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

archer22

SafeSurfer wrote: »

For generations after the night of the big wind cottages were built at the bottom of hills and in the most sheltered places that could be found.

You have no evidence that the incidents you cite can be attributed solely to climate change so a new found fear of climate change following being the victim of a storm would seem misplaced.

Scientists have stated over and over again that it is climate change caused by human activities, and that makes logical sense to me.

Unless the climate change deniers can explain logically how pumping millions of tons of fumes, gunk and gasses into the atmosphere every day has no effect on anything!

What happened to "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" ?

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

How does she square that sentence with this one? "You have stolen my dreams and my childhood"

Is it that hard to figure out.

'You have stolen my dreams and my childhood through your allowance to use the planet without concern for sustainability or the needs of future generations. You should have developed technological solutions or enacted legislation to ensure that the destructive use of the earths natural resources only occurred as a last resort. But you didn't, now, as a result we need to support science to create and introduce them on a massive scale.'

If you are looking for a link to where she said those exact words or else you are discounting the whole point, then, it is clear that you are not going to admit that her message has been easy to understand where it came from and what she is looking for.

Where do future technological solutions come from? They are created by using the resources available to us today. Lithium for electric cars will continue to be mined by diesel burning machinery for decades to come. Even now in 2019 the government is purchasing hybrid buses reliant on fossil fuels.

Thunbergs message reminds me of the old punk t-shirt. “Be Reasonable. Demand The Impossible”.

Even if we had immediately moved to decarbonise 30 years ago we would be even close by now.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Where do future technological solutions come from? They are created by using the resources available to us today. Lithium for electric cars will continue to be mined by diesel burning machinery for decades to come. Even now in 2019 the government is purchasing hybrid buses reliant on fossil fuels.

Thunbergs message reminds me of the old punk t-shirt. “Be Reasonable. Demand The Impossible”.

Even if we had immediately moved to decarbonise 30 years ago we would be even close by now.

That sounds like someone saying everything has already been invented. Where would we be if technologists, scientists and entrepreneurs had had such an approach throughout human history?

Maybe it is as much about governmental strategy and policy. Look at Amsterdam and it's cycling infrastructure. Imagine if every city had to prioritise cycling and public transport ahead of cars. Would that not make a difference without need for inventions?

What if government strategy decreed that every product must last a minimum of 20 years, must be possible to be upgraded while in use, and spare parts and instructions were to be available. Would that not make a difference?

windy shepard henderson

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

I was wondering who her financiall backer was, no 12 year old is let within a mile of the place in the un

How about next week we have a 14 year old girl from Saudi Arabia talk about human rights in her country

Climates change time moves on, weather patterns change, eco systems change its a part of life, the way this thing is played out with a teenage actress is a joke

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Where do future technological solutions come from? They are created by using the resources available to us today. Lithium for electric cars will continue to be mined by diesel burning machinery for decades to come. Even now in 2019 the government is purchasing hybrid buses reliant on fossil fuels.

Thunbergs message reminds me of the old punk t-shirt. “Be Reasonable. Demand The Impossible”.

Even if we had immediately moved to decarbonise 30 years ago we would be even close by now.

That sounds like someone saying everything has already been invented. Where would we be if technologists, scientists and entrepreneurs had had such an approach throughout human history?

Maybe it is as much about governmental strategy and policy. Look at Amsterdam and it's cycling infrastructure. Imagine if every city had to prioritise cycling and public transport ahead of cars. Would that not make a difference without need for inventions?

What if government strategy decreed that every product must last a minimum of 20 years, must be possible to be upgraded while in use, and spare parts and instructions were to be available. Would that not make a difference?

It sounds like we can only invent things and make new discoveries by utilizing our existing resources.

“What if government strategy decreed”.

Why doesn’t the government decree an end to the housing crisis, an end to crime and no rain in August?

And now here’s An Taoiseach unveiling the 20 year toothbrush, spare parts available.

It would be like Triggers brush.

windy shepard henderson

Tell me how wrote: »

That sounds like someone saying everything has already been invented. Where would we be if technologists, scientists and entrepreneurs had had such an approach throughout human history?

Maybe it is as much about governmental strategy and policy. Look at Amsterdam and it's cycling infrastructure. Imagine if every city had to prioritise cycling and public transport ahead of cars. Would that not make a difference without need for inventions?

What if government strategy decreed that every product must last a minimum of 20 years, must be possible to be upgraded while in use, and spare parts and instructions were to be available. Would that not make a difference?

