy to produce enough food and provide enough water, for everyone on the planet.

That means more wars over resources, including water - and a planet with a higher population in the future, that has a fair chance of escalating failures of food production - all things which can kill off a lot of people.

So yes, it's pretty sure to lead to a lot of people dying - it's not actually an exaggeration to say that.

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Funny thing is I don't think there are many (bar the AOC supporters) that dispute this kind of science.

Many people are in the ship of,this is happening but not nearly at the rate that is suggested by Greata.

More importantly, you have denied repeatedly in this thread the effect of man-made climate change; upon which this paper is based.

I did a lot of research on that peer reviewed paper earlier on, but didn't deem it worth replying to, since the poster didn't present any argument of their own.

There have been plenty of climate scientists who responded to that paper, and contested its findings, pointing out many faults in the study etc. - and the primary author has some noteable conflicts of interest (she runs a company selling weather/climate analysis software to the oil industry), but which (imo) are not severe enough to discredit her - just a caveat to note from her.

So yea, sticking to the science only - there have been plenty of rebuttals of that paper - upholding that the climate is indeed changing at the faster rate.

Tony EH

KyussB wrote: »

One of the principal problems, is that there are going to be water shortages and desertification of land that used to support agriculture - and that pattern is going to get worse the further we push things, in terms of climate change - and this is going to endanger the abiltiy to produce enough food and provide enough water, for everyone on the planet.

That means more wars over resources, including water - and a planet with a higher population in the future, that has a fair chance of escalating failures of food production - all things which can kill off a lot of people.

So yes, it's pretty sure to lead to a lot of people dying - it's not actually an exaggeration to say that.

In addition, it'll lead to more emigration from areas that will become uninhabitable.

Queue the same folk saying that climate change isn't or a problem moaning even more about Johnny foreigner coming to their shores..

SafeSurfer

Tony EH wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

How exactly do we bring about global population decline. I know you don't mean a cull or genocide so what other mechanism is there.
A one child policy like china?

Sure we can't do that. That's "Communism". :rolleyes:

Would we live as free people if the state decided if or how many children we could have?

We have spent the first 100 years of this country’s existence getting the state out of our bedrooms. We shouldn’t rush to invite them back in.

Tony EH

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Would we live as free people if the state decided if or how many children we could have?

We have spent the first 100 years of this country’s existence getting the state out of our bedrooms. We shouldn’t rush to invite them back in.

And yet there are people looking to "reduce populations".

How do we do that.

SafeSurfer

KyussB wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

...

Its all for nothing, humans can't comprehend a problem until it is literally affecting them personally and they can see cause and effect. We will adapt when it's too late but aren't going to all die or something, it's not a doomsday, just a much ****ter world, particularly bad if you are not wealthy and don't live in a temperate climate.

China for example seem like unlikely leaders in environmental issues but they have invested recently due to necessity, after choking on smog and being hit by massive sand storms for a few decades.

One of the principal problems, is that there are going to be water shortages and desertification of land that used to support agriculture - and that pattern is going to get worse the further we push things, in terms of climate change - and this is going to endanger the abiltiy to produce enough food and provide enough water, for everyone on the planet.

That means more wars over resources, including water - and a planet with a higher population in the future, that has a fair chance of escalating failures of food production - all things which can kill off a lot of people.

So yes, it's pretty sure to lead to a lot of people dying - it's not actually an exaggeration to say that.

You fail to mention the new areas of agricultural land that would become viable as a result of warming and the super harvests from increased levels of the plant food which is Co2.

SafeSurfer

Tony EH wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Would we live as free people if the state decided if or how many children we could have?

We have spent the first 100 years of this country’s existence getting the state out of our bedrooms. We shouldn’t rush to invite them back in.

And yet there are people looking to "reduce populations".

How do we do that.

Let the people looking to reduce populations begin by example.

Tony EH

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Let the people looking to reduce populations begin by example.

