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

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

And your comment is showing a clear lack of comprehension as the term 'sic' also refers to faulty reasoning not just grammatical errors. My comment which you have bizarrely ignored posed a question as to why the voyage on a boat which produced more carbon than if she and her father simply flew. That has not been answered at all despite all the hyperbole ...

Lol looks like I've hit a nerve. Lots of seriously triggered comments.

The comments responding to you are not being done from a position of being triggered, but more exasperated given the position some use to form arguments which are nothing more than subjective opinions. The evidence of her behaviour implies one who is entirely focused on drawing attention to the cause and yet you persist to say it is obvious she is doing for her own benefit and attention. Aside from the lack of evidence, it is doubly frustrating because this is your latest version of an argument and one which you did not hold previously, or at least didn't use on here.

The argument on the boat trip is that she herself is advocating for not flying because of the carbon impact and so she did not fly to attend the summit. It is not that complicated. The value of her showing people there are alternative options to just jumping on a plane frequently. Flights in Sweden dropped by over 4% in the first half of this year with credit being given to Greta for drawing attention to the damages which it does. That 4% is much greater than the 2, 4, or 6 flights you are referring to in relation to the return of the yacht or the crew.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

The comments responding to you are not being done from a position of being triggered, but more exasperated given the position some use to form arguments which are nothing more than subjective opinions. The evidence of her behaviour implies one who is entirely focused on drawing attention to the cause and yet you persist to say it is obvious she is doing for her own benefit and attention. Aside from the lack of evidence, it is doubly frustrating because this is your latest version of an argument and one which you did not hold previously, or at least didn't use on here.The argument on the boat trip is that she herself is advocating for not flying because of the carbon impact and so she did not fly to attend the summit. It is not that complicated. The value of her showing people there are alternative options to just jumping on a plane frequently. Flights in Sweden dropped by over 4% in the first half of this year with credit being given to Greta for drawing attention to the damages which it does. That 4% is much greater than the 2, 4, or 6 flights you are referring to in relation to the return of the yacht or the crew.

You are the voice of everyone else? And all that and yet still no answer to the question asked ... The fact is she sailed across the Atlantic. That is not an opinion. That she did so when the voyage involved more emissions in the form of the crew flying back is undisputed and not opinion.

Triggered indeed.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

All that and yet stil no answer to the question asked ...

Triggered indeed.

I've put it in bold for you, you're obviously struggling to find it here.

Tell me how wrote: »

The argument on the boat trip is that she herself is advocating for not flying because of the carbon impact and so she did not fly to attend the summit. It is not that complicated. The value of her showing people there are alternative options to just jumping on a plane frequently. Flights in Sweden dropped by over 4% in the first half of this year with credit being given to Greta for drawing attention to the damages which it does. That 4% is much greater than the 2, 4, or 6 flights you are referring to in relation to the return of the yacht or the crew.

Here is the part where you say that wasn't the question I asked... so you can take that as read and post the new question you have now pivoted to.

Hococop

Tell me how wrote: »

The comments responding to you are not being done from a position of being triggered, but more exasperated given the position some use to form arguments which are nothing more than subjective opinions. The evidence of her behaviour implies one who is entirely focused on drawing attention to the cause and yet you persist to say it is obvious she is doing for her own benefit and attention. Aside from the lack of evidence, it is doubly frustrating because this is your latest version of an argument and one which you did not hold previously, or at least didn't use on here.

The argument on the boat trip is that she herself is advocating for not flying because of the carbon impact and so she did not fly to attend the summit. It is not that complicated. The value of her showing people there are alternative options to just jumping on a plane frequently. Flights in Sweden dropped by over 4% in the first half of this year with credit being given to Greta for drawing attention to the damages which it does. That 4% is much greater than the 2, 4, or 6 flights you are referring to in relation to the return of the yacht or the crew.

What is the carbon impact of a boat compared to plane? Granted I know it varies on different sizes etc but is it a better alternative?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I've put it in bold for you, you're obviously struggling to find it here.Here is the part where you say that wasn't the question I asked... so you can take that as read and post the new question you have now pivoted to.