Amsterdam has a completely different terrain to Ireland, even climate, this country isn't suite to cycling for example Holland is, you can't copy a country like that here

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

I was wondering who her financiall backer was, no 12 year old is let within a mile of the place in the un

Greta is 16 and has spoken at the UN, EU, US congress, UK HoC having been invited to each location.

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

How about next week we have a 14 year old girl from Saudi Arabia talk about human rights in her country

Malala Yousafzai spoke at the UN about the trouble with human, educational and female rights in Afghanistan in 2013

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

Climates change time moves on, weather patterns change, eco systems change its a part of life, the way this thing is played out with a teenage actress is a joke

Several thousand scientists disagree with you.

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

Amsterdam has a completely different terrain to Ireland, even climate, this country isn't suite to cycling for example Holland is, you can't copy a country like that here

Not with that attitude. There is absolutely no reason why cycling infrastructure in Galway, Limerick, Dublin should not aim to mimic what has been done in dutch cities. None of those cities could be considered mountainous and even Cork wouldn't be beyond feasible.

This was Amsterdam in the 1970's versus more recently. It's the same street.

windy shepard henderson

Tell me how wrote: »

Greta is 16 and has spoken at the UN, EU, US congress, UK HoC having been invited to each location.



Malala Yousafzai spoke at the UN about the trouble with human, educational and female rights in Afghanistan in 2013



Several thousand scientists disagree with you.

Come on, the last category 5 hurricane we got was in 1837

The hottest temperature was recorded in 1845

West and North clare was hit with a tsunami as a result of a Portuguese earthquake in the late 1890s

To me that's climate change, we are both from the same neck of the woods if one of them events happened today everyone would be talking up the end of the world

tuxy

Tell me how wrote: »

Not with that attitude. There is absolutely no reason why cycling infrastructure in Galway, Limerick, Dublin should not aim to mimic what has been done in dutch cities. None of those cities could be considered mountainous and even Cork wouldn't be beyond feasible.

[/IMG]

Exactly, while the terrain in Ireland is very different from the Netherlands in the cities it's not so different apart from a few exceptions it's unusual for the gradient to go above 4% for more than a short section. Of course anyone over 100kg may struggle but it wouldn't be an issue after a few months cycling or walking.

Tell me how

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

Come on, the last category 5 hurricane we got was in 1837

The hottest temperature was recorded in 1845

West and North clare was hit with a tsunami as a result of a Portuguese earthquake in the late 1890s

To me that's climate change, we are both from the same neck of the woods if one of them events happened today everyone would be talking up the end of the world

It's not just about what's happening in West or North Clare (even though it should be )

Veritas Libertas

Tell me how wrote: »

What if government strategy decreed that every product must last a minimum of 20 years, must be possible to be upgraded while in use, and spare parts and instructions were to be available. Would that not make a difference?

What if we as people demanded products based on their lifetimes and utility, rather than the colour and the shape?

I'm sure everyone could get on board with making planned obsolescence illegal, why not start there.

Tell me how

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What if we as people demanded products based on their lifetimes and utility, rather than the colour and the shape?

I'm sure everyone could get on board with making planned obsolescence illegal, why not start there.

The argument of 'form versus function' is an old one.
Our society is focused on form and so we have many variations of every product type with each one vying for our attention.

Changing this through legislation would impact on manufacturing, design, marketing, printing, shipping and sales and many would say a government is trying to put people out of work in order to enforce this and that they are influencing on the free market which is sacrosanct to big business.

But, something has to happen, whether it is 100% this, or 20% or 50% but something has to give or else, it is going to be insufficient.

(Once again this ties in with Greta's message that radical thinking is required)

Veritas Libertas

Tell me how wrote: »

The argument of 'form versus function' is an old one.
Our society is focused on form and so we have many variations of every product type with each one vying for our attention.

Changing this through legislation would impact on manufacturing, design, marketing, printing, shipping and sales and many would say a government is trying to put people out of work in order to enforce this and that they are influencing on the free market which is sacrosanct to big business.

I think you completely missed my point. I'm saying we can also change the system by us as consumers demanding products that have better function.

Why do you insist in advocating for top to bottom change(governments decreeing things) which leads to anger,bitterness and resentment.

Instead you could advocate for bottom to top change(us demanding better function) which leads to a nicer place for everybody. The capitalist way.

