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

gozunda

NewMan1982 wrote: »

Where would one find info on what Gretas team is predicting what will happen and when? Preferably an article not overly scientific

The usual gist is that in just 10 years so many months and days - will be the end of civilisation as we know it! Alongside that we are supposed to feelz the fear and panic. That's about it really tbh. Some seem to ignore these bits and suggest what greta is really trying to say is listen to the scientists. The thing about that is greta clearly isnt listening to them herself ....

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I own my own house in the d5 Ghetto. My parents live in Spain. I’ll go for a beer with you guys if you want. I’m in Switzerland now for work drunk af though. I flew here Greta hates that jaz, flights and ****.

Trust fund kid eh? - surely it would have been possible to have sailed over and hiked no? A young lad unencumbered by the effects of age etc?

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Amazing how one-sided the 'skepticism' is, from these posters...

I've quoted the modest proposal before before on anther thread. It seems the La Rouche stunt was a troll using satire from Jonathan Swift. Well played them.

A MODEST PROPOSAL

For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.
by Dr. Jonathan Swift

source

Jimmy Garlic

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I own my own house in the d5 Ghetto. My parents live in Spain. I’ll go for a beer with you guys if you want. I’m in Switzerland now for work drunk af though. I flew here Greta hates that jaz, flights and ****.

Beer is not sustainable. You should have sailed to Italy in an aristocrats yacht and hiked over the Alps you heartless planet killing murderer.

Enough is Enough!

It's sad to see a young obsessed with the end of the world. She should be enjoying her youth.

Tell me how

Enough is Enough! wrote: »

It's sad to see a young obsessed with the end of the world. She should be enjoying her youth.

Do you not think its sadder some posters here are ok with the wilful destruction of the planets resources being allowed to continue but are spitting fire over Greta. I certainly do.

AllForIt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArO_-xH5Vm8

Did you see this sky news interview this morning. When Sophy asked them (about 7mins in) what they did in their lives to avert climate change, what sacrifices they made, they weren't able to name 1 single thing, Rather the older woman got tongue tied and went on to say that she didn't want to look like an odd ball by doing anything but it's the system that needs to be changed. Erm.

I should have said these ppl are from Extinction Rebellion and they are talking about their upcoming TWO WEEKS of protests in the UK. I though they just had protests in London no too long ago? Which didn't go down to well with a lot of people for the disruption they caused I recall.

They do come across as the stereotypical tree hugger types don't they. I don't know about anyone else but I'm somewhat concerned about these people. There is something decidedly antifa-ish about them. I wouldn't be surprised if we see counter groups as a result of their rather bullish attitude, not that I'd mind.

NIMAN

The bit at 8:00 where the 20yr old says she is talking to 14yr olds who are crying because they seen people all around them going about their business, but they are being told they are going to die!

I would be worried about 14yr old crying now because they think they are going to die because of climate change.

They aren't. These 14yr olds are going to see old age just like the rest of us. Who the F&*K is telling them they are going to die?

There is mental torture at work here. Its disgraceful and untrue.

NIMAN

Started to listen to this video, which was linked to the last one above.

This guy is apparently the founder of Extinction Rebellion, and at 3:50 he says "we are facing mass starvation in the next 10 years, social collapse and the possible extinction of the human race"

I'll have what he's smoking. He really does sound like a total loon.
I hope this guy is still alive in 20yrs and is brought back on to TV to answer why the planet and all us are still alive.

gozunda

NIMAN wrote: »

Started to listen to this video, which was linked to the last one above.This guy is apparently the founder of Extinction Rebellion, and at 3:50 he says "we are facing mass starvation in the next 10 years, social collapse and the possible extinction of the human race"I'll have what he's smoking. He really does sound like a total loon.
I hope this guy is still alive in 20yrs and is brought back on to TV to answer why the planet and all us are still alive.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HyaxctatdA

The thing about Roger Hallam is that he is a dyed in the wool anarchist - with the latest anarchist type project being the co-creation of the Extinction Rebellion group. His various youtube videos and speeches leave little doubt his primary motivation is to forment civil unrest in order to overthrow the existing system of government in the UK and elsewhere

Here Roger Hallam describes on a lecture video what he did after failing as an organic farmer:
"I decided to come down to London to take out the system because I didn’t like it very much. That’s my plan. And I obviously wanted to study how to do it effectively so that’s why got myself into King’s College."

https://youtu.be/aRLsRqKguW0

The other cofounder of extinction rebellion is
Gail Bradbrook who identifies as a neo-pagan, and who found her purpose in a trip to Costa Rica to help come up with a solution to societal ills. The trip included the use of various psychedelics drugs.

