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

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Who are 'the people'?Do you think there is an issue in terms of mans impact on the environment?
How do you think we should tackle it?Greta thinks there's an issue, she thinks we need to unite behind the science to develop solutions to reduce the impact on society and facilitate alternative methods to supplying worldwide economies. It's not very complicated, or unreasonable to hold this view is it?

Problems with 'mans impact' on the environment does not equate with having to believe the screaming heebjeebies of 'greta'.

The cult of personality has absolutely sweet feck all with what the scientists are actually saying. More importantly the kid is far from 'reasonable' in her various rantings tbh. But you know that already...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Problems with 'mans impact' on the environment does not equate with having to believe the screaming heebjeebies of 'greta'.

The cult of personality has absolutely sweet feck all with what the scientists are actually saying. More importantly the kid is far from 'reasonable' in her various rantings tbh. But you know that already...

How many times has she spoken?
How many times has been in any way close to being considered to 'screaming heebeejeebies? Outside of the UN speech, a total of zero I think it is fair to say.
Even at that, one persons passionate speech is another persons rant apparently.

You can talk about cult of personality all you want, it's appropriately vague to distract from the message which she is communicating, the fact that she is 16, the fact that she is a girl, the fact that it will mean changes in order for to see changes or whichever other possible reason is the true source of your angst on this.

KyussB

Irish PM under fire for extolling benefits of climate crisis
Activists critical of Leo Varadkar over claim warmer winters lead to fewer deaths

Environmentalists have heaped scorn on Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, after he said the climate crisis could have benefits such as warmer winters, lower heating bills and fewer deaths.

Some called the comments silly and weird, others branded them irresponsible.

The taoiseach made the comments in Dublin last week at the launch of an upbeat progress report on the government’s climate action plan.

“One thing we definitely face as a result of climate change is a warmer winter. We’re already experiencing warmer winters and that actually means using less energy because it’s warmer and people need less heating and it also means fewer deaths as a result of cold weather,” he said.

“It’s interesting that when you do look at those things there is a ledger, and there are benefits and there are downsides. The downsides outweigh the benefits, but we need to be aware of them too.”

Irish Doctors for the Environment, an advocacy group, wrote to Varadkar on Monday saying the climate crisis had an “overwhelmingly negative effect on human health”. It asked him to retract and “address the errors” in his speech.

Other environmental campaigners expressed anger and disbelief.

“That the taoiseach would make these comments while delivering a progress report on his government’s climate action plan exposes the extent to which that plan is a surface level response to a multi-faceted crisis, the scale of which they fail to comprehend,” said the Green party.

“Millions are dying or being displaced right now. That will rise to hundreds of millions if the complacency of governments around the world continues. Our milder winters are punctuated by cold snaps that threaten our most vulnerable, including the thousands of people now homeless.”

Oisín Coghlan, the director of Friends of the Earth Ireland, acknowledged Ireland could benefit in a narrow way but said the climate emergency’s wider impacts on the country and the rest of the world were overwhelmingly negative.

Cara Augustenborg, an environmental scientist at University College Dublin, echoed that view, saying the few lives that might be spared from winter-related deaths paled in comparison to wider suffering.

Extinction Rebellion Ireland called the comments shocking. “It’s time for civil disobedience,” the group said.

The spat came as climate experts warned that a catastrophic storm during high tide will flood thousands of homes, businesses and landmark buildings in Dublin in the coming decades.

Peter Thorne, a lead author on the fifth assessment report of the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change, said Ireland had so far been able to “dodge a bullet” because storms have struck during low tides.

Ireland is one of the EU’s worst carbon emission offenders and faces fines of more than €250m (£216m) for missing 2020 targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adopting renewable energy.

The government unveiled an ambitious plan in June that outlined measures to curb emissions and set a path for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

In recent days the singer Cher and the actor Mark Ruffalo have added their voices to a campaign to stop Ireland becoming an entry point for fracked US gas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/irish-pm-leo-varadkar-under-fire-for-extolling-benefits-of-climate-crisis

Jesus it makes some of the ignorant Clmate Denialism in this thread look respectable.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

How many times has she spoken?How many times has been in any way close to being considered to 'screaming heebeejeebies? Outside of the UN speech, a total of zero I think it is fair to say.
Even at that, one persons passionate speech is another persons rant apparently.You can talk about cult of personality all you want, it's appropriately vague to distract from the message which she is communicating, the fact that she is 16, the fact that she is a girl, the fact that it will mean changes in order for to see changes or whichever other possible reason is the true source of your angst on this.

From someone who includes a whole load of non stop gretacisms in comments - there appears to be a woeful lack of knowledge of the content of her various PR video appearances and speeches at various events where she indeed spouts much of the same type of heebjeebies. Granted the UN event was the icing on the cake - go watch a few of these to become a little bit more informed. But hey no worries ...

Ps why are you mentioning / hung up on the fact she is a '16 year old girl'? Odd no?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/irish-pm-leo-varadkar-under-fire-for-extolling-benefits-of-climate-crisis

Jesus it makes some of the ignorant Clmate Denialism in this thread look respectable.