So a cop out and no answer then.

Well done you.

KyussB

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You fail to mention the new areas of agricultural land that would become viable as a result of warming and the super harvests from increased levels of the plant food which is Co2.

The projections for overall worldwide crops are negative yields - and especially in the developing world (predominantly tropical latitude), they're going to be completely decimated.

The worst of the food losses will occur predominantly in the poorest regions on the planet.

It's going to lead to enormous numbers of deaths. This is perhaps how you and others would like to see the population issue resolved...

gozunda

joseywhales wrote: »

The reason a child is doing it, is because people won't listen to adults.

...
.

But but - by 'people' I presune you mean those who are adults! Do you give in when your 5 year old has a melt down because they can't watch their favourite cartoon show? Or your 14 year old wants to go out with some bloke to a nightclub? Or a 16 year old throws a strop and refuses to go back to school and instead takes a lift in some strangers fancy racing boat and bunks off to America? I hope not ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

But but - by 'people' I presune you mean those who are adults! Do you give in when your 5 year old has a melt down because they can't watch their favourite cartoon show? Or your 14 year old wants to go out with some bloke to a nightclub? Or a 16 year old throws a strop and refuses to go back to school and instead takes a lift in some strangers fancy racing boat and bunks off to America? I hope not ...

Still deliberately leaving out the critical link that Greta is trying to get people to listen to the scientists.

You've kicked your straw man to death, time to keep it real.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Still deliberately leaving out the critical link that Greta is trying to get people to listen to the scientists.
You've kicked your straw man to death, time to keep it real.

# 445 and counting ...

You do know you do not have to reply to every other comment in this thread? It's a discussion involving many posters and many different opinions and not just yours yeah?

And just to clarify what has any of your personalised 'strawman' (sic) remarks have got to do with the comment to which I was replying? Or are you still attempting to spam the thread with that already discredited argument?

As bizarely you are still ignoring the fact that greta is evidently not listening to the scientists whilst telling others to do so!

It has already been detailed may times how greta explicitly believes that civilisation is going to end in 2030 despite IPCC scientists not saying this / saying otherwise.

Funnily enough you ignore that as well. Very very strange indeed.

weldoninhio

joe40 wrote: »

How exactly do we bring about global population decline. I know you don't mean a cull or genocide so what other mechanism is there.
A one child policy like china?

Cut all financial and medical aid to overseas countries. Stop all immigration from third world countries. Ship dangerous criminals to third world countries. We wouldn’t have to cull anyone, natural selection would take care of it.

Wanderer78

weldoninhio wrote:

Cut all financial and medical aid to overseas countries. Stop all immigration from third world countries. Ship dangerous criminals to third world countries. We wouldn’t have to cull anyone, natural selection would take care of it.

I think we should also load these countries up with weapons, and cameras, and maybe even some drugs and alcohol, it can be a form of entertainment for us privileged folk....

Or maybe we should help them try become more prosperous, just like ourselves...

It's a tough one, but maybe you're right

begsbyOnaTrain

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Or maybe we should help them try become more prosperous, just like ourselves...

And have them produce more carbon with such lifestyles?! Are you mad.

weldoninhio

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I think we should also load these countries up with weapons, and cameras, and maybe even some drugs and alcohol, it can be a form of entertainment for us privileged folk....

Or maybe we should help them try become more prosperous, just like ourselves...

It's a tough one, but maybe you're right

Prosperous = more cars, more factories, more, people, more carbon. I thought we needed less people, not more??

is_that_so

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

And have them produce more carbon with such lifestyles?! Are you mad.

That depends on what they do with such lifestyles. One thing that tends to happen with affluence is people have smaller families as the risk of child mortality reduces and they themselves feel they can take care of themselves as they age.

Wanderer78

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

And have them produce more carbon with such lifestyles?! Are you mad.

...and maybe help them create energy systems based on alternatives to fossil fuels

KyussB

Or just build prosperity on carbon neutral enegy sources, and industrial proccesses that don't involve producing so much carbon?...