Tell me how

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I think you completely missed my point. I'm saying we can also change the system by us as consumers demanding products that have better function.

Why do you insist in advocating for top to bottom change(governments decreeing things) which leads to anger,bitterness and resentment.

Instead you could advocate for bottom to top change(us demanding better function) which leads to a nicer place for everybody. The capitalist way.

Because there is ample evidence that bottom to top happens too piecemeal and inconsistently to make a difference.

Not using free issue plastic bags from shops and not smoking in the workplace, both very sensible ideas, both needed legislation before they were successfully implemented.

Veritas Libertas

Tell me how wrote: »

Because there is ample evidence that bottom to top happens too piecemeal and inconsistently to make a difference.

Not using free issue plastic bags from shops and not smoking in the workplace, both very sensible ideas, both needed legislation before they were successfully implemented.

At least it makes a difference!

I believe the issue of the single use plastic bags is a good one.

For example:

Two of the most important considerations for the eco footprint of a bag (or any other item) are whether we reuse it and, if so, how many times. An exhaustive Environment Agency (U.K.) report from 2011 found that paper bags must be reused at least three times to negate their higher climate-warming potential (compared with that of plastic bags). A cotton bag would have to be reused 131 times to break even with a plastic bag, in terms of the climate impact of producing each bag. Of course, plastics can be reused as well — they just don’t look as trendy.

They also are far cheaper(and thus produce less carbon footprint)
Source

You could make the case that potentially less plastic ends up in the oceans(though most of the plastic entering the oceans comes from countries without clean water that rely on plastics to provide this basic human need), but single use plastic bags make for far less carbon going into the atmosphere. It was just an excuse to tax us; and it added to the climate change problem.

Now I do see your point that sometimes it requires legislation to enact change; but if we're going to do that, let's make sure it's good policy first, and separate the real science from all the bravado on show in the current debate.

Any more sensible ideas that could help against man-made climate change?

Personally, I would put more funding into the plastic eating bacteria research

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

That story supports Greta's argument.'Unless things change, there's going to be a major problem.' Things changed with the take up of the automobile. We are back to the 'Unless things change' stage again, Greta is saying the new solutions do not yet exist, we need to support science to create and introduce them on a massive scale.

Dont remember greta saying that particular quoted phrase? More make believe perhaps?

But seriously is there anything not ascribable to the child greta? Its truely bizarre to be placing anyone, on a pedestal endlessly quoting what are in effect completely vague and innocuous generalisations.

As with the horse**** issue new technologies have a tendency to arise irrespective of any doomsday rantings. Suggesting that like Toto and Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz - that only if we all wish hard enough - then the magic will happen is childish thinking at best. The real world does not work like the wonderfull World of Oz - where Dorothy the unhappy and fearful country girl conjours up a big scary witch in the place of reality and who must be vanquished by magic so we all can live happily ever after. Unfortunately nothing in real life is ever quite that simple.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Is it that hard to figure out.

*You have stolen my dreams and my childhood through your allowance to use the planet without concern for sustainability or the needs of future generations. You should have developed technological solutions or enacted legislation to ensure that the destructive use of the earths natural resources only occurred as a last resort. But you didn't, now, as a result we need to support science to create and introduce them on a massive scale.'

If you are looking for a link to where she said those exact words or else you are discounting the whole point, then, it is clear that you are not going to admit that her message has been easy to understand where it came from and what she is looking for.

You are saying those are not her words* as well? So where does that text come from? More hyperbole?

This type of preaching appears to be a significant issue with the current fear and panic movement which is "doing more harm than good".

https://m.independent.ie/life/green-living/lorraine-courtney-why-rampant-hypocrisy-of-eco-activists-is-doing-more-harm-than-good-to-our-planet-38545990.html

weldoninhio

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?

https://www.irelandsown.ie/the-big-snow-of-1947/


We got it bad in 1947 too.

Pa ElGrande

weldoninhio wrote: »

https://www.irelandsown.ie/the-big-snow-of-1947/


We got it bad in 1947 too.

It was nothing compared to the climate anomaly disaster that happened in 1740/41. Up to half the then population did not survive . . . . Important lesson: Cold kills many people and animals and if you are preparing for future climate contingencies that's what you prepare for in Ireland given our position in the Northern hemisphere.

The Great Frost and forgotten famine

KyussB

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Where do future technological solutions come from? They are created by using the resources available to us today. Lithium for electric cars will continue to be mined by diesel burning machinery for decades to come. Even now in 2019 the government is purchasing hybrid buses reliant on fossil fuels.