Like the lack of comprehension in your comment on the use of the term 'sic' yes?

Nope. Clearly not an answer. At best weasel words and nothing to do with what was asked

But I see you are saying rather than flying to the New World - people should hitch a ride in Millionaires racing Yacht?

Yeah that is a real alternative and solution to the current problems of climate change. Btw the concept of 'flight shame' or Flygskam in Sweden existed before your greta's efforts by the way. Look it up if you doubt it. Is there any other miracle you would ascribe to the child greta?

:rolleyes:

"triggered"

"raising awareness"


ffs folks the thread is only still rumbling on because of this rubbish buzzword bingo nonsense.

Hobosan

Hococop wrote: »

What is the carbon impact of a boat compared to plane? Granted I know it varies on different sizes etc but is it a better alternative?

A boat has fewer emissions than a boat and plane journey.

A plane has fewer emissions than a boat and plane journey.

As you can tell, I've been reading Euclid.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Like the lack of comprehension in your comment on the use of the term 'sic' yes?

Nope. Clearly not an answer. At best weasel words and nothing to do with what was asked

But I see you are saying rather than flying to the New World - people should hitch a ride in Millionaires racing Yacht?

Yeah that is a real alternative and solution to the current problems of climate change

:rolleyes:

In relation to the part in bold, that's right, that's exactly what is being said. Well done kid, the solution is, everyone should travel by millionaire yachts. You've really boiled it down to a simple message. You should get out there and get the message heard.

(I'm trusting you can interpret and understand sarcasm but I'm probably giving you too much credit)

You're still wrong on the use of sic, in my view, but however, that's for another thread.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

In relation to the part in bold, that's right, that's exactly what is being said. Well done kid, the solution is, everyone should travel by millionaire yachts. You've really boiled it down to a simple message. You should get out there and get the message heard. (I'm trusting you can interpret and understand sarcasm but I'm probably giving you too much credit)You're still wrong on the use of sic, in my view, but however, that's for another thread.

It would appear you believe everyone wrong who does not share your opinions

This:

The Latin adverb sic ("thus", "just as"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written") ]inserted after a quoted word or passage indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed or translated exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous, archaic, or otherwise nonstandard spelling. It also applies to any surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might be likely interpreted as an error of transcription.

But heaven forbid you would accept any other logic or reasoning than your own stated bias.

Btw it would be great if you could post where people can find said millionaires yachts. I quite fancy a trip in the Spring...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

It would appear you believe everyone wrong who does not share your opinions

This:



But heaven forbid you would accept any other logic reasoning than your own bias.

Btw it would be great if you could post where people can find said millionaires yachts. I quite fancy a trip in the Spring...

That is why you are wrong, there could have been no erroneous interpretation due to false transcription. You paraphrased my statement and then stuck (sic) at the end of it. It's incorrectly used.

I believe everyone is wrong who cannot show reasonable evidence to support their position in the face of evidence which undermines it. It's fairly straightforward.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

That is why you are wrong, there could have been no erroneous interpretation due to false transcription. You paraphrased my statement and then stuck (sic) at the end of it. It's incorrectly used. I believe everyone is wrong who cannot show reasonable evidence to support their position in the face of evidence which undermines it. It's fairly straightforward.

I am personally 'wrong'? lol.

Still wont admit to the actual facts? This is your comment ...

Tell me how wrote:

You should check up on how exactly to use the adverb 'sic'. You've being using it incorrectly throughout this thread.

No mention of your 'statement" at all ...

So yes your assertion is erroneous indeed

I believe you are attempting to be pedantic but unfortunately failing at that. I'll leave you there.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

On but that is correct. It did indeed apply and I'm not the only one to say that. Many others say the same. But if you insist you are wrong ...

A bunch of Libertarians labelling someone Communist - what's new....