The only reason we might be facing some amount of material discomfort through fighting climate change, is by not acting early enough, and being forced to curtail carbon emissions through reduced economic output - because we left it too late... - rather than simply transitioning our economies to carbon neutral energy generation and economic activity, without reducing output.

So the longer we delay mounting a proper response to climate change, to developing the proper technologies for sustainably constructing and operating carbon neutral (and eventually negative) economies - the bigger the risk of necessitating material deprivation for everybody.

If you want to keep your standard of living, then you want to support acting sooner, not later when it's an even more urgent emergency.

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

# 445 and counting ...

You do know you do not have to reply to every other comment in this thread? It's a discussion involving many posters and many different opinions and not just yours yeah?

And just to clarify what has any of your personalised 'strawman' (sic) remarks have got to do with the comment to which I was relying? Or are you still attempting to spam the thread with that already discredited argument?

As bizarely you are still ignoring the fact that greta is evidently not listening to the scientists whilst telling others to do so!

It has already been detailed may times how greta explicitly believes that civilisation is going to end in 2030 despite IPCC scientists not saying this / saying otherwise.

Funnily enough you ignore that as well. Very very strange indeed.

There is no point hanging on that one aspect (the 10 year thing) to negate everything that was said.
As pointed out loads of time Greta is not delivering any new message she is not claiming to have any special insight.
It is simply asking world leaders to take heed of the warnings from the scientists, especially as contained in the IPCC report.
You have one scientist critical of one aspect of her speech. That is not enough to disregard everything.

Unless of course one was looking for an excuse to disregard everything.

Warnings about climate change have been around a long time and largely falling on deaf ears. A bit of urgency and alarmism are needed. This is a serious issue facing humanity, how we are currently living is not sustainable.

There are genuine concerns from some people about Greta's welfare, but a lot of so called concern is just an excuse to shut down the overall thrust of her message. (which is nothing new by the way but just reaching a wide audience)

Professor Moriarty

KyussB wrote: »

Or just build prosperity on carbon neutral enegy sources, and industrial proccesses that don't involve producing so much carbon?...

The only reason we might be facing some amount of material discomfort through fighting climate change, is by not acting early enough, and being forced to curtail carbon emissions through reduced economic output - because we left it too late... - rather than simply transitioning our economies to carbon neutral energy generation and economic activity, without reducing output.

So the longer we delay mounting a proper response to climate change, to developing the proper technologies for sustainably constructing and operating carbon neutral (and eventually negative) economies - the bigger the risk of necessitating material deprivation for everybody.

If you want to keep your standard of living, then you want to support acting sooner, not later when it's an even more urgent emergency.

When you say 'we', if you mean Ireland then it is achievable though pointless. If you mean humanity, then there is a major problem in that there are many countries with large or burgeoning populations whose people are not aware of climate change or do not understand it.

Even worse, there are countries with large populations whose people are fully aware of climate change but choose to elect climate change deniers. Trump's America being a prime example.

It is only when tipping point has been passed, and the effects of climate change is on people's own doorsteps, that there will be a concerted effort. That will be deckchairs on the Titanic time.

joe40

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

When you say 'we', if you mean Ireland then it is achievable though pointless. If you mean humanity, then there is a major problem in that there are many countries with large or burgeoning populations whose people are not aware of climate change or do not understand it.

Even worse, there are countries with large populations whose people are fully aware of climate change but choose to elect climate change deniers. Trump's America being a prime example.

It is only when tipping point has been passed, and the effects of climate change is on people's own doorsteps, that there will be a concerted effort. That will be deckchairs on the Titanic time.

I think we should think of Ireland acting in tandem with the EU, which is a large bloc. Our efforts should be seen in a wider EU context.
Unfortunately I think the rest of your post may be accurate. A bit like the smoker saying they won't quit until a tumour is discovered.