A recent report detailed in the article below highlights some of the background of this group...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/16/treat-extinction-rebellion-extremist-anarchist-group-former/

Pa ElGrande

NIMAN wrote: »

. . .
I'll have what he's smoking. He really does sound like a total loon.
I hope this guy is still alive in 20yrs and is brought back on to TV to answer why the planet and all us are still alive. . . . .

To which the reply will be the Gods have accepted your taxes, ah, sacrifice and granted us 20 more years until the end of the world. I suspect if there was no Brexit this prophet and his disciples would not get very far, he arises out of the current power vacuum in the UK. The British establishment are quick to shut down the likes of the BNP and EDL and other fringe groups when the political will is there but at the moment the Remoaners and Brexiteers are at each others throats.

Geuze

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It amazes me how afraid you all are of having less money and lower standard of living. That is essential for a cleaner earth. How would you ever have survived in harder times in the past? And you call us pink haired folk snowflakes...
Bring on massive carbon taxes and less money and stuff for everyone I say, if only to annoy the right wing loonies in this thread.

I am confident that less CO2 emissions can be achieved without a massively negative impact on quality of life.

Closing coal-fired power stations and replacing them with other sources of electricity should help reduce emissions, but shouldn't change standard of living.

Geuze

When you read this, you wonder are all our efforts in vain:

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/1-800-km-menghua-coal-railway-opens/54741.article

200,000,000 tonnes of coal............

jim-mcdee

Aegir wrote: »

There’s no toilet on the boat.

How is crapping in the sea good for the environment?

do you think fish use a toilet?

Pa ElGrande

Geuze wrote: »

When you read this, you wonder are all our efforts in vain:

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/1-800-km-menghua-coal-railway-opens/54741.article

200,000,000 tonnes of coal............

China has positioned itself as a global leader on climate action its already implementing the Green new deal building modern infrastructure, switching to gas (made from coal) and planting trees and the Paris Accord allows them to keep increasing their consumption until 2030 by which time Greta tells us we are doomed.

Yes, you did read that right environmental activists have hailed China as the world’s de facto “leader” on fighting global warming despite both they and India increasing their coal consumption.

jim-mcdee

Can understand the thinking of the climate deniers really it's human nature to deny what's not in front of your face. They will deny it until the costal towns start getting flooded. Until crops start to fail due to supporting ecosystem collapse. Then they will start to panic. The earth took millions of years to evolve and balance itself. You can't chop down most of the world's forest and also release co2 in massive amounts in a relatively short timeframe and expect the world to carry on as normal. What we do today does not have immediate effect. It will take many years for the environment to adjust. I think our best chance is technology that will remove co2 from the environment because I believe most of the damage is already done and we are now on a delayed feedback.

gozunda

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

China has positioned itself as a global leader on climate action its already implementing the Green new deal building modern infrastructure, switching to gas (made from coal) and planting trees and the Paris Accord allows them to keep increasing their consumption until 2030 by which time Greta tells us we are doomed.

Yes, you did read that right environmental activists have hailed China as the world’s de facto “leader” on fighting global warming despite both they and India increasing their coal consumption.

Otherwise known as green wash. Meanwhile China continues to invest in and commission hundreds of new coal fired power stations and are building even more coal fired power stations for other countries worldwide. The gas thing is that the bulk of green renewable technologies used here etc are being manufactured by the Chinese using coal powered energy. Indeed truely a veritable leader in Carbon emissions ...

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/

lleti

Enough is Enough! wrote: »

It's sad to see a young obsessed with the end of the world. She should be enjoying her youth.

She has a mental disorder. She has been encouraged by her parents to do this. Very poor parenting.

lleti

jim-mcdee wrote: »

Can understand the thinking of the climate deniers really it's human nature to deny what's not in front of your face. They will deny it until the costal towns start getting flooded. Until crops start to fail due to supporting ecosystem collapse. Then they will start to panic. The earth took millions of years to evolve and balance itself. You can't chop down most of the world's forest and also release co2 in massive amounts in a relatively short timeframe and expect the world to carry on as normal. What we do today does not have immediate effect. It will take many years for the environment to adjust. I think our best chance is technology that will remove co2 from the environment because I believe most of the damage is already done and we are now on a delayed feedback.