Beasty

OK guys, give the "triggered" and "sic" commentary a rest. Neither are part of this topic

KyussB

joe40 wrote: »

I wonder is it possible that we are going to be one of the last few generations to enjoy the technological advances of the 20th century.
Whether that be cars, air travel, electricity, computers they are all powered by energy from fossil fuels.
We know that is not sustainable. Some may still go on about climate change hoax but they're not worth arguing with at this stage. The consensus among the scientific community is too great.
Human nature will ensure that nowhere near enough people will voluntarily give up all the benefits of modern technology, to significantly reduce emissions. That's not necessarily a criticism just a fact.
So it seems to me the only solution will be technological.
Replacement energy resources that will at least match fossil fuels.
Individual action although laudable and necessary will not solve the problem.
It is the equivalent of band aid for famine relief. Some short term help but does nothing to solve underlying issues.
I wish Greta all the best she is to be applauded for her efforts and the awareness she is raising, but it is also hard not to despair at this.

I'm nearly 50 so personally won't be affected but horrible to think that this might be as good as it gets for human technological advancement and society.
We need scientific and technological solutions and the political will to make it happen. Might not be possible we can only hope.

I'm more optimistic, myself - it's all just about energy substitution - and if we can reduce the rare-earth requirements for green energy sources, and minimize the carbon cost of scaling up the production of that tech - then I don't see any reason why we can't still enjoy todays standard of living (albeit perhaps after a pause).

If we develop an abundance of renewable energy, and perfect carbon sequestration for generating fuel, you can even make an airplane using todays tech carbon-neutral.

There's going to be a big crunch, on the way towards making the transition from todays economies to properly energy-efficient and green ones - but if we take it seriously and put the immediate effort in, we can do it within a relatively short period.

SafeSurfer

KyussB wrote: »

gozunda wrote: »

On but that is correct. It did indeed apply and I'm not the only one to say that. Many others say the same. But if you insist you are wrong ...

A bunch of Libertarians labelling someone Communist - what's new....

You are obsessed with communism.

KyussB

I've disclaimed it throughout the whole thread - despite being regularly accused of it.

The Green New Deal has mainstream support across the western world (including from Greta), including in the Democratic Party in the US - it's not Communist...

Constantly shouting stuff down as 'Communism', though - pushing climate change denial - citing Koch-funded propaganda outlets and other oil oligarchs, and backslapping those that do - that's a legitimate identiier of right-wing Libertarians.

Professor Moriarty

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are obsessed with communism.

There are people on here who believe that communists are behind the climate change conspiracy. In fact, they have a word for it: 'Warmunism'. People are amazing.

archer22

Never mind, when the first Super storms start hitting Europe the bad attitude towards Greta Thunberg will probably change quickly.
In fact it may well be that one hits in the coming week...and even if this one fizzles out that luck won't hold forever and it's only a question of time before they do connect.

And I have seen up close the aftermath of Super typhoon Hainan in 2013...the only way to describe it is like a nuclear bomb had been detonated!

Will be quite interesting to see the reaction when a city here looks like Hiroshima in 1945.
Will the primitives still be howling for Greta's blood then I wonder.

SafeSurfer

KyussB wrote: »

I've disclaimed it throughout the whole thread - despite being regularly accused of it.

The Green New Deal has mainstream support across the western world (including from Greta), including in the Democratic Party in the US - it's not Communist...

Constantly shouting stuff down as 'Communism', though - pushing climate change denial - citing Koch-funded propaganda outlets and other oil oligarchs, and backslapping those that do - that's a legitimate identiier of right-wing Libertarians.

Despite trying to claim otherwise, I would disagree that the Green New Deal has mainstream support across the western world. Alternatively your understanding of what mainstream means is similar to your understanding of how government debt works.

SafeSurfer

archer22 wrote: »

Never mind, when the first Super storms start hitting Europe the bad attitude towards Greta Thunberg will probably change quickly.
In fact it may well be that one hits in the coming week...and even if this one fizzles out that luck won't hold forever and it's only a question of time before they do connect.

And I have seen up close the aftermath of Super typhoon Hainan in 2013...the only way to describe it is like a nuclear bomb had been detonated!

Will be quite interesting to see the reaction when a city here looks like Hiroshima in 1945.
Will the primitives still be howling for Greta's blood then I wonder.

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?

Professor Moriarty

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?

You don't believe in man-made climate change?

SafeSurfer

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?

You don't believe in man-made climate change?

I don’t believe using every weather event to support your opinion.