That's the thing Varadkar is not a 'Clmate denier' by any stretch of the imagination - much as is with those who point out the whole '12 years to armegedon' is bs - on this thread. That said I never knew Varadkar could trigger such gaseos emissions from the alarmists lol ...

Edit: why you still quoting from a source which receives payment from a US industry based (in your words) 'think-tank' to publish directed media content - all the whilst castigating others for their sources. Tut tut ...

KyussB

Varadkar is pretty much in the same camp as the Denialists - just with such views moderated down to the level of bordering on political acceptability, among the most well off.

Denialists, faux 'skeptics', and politicians implementing cyncally ineffective climate policy and paying lip service to downplaying climate change - they're the same group - just like the way Free Market Libertarians are the batshit end of the right-wing, and NeoLiberals the supposed 'moderates' of the right, designed to be more politically palatable.

If you can highlight the conflicts of interest in Guardian funding, which render the cited article non-credible - go ahead.

rossie1977

Nowhere on earth is climate change more apparent than the New Zealand alps.

Franz Josef glacier in 1910 filled the valley with hundreds of feet of ice. In 2019 its retreated so far back up the mountain its barely visible anymore. Even since 2009 the rate of retreat is astonishing

That's just 2 years

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Varadkar is pretty much in the same camp as the Denialists - just with such views moderated down to the level of bordering on political acceptability, among the most well off.

Denialists, faux 'skeptics', and politicians implementing cyncally ineffective climate policy and paying lip service to downplaying climate change - they're the same group - just like the way Free Market Libertarians are the batshit end of the right-wing, and NeoLiberals the supposed 'moderates' of the right, designed to be more politically palatable.

If you can highlight the conflicts of interest in Guardian funding, which render the cited article non-credible - go ahead.

Already have - you have not been paying attention evidently - no?

So let me get this straight- anyone who you do not agree with are"faux 'skeptics', right-wing NeoLiberals Denialists" - grand so that makes your argument so much clearer... :rolleyes:

KyussB

"US industry based think-[tank]" - where's the conflict of interest?

weldoninhio

rossie1977 wrote: »

Nowhere on earth is climate change more apparent than the New Zealand alps.

Franz Josef glacier in 1910 filled the valley with hundreds of feet of ice. In 2019 its retreated so far back up the mountain its barely visible anymore. Even since 2009 the rate of retreat is astonishing

That's just 2 years

So a lump of ice, on land, is melting. I’ve gone to my fridge and got an ice cube and did a micro experiment and you are right!! Ice melts on land, and it’s bleedin freezing out!! Who should I inform??

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

So a lump of ice, on land, is melting. I’ve gone to my fridge and got an ice cube and did a micro experiment and you are right!! Ice melts on land, and it’s bleedin freezing out!! Who should I inform??

Wow, this post is just a brilliant example of the intelligence of the Greta detractors.
No need to counter arguments when they are made like this.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow, this post is just a brilliant example of the intelligence of the Greta detractors.
No need to counter arguments when they are made like this.

I did a scientific experiment. Listen to the science.

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

I did a scientific experiment. Listen to the science.

Once you provide a link to the academic publication in which your experiment is published including calibrated equipment recordings of the environment in which the experiment was carried out, the duration it lasted for, the exact size and state of the ice cube at the outset and an hypothesis how it is analogous to the glacier in New Zealand, I'll listen to your science.

Professor Moriarty

weldoninhio wrote: »

I did a scientific experiment. Listen to the science.

You should keep these posts and show them to your grandchildren in years to come. I bet they'll find them hilarious.

weldoninhio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You should keep these posts and show them to your grandchildren in years to come. I bet they'll find them hilarious.

I doubt it. In the year 2086 they’ll probably be worried about the world ending in 10 years and the worlds cities being underwater. #RinseAndRepeat

Professor Moriarty

weldoninhio wrote: »

I doubt it. In the year 2086 they’ll probably be worried about the world ending in 10 years and the worlds cities being underwater. #RinseAndRepeat

If the scientists are proven right, it will be because of people like you.

weldoninhio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If the scientists are proven right, it will be because of people like you.

I’ll take my chances. Scientists have been getting it wrong for the past 100 plus years.

Professor Genius

What’s the latest on this loon?

boring accountant

I'm all for climate change activism and even for civil disobedience in pursuit of that, since I consider it the most important issue of our time.

However, I can totally understand why people take exception to not only being lectured to by a child, but also to the people telling them that they're somehow a less decent human for taking exception to that.



Not to mention that anyone who criticises her is likely to be branded anything from misogynist to paedophile.


Generally speaking, it is good to be sceptical of the powerful, and overnight sensations such as this don't happen without the go ahead from the powerful.

Professor Moriarty

weldoninhio wrote: »

I’ll take my chances. Scientists have been getting it wrong for the past 100 plus years.