The problem with people like you is that you think the way things are now are the way things always have been and always should be.

Take a look at the Azure window - a rock in Malta that collapsed due to erosion, a natural thing.

The Sahara wasn't always a desert. Ireland wasn't always green.

jim-mcdee

lleti wrote: »

The problem with people like you is that you think the way things are now are the way things always have been and always should be.

Take a look at the Azure window - a rock in Malta that collapsed due to erosion, a natural thing.

The Sahara wasn't always a desert. Ireland wasn't always green.

Em. No. Your interpretation is completely incorrect. I find it bizarre how you got that actually.

Pa ElGrande

jim-mcdee wrote: »

. . . . I think our best chance is technology that will remove co2 from the environment because I believe most of the damage is already done and we are now on a delayed feedback.

Some questions you might ask and research since the empirical data does not support your hypothesis and you might then consider adopting a more skeptical stance towards the emotional led catastrophism that you learn from the media. The stories you read in the media sound "sciencey", however, the stories are sourced from environmental activists and people with media and communication degrees, not scientists. Many have an agenda that does not always take into account your welfare or that of the humanity in general.


What is the optimum level of C02 (PPM) in the atmosphere to support life on earth?

What is the optimum temperature to support life on earth?

What happens over the next 2 million years when nature has sequestered most of the C02 from the atmosphere without any interference from humans?

How long did the Carbon 14 stay in the atmosphere after nuclear testing stopped?

Is the area covered by forests growing or shrinking since the industrial revolution?

Are there positive externalities to having increased C02 in the atmosphere?

Is the sea level rising at a faster rate now since the industrial revolution?

Where is the missing hotspot?

Why do the climate models used to project future climate so badly wrong?

What is the track record of those scientists who predicted environmental catastrophe over the past 100 years?



Having a nice safe clean environment is a desirable objective for most people, however that is not necessarily the goal of the people promoting the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and the desired future outcome may not be the one you expect. Be very wary.

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts..

H. L. Mencken

KyussB

^^ This poster has been citing oil-funded think tanks throughout the thread - when he says 'research', 'skepticism', and 'empirical data' - translate that as propaganda, denialism, and 'data gathered with a predefined conclusion in mind' - especially given he doesn't cite anything, and doubly so when he does cite something (in 90% of posts it's easily revealed to be linked to fossil fuel interests, or otherwise be bullshit/misleading).

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

^^ This poster has been citing oil-funded think tanks throughout the thread - when he says 'research', 'skepticism', and 'empirical data' - translate that as propaganda, denialism, and 'data gathered with a predefined conclusion in mind' - especially given he doesn't cite anything, and doubly so when he does cite something (in 90% of posts it's easily revealed to be linked to fossil fuel interests, or otherwise be bullshit/misleading).

The Hidden Hand of Activism

Much of the distance between rational and objective scientific inquiry and research guided by activism needs derives from the noble cause fallacy in which no matter how perverse the methods, they can be justified as long as they serve a noble purpose and as long as the researcher’s goals are noble. That the cause of climate activism is noble is firmly established by their stated goal of saving the planet. It implies that to be critical of climate science is to be opposed to saving the planet and therefore in some way endangering the planet, the biota, and all things natural and organic. In this way, the noble cause fallacy is also useful in vilifying and discrediting critics and skeptics with holocaust language as “climate change deniers” with the implication that they stand in the way of the good scientists who are trying to save the planet.

source

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

This poster has been citing oil-funded think tanks throughout the thread - when he says 'research', 'skepticism', and 'empirical data' - translate that as propaganda, denialism, and 'data gathered with a predefined conclusion in mind' - especially given he doesn't cite anything, and doubly so when he does cite something (in 90% of posts it's easily revealed to be linked to fossil fuel interests, or otherwise be bullshit/misleading).

Tbh I'm starting to believe that the constant repetition of the exact same phrases again and again - thrown at everyone and anyone could only be a result of AI software. No one poster could produce such nonsensical garbage for sure
..

Here's some previous offerings:

KyussB wrote: »

This poster regularly cites Libertarian think-tanks funded by the Koch family i.e. by oil oligarchs - now he is citing white-supremacist YouTube channels...None of this gives people opposing efforts at arresting climate change, and deriding such efforts as 'Communism', any pause though - most of them in this thread are happily backslapping with this poster.