Professor Moriarty

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t believe using every weather event to support your opinion.

Fair enough.

joe40

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t believe using every weather event to support your opinion.

I know individual weather events on their own don't imply much but there are enough we'll established trends at this stage.
This is just an observation no actual evidence but I remember as a child in the 70s early 80s most kids had a sleigh. A wooden yoke that would get a bit of use most winter's.
Modern kids would have no idea what you are talking about if you mention a sleigh.
I know we have had snow events in recent years but very little consistent predictable winter weather. Just mild and wet most of the time.

archer22

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?

That was a freak once in a hundred years event caused by a bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding.
Thats not whats happening with the modern Storms!

The only similarity between them is the reaction of some people...in 1839 the primitives threw stones at the wind blaming the fairies for it...now they hurl abuse at a teenage girl!

Naggdefy

archer22 wrote: »

That was a freak once in a hundred years event caused by a bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding.
Thats not whats happening with the modern Storms!

The only similarity between them is the reaction of some people...in 1839 the primitives threw stones at the wind blaming the fairies for it...now they hurl abuse at a teenage girl!

'the primitives'

In 200 years time humans might be calling our generation the primitives. Laughing at the conclusions they came to because at that stage they were unable to understand all the variables at work and interacting to effect our climate.

Go on and call your ancestors 'primitives' if it makes you feel more intelligent. We only know what we know in science today because of the work and experimtation carried out by those who came before us.

P.s. 1839 wasn't a once off, we've seen nothing like ex hurricane Debbie, September 1961, on these shores since either. Was that a once off too?

SafeSurfer

archer22 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?

That was a freak once in a hundred years event caused by a bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding.
Thats not whats happening with the modern Storms!

The only similarity between them is the reaction of some people...in 1839 the primitives threw stones at the wind blaming the fairies for it...now they hurl abuse at a teenage girl!

“A bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding. That’s not what’s happening with the modern storms!”

So what is happening with modern storms?

You ask in your previous post “will the primitives still be howling for Greta’s blood?”

Over 4,500 posts in, has anyone here called for Greta’s blood?

Naggdefy

I've nothing against Greta. She's acting out of deep concern. It's great to see a young person so concerned about our planet. I might disagree on some points but I admire and wish her well.

SafeSurfer

joe40 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t believe using every weather event to support your opinion.

I know individual weather events on their own don't imply much but there are enough we'll established trends at this stage.
This is just an observation no actual evidence but I remember as a child in the 70s early 80s most kids had a sleigh. A wooden yoke that would get a bit of use most winter's.
Modern kids would have no idea what you are talking about if you mention a sleigh.
I know we have had snow events in recent years but very little consistent predictable winter weather. Just mild and wet most of the time.

I never had a sleigh, growing up in the 70s/80s.
I’m sure if data was available more sleds/sleighs have been sold in the past 20 years than in the previous 80.

Have a look at the snow trends in Ireland

www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/snowstorms-through-the-centuries-a-history-of-irish-cold-snaps-1.3406525%3fmode=amp

15 major snow events in the 20th century. 4 major snow events so far in the 19 years of the 21st. If anything, major snow events are becoming more frequent.

gozunda

Naggdefy wrote: »

'the primitives'

In 200 years time humans might be calling our generation the primitives. Laughing at the conclusions they came to because at that stage they were unable to understand all the variables at work and interacting to effect our climate.

Go on and call your ancestors 'primitives' if it makes you feel more intelligent. We only know what we know in science today because of the work and experimtation carried out by those who came before us....

I wouldnt bother. Not the first instance of that type of mudslinging ...

archer22 wrote:

Will be quite interesting to see the reaction when a city here looks like Hiroshima in 1945. Will the primitives still be howling for Greta's blood then I wonder.

archer22 wrote:

The only similarity between them is the reaction of some people...in 1839 the primitives threw stones at the wind blaming the fairies for it...now they hurl abuse at a teenage girl!

Crazy that some stupid comments such as howling / blood / abuse get bandied about even where it is obvious legitimate criticisms of the entire circus in America are being discussed.

Don't think logic doesn't comes with that type of comment tbh.