Thunbergs message reminds me of the old punk t-shirt. “Be Reasonable. Demand The Impossible”.

Even if we had immediately moved to decarbonise 30 years ago we would be even close by now.

Or countries worldwide can fund Green New Deal style Research & Development projects - Manhattan-Project type efforts (at a couple magnitudes greater scale) to rapidly develop the new technologies needed, to reduce reliance on rare earths through substitution, and minimize the carbon cost of producing the materials needed and developing the infrastructure needed, for minimizing carbon emissions.

Massive government funding, through gigantic New Deal style jobs programs - and with a large chunk of it based on R&D - being able to rapidly develop the needed technologies within the decade.

You only have ideological objections to this - you don't have any actual arguments against it.

Eric Cartman

The internet and computer storage have probably done more for climate change than any ‘activist’ ever will.

We should be working on improving shipping efficiency and remote working abilities rather than tax people to death.


Also was really glad to see Jeremy Clarkson throw his oar in, on the money as usual about things.

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I think you completely missed my point. I'm saying we can also change the system by us as consumers demanding products that have better function.

Why do you insist in advocating for top to bottom change(governments decreeing things) which leads to anger,bitterness and resentment.

Instead you could advocate for bottom to top change(us demanding better function) which leads to a nicer place for everybody. The capitalist way.

People push for top-to-bottom i.e. macroeconomic changes - because that's the only scale of changes that it's possible to arrest our contribution to climate change fast enough.

Nobody here really contests this, other than to state that they disagree with it ideologically.

Unless you're a Libertarian, then governments acting to do things at a macroeconomic level, that the private sector can't do, is perfectly in line with Capitalism.

SafeSurfer

KyussB wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Where do future technological solutions come from? They are created by using the resources available to us today. Lithium for electric cars will continue to be mined by diesel burning machinery for decades to come. Even now in 2019 the government is purchasing hybrid buses reliant on fossil fuels.

Thunbergs message reminds me of the old punk t-shirt. “Be Reasonable. Demand The Impossible”.

Even if we had immediately moved to decarbonise 30 years ago we would be even close by now.

Or countries worldide can fund Green New Deal style Research & Development projects - Manhattan-Project type efforts (at a couple magnitiudes greater scale) to rapidly develop the new technologies needed, to reduce reliance on rare earths through substitution, and minimize the carbon cost of producing the materials needed and developing the infrastructure needed, for minimizing carbon emissions.

Massive government funding, through gigantic New Deal style jobs programs - and with a large chunk of it based on R&D - being able to rapidly develop the needed technologies within the decade.

You only have ideological objections to this - you don't have any actual arguments against it.

Have you even read the Green New Deal? It is an ideology therefore ideological objections are legitimate.

KyussB

As I said: No actual arguments against it.

lleti

That clip of Greta getting usurped by Trump at the UN is still brilliant. Looked like she was about to start crying.

Anyways, once a recession comes all this climate nonsense will be forgotten about as people will be more concerned about putting food on the table.

Stevieluvsye

lleti wrote: »

That clip of Greta getting usurped by Trump at the UN is still brilliant. Looked like she was about to start crying.

Anyways, once a recession comes all this climate nonsense will be forgotten about as people will be more concerned about putting food on the table.

Can you share linky please? Can't find it online.

lola85

lleti wrote: »

That clip of Greta getting usurped by Trump at the UN is still brilliant. Looked like she was about to start crying.

Anyways, once a recession comes all this climate nonsense will be forgotten about as people will be more concerned about putting food on the table.

It’s excellent.

Put her back in her box.

Professor Moriarty

lleti wrote: »

That clip of Greta getting usurped by Trump at the UN is still brilliant. Looked like she was about to start crying.

Anyways, once a recession comes all this climate nonsense will be forgotten about as people will be more concerned about putting food on the table.

Yeah, it's great to see The Donald in action. My hero. And I'm very reassured now. The depth and breadth of scientific fact offered by deniers here is overwhelming. Goddam dumbass, climate change warmunist scientists lying through their teeth for reasons.

Stevieluvsye

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah, it's great to see The Donald in action. My hero. And I'm very reassured now. The depth and breadth of scientific fact offered by deniers here is overwhelming. Goddam dumbass, climate change warmunist scientists lying through their teeth for reasons.

Greta ain't no scientist although in her fcuked up brain she probably thinks she knows better than the scientists