KyussB wrote: »

...The people who support self-destruction while claiming to be Capitalists, are not Capitalists - how could they be Capitalist while supporting the self-destruction of that system?
They are supporters of Oligarchy at any cost. They'll use whatever ideology is most favourable for the day, to achieve that. Typically this is something closer to Anarcho-Capitalism/Libertarianism - just like all the think-tanks you lot are fellating - which is a form of Capitalism which is nothing like what we see in the real world, it's a deliberately extreme/unachievable form of Capitalism, that happens to be very useful to Oil Oligarchs.

KyussB wrote:

It's well researched and out in the open, ffs ::If you're not Anarcho-Capitalists/Libertarians - why the **** are you all citing Libertarian think-tanks, funded by notorious Oil Oligarchs? ..You're oblivious - wilfully so, most likely, whenever something agrees with your views.

:rolleyes:

73bc61lyohr0mu

The feeling I get everytime I put petrol in my 2.3 Saab..

https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1180176758965985287?s=09

Snickers Man

I don't want to listen to Greta. I want to listen to the scientists.

SHE is not the issue. Climate change is.

You know: like she says herself. :rolleyes:

And that's all that needs to be said about the remarkable Ms Thunberg.

gozunda

Snickers Man wrote: »

I don't want to listen to Greta. I want to listen to the scientists. SHE is not the issue. Climate change is. You know: like she says herself....
And that's all that needs to be said about the remarkable Ms Thunberg.

Agreed greta is not the 'issue', however the same individual and her travels are the topic of the thread. And as has been pointed out 'the remarkable Ms Thunberg' is evidently not listening to the scientists and instead is spouting something rather different. Read the thread if you are in any doubt and thats the discussion.

Snickers Man

gozunda wrote: »

Agreed greta is not the 'issue', however the same individual and her travels are the topic of the thread. And as has been pointed out 'the remarkable Ms Thunberg' is evidently not listening to the scientists and instead is spouting something rather different. Read the thread if you are in any doubt and thats the discussion.

Shan't!

Look if people want to engage in a circle jerk about what a teenager says, then off you go. That, after all, is what sites like Boards.ie are for. But don't flatter anyone that it is a major topic of importance. I am not going to waste an ounce of emotional or intellectual energy discussing whether she is a pawn of the "international left" or the "liberal elite" or "in the pay of George Soros" or any other paranoid trope in which people of a certain mindset like to indulge their fantasies.

I fully recognise that this is probably an "off topic" comment for this thread and might even result in an infraction (wouldn't be my first) so I will disappear from this discussion and not re-emerge.

A thread of equal importance to this one might be a discussion of the hairs on my scrotum. (Might just start one too, you never know what sort of weirdo......)

As for climate change itself? Now that IS an important issue.

gozunda

Snickers Man wrote: »

Shan't!
Look if people want to engage in a circle jerk about what a teenager says, then off you go. That, after all, is what sites like Boards.ie are for. But don't flatter anyone that it is a major topic of importance. I am not going to waste an ounce of emotional or intellectual energy discussing whether she is a pawn of the "international left" or the "liberal elite" or "in the pay of George Soros" or any other paranoid trope in which people of a certain mindset like to indulge their fantasies. I fully recognise that this is probably an "off topic" comment for this thread and might even result in an infraction (wouldn't be my first) so I will disappear from this discussion and not re-emerge. A thread of equal importance to this one might be a discussion of the hairs on my scrotum. (Might just start one too, you never know what sort of weirdo......)As for climate change itself? Now that IS an important issue.

Ah go on I dare you!

The rant over yes? Or are you like some going to whither on the thread being only Sorus type bs or even indeed the 'hairs on your scrotum' 'weirdos' (sic). Though tbh I do doubt that's possible given the infantile rant. To reiterate - The OPs post was a tongue in cheek look at the stunt which was gretas voyage to the new world which has indeed generated some enlightening ideas and opinions on climate change (and some whacky ones). Don't like that? Well there there - dont get upset - it will all be better in the morning. In the same vein I'll leave you with this ... Try and not to stop breathing or go purple ok?

Pa ElGrande

Snickers Man wrote: »

I don't want to listen to Greta. I want to listen to the scientists.

I take it that means scientists that tell you what you have been conditioned to hear rather than those who challenge your preconceptions?