Sure. Experts eh?

biko

Greta is now trying to get back to Europe again.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1191393708660449287

Professor Genius

biko wrote: »

Greta is now trying to get back to Europe again.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1191393708660449287

Is she taking her meds???

rossie1977

weldoninhio wrote: »

So a lump of ice, on land, is melting. I’ve gone to my fridge and got an ice cube and did a micro experiment and you are right!! Ice melts on land, and it’s bleedin freezing out!! Who should I inform??

A lump of ice. Franz josef glacier was a gigantic river of ice and rock hundreds of feet thick located far above sea level high in the mountains.

What is happening is an ecological and environmental disaster in such a tiny period of time.

Parts of Return of the King was filmed in the area and the landscape has dramatically changed in the 15 or so years since that movie came out.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-crisis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering

Another 11,000 lying climate scientists in a communist conspiracy. Seriously though it's not looking good.

Tell me how

Professor Genius wrote: »

Is she taking her meds???

This is up there with Weldoninhio's recent post.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If the scientists are proven right, it will be because of people like you.

what do you know about weldoninho's carbon footprint and other relevant behaviours?

ten good hours of raising awareness and sealioning for greta = how much carbon offset?

f*** all is how much

randd1

rossie1977 wrote: »

A lump of ice. Franz josef glacier was a gigantic river of ice and rock hundreds of feet thick located far above sea level high in the mountains.

What is happening is an ecological and environmental disaster in such a tiny period of time.

Parts of Return of the King was filmed in the area and the landscape has dramatically changed in the 15 or so years since that movie came out.

Pretty much all of the background scenery in those films was CGI to make it look more fantastical to add to the story.

As for melting glaciers in general, well of course they're going to melt. The Earth was in the middle of a mini ice age around 200 years ago, something which topped up glaciers around the world considerably. It was noted in plenty of parts of Europe that winters were savagely colder than they are now. London used to have regular "frost fairs" when the Thames used to freeze nearly solid. That would simply never happen these days.

And the reason why it would not happen these days is since then, the Earth has been warming gradually. And when you warm ice, it melts. However, given the time-frame involved, the vast majority of this warming has been completely natural, in everything the astronomical to simple weather patterns. What influence man has on heating the Earth is minimal compared to nature.

It doesn't mean we should curb what we do, but to suggest that somehow we're going to stop global warming is a complete and total farce, how scientists can actually look at the long term history of Earth and not come to the same conclusion just goes to show you that a lot of scientists simply find what they've been paid to look for.

We're not going to stop global warming, even if we wiped ourslves out of the equation it will still get hotter, and there will still be abundant plant and animal life. The planets history has told us at times it has been way hotter than it is now, there has been way more CO2 at times than there is now, way higher concentrations of other greenhouse gases than there is now. And yet, plant and animal life didn't just survive, it thrived.

Our problem isn't global warming which we can't stop. Our problem is the impact we have on our ecology, local and global.

Of course, the problem there being that we-over use resources. We're encouraged to go to a green economy, but it being an economy there's money to be made and resources to be used to get that economy. You might not have any emissions from an electric car, but the cobalt and lithium that the battery needs to run it sure had to be mined (leaving serious ecological damage), it had to made in a factory requiring serious amounts of power, the paint had to be made (and the associated pollution that comes with it), the raw materials for the parts had to be mined or created leaving significant waste, the farbric or interior had to be grown using land that was once forest, and the power that it needs to run has to be generated by coal, oil, gas or nuclear stations each with their own problem, hydroelectric energy with the serious problems dams cause, or unrelaible wind power that generates more CO2 in their contrcution than most cars use in their lifetime. But it's still, you know, "green".

A lot of this scare-mongering is simply an ideal by those with money to shift people to a different economic structure that makes them more money. Had they the interest of the ecology of the world at heart, they'd be using their own money to sort out the pollution their own business cause. And then there's Harry & Megan/Di Caprio/Greta brigade, telling us what not to do and what we have to do all the while completely igoring those rules themselves, and nobody likes hypocrits. and because of that, fewer listen to them, even if they are right.

Thelonious Monk

New Zealand is pretty f*cked anyway environment wise, it's going downhill fast

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/18/decades-of-denial-major-report-finds-new-zealands-environment-is-in-serious-trouble

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

New Zealand is pretty f*cked anyway environment wise, it's going downhill fast

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/18/decades-of-denial-major-report-finds-new-zealands-environment-is-in-serious-trouble

They list some serious environmental issues and then say they need policies to tackle climate change, which has very little to do with the issues mentioned. They are just destroying their environment which can be helped by reducing pollution and protecting habitats.

The climate change actions proposed will have no significant effect on the environmental issues that they are supposedly worried about.

_Kaiser_

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If the scientists are proven right, it will be because of people like you.

More likely that the scientists and technological advancement will have solved the problem, or we'll be on the way to conolising the Moon and Mars and thereby helping alievate the problem on mother Earth anyway.

If a REAL crisis emerges, you can bet that's what'll happen. Take the massive increases in technological advancement during the First and Second World Wars. Sure most of it was for military applications but much of it has filtered down into everyday life since (including the Internet incidentally)

Science and tech will solve the issue, not hysteria and calls to live like we're in the Third World.