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

alastair

weldoninhio wrote: »

Same difference, she isn’t using the Tesla to tour US and Canada.

She was. The pictures are only being rolled out now as it’s an attempted hit job.

Micky 32

alastair wrote: »

Yes she is, but that car wasn’t. It was in Alberta.

It says in the description alright that it was in Alberta. I gotta love the video though. Before he revealed her car to them all the condemning that was going on and then when he revealed it was Greta’s car they changed their tunes and were all stuck for works and started spouting b****x.

Sonics2k

I remain truly and absolutely baffled by the sheer amount of middle-aged men (and women) getting outrageously angry about this girl.

Climate Change is a real thing. What's the worst that can happen if we do what we can to try and revert the damage that's being done?

Eric Cartman

Sonics2k wrote: »

I remain truly and absolutely baffled by the sheer amount of middle-aged men (and women) getting outrageously angry about this girl.

Climate Change is a real thing. What's the worst that can happen if we do what we can to try and revert the damage that's being done?

Well her promoters, backers and handlers all want to peddle a message that requires us all to lower our standard of living and give more power to government over our lives in order to prevent an event that greta and others have decided is a decadenaway but many actual climate scientists say it could be a century away or is partly earths natural climate cycle and our job is to adapt to it not try stave it off

Sonics2k

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well her promoters, backers and handlers all want to peddle a message that requires us all to lower our standard of living and give more power to government over our lives in order to prevent an event that greta and others have decided is a decadenaway but many actual climate scientists say it could be a century away or is partly earths natural climate cycle and our job is to adapt to it not try stave it off

But it's not so much about lowering our standard of living, rather about finding alternatives.

Fossil fuels are finite in supply. This is a fact. Fossil fuels are causing massive amounts of damage to the climate. This is a fact.

I may be wrong on this, but when has Greta said we need to give our Governments more power over our lives? From what I can gather she's said our governments need to do more to stem and punish companies that cause massive pollution?

A century away isn't really that long, not really. WW1 is barely a century ago and the impact of that war is still felt in many countries now, same can be said about WW2 for sure.

Maybe we won't be alive for it, but our grandkids will be. So why not do what we can to find alternatives?

Eric Cartman

Sonics2k wrote: »

But it's not so much about lowering our standard of living, rather about finding alternatives.

Fossil fuels are finite in supply. This is a fact. Fossil fuels are causing massive amounts of damage to the climate. This is a fact.

I may be wrong on this, but when has Greta said we need to give our Governments more power over our lives? From what I can gather she's said our governments need to do more to stem and punish companies that cause massive pollution?

A century away isn't really that long, not really. WW1 is barely a century ago and the impact of that war is still felt in many countries now, same can be said about WW2 for sure.

Maybe we won't be alive for it, but our grandkids will be. So why not do what we can to find alternatives?

The alternative is nuclear power, we have it already, its been staring us in the face for years, if we just had a much better nuclear energy infrastructure we could remove fossil fuel heating , phase out non electric cars and lower our overall footprint so much that it wouldnt make a fidlers if we took less international flights.

But equally punishing companies and people and taxing them into better alternatives isnt really viable, especially when the real polluters are in asia africa and south america , areas greta hasnt said a fiddlers about

Sonics2k

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The alternative is nuclear power, we have it already, its been staring us in the face for years, if we just had a much better nuclear energy infrastructure we could remove fossil fuel heating , phase out non electric cars and lower our overall footprint so much that it wouldnt make a fidlers if we took less international flights.

But equally punishing companies and people and taxing them into better alternatives isnt really viable, especially when the real polluters are in asia africa and south america , areas greta hasnt said a fiddlers about

I agree, Nuclear power is the best alternative right now. The issue with that though is that it can be potentially disastrous.

A lot of people think we should keep pushing for other alternatives, keep advancing with science for clean fuels.

Absolutely she's said nothing but Asia and Africa. But the problem with that argument is that even if she did, they wouldn't give a fiddling ****e.

Slowyourrole

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well her promoters, backers and handlers

I wonder who is backing the attacks on her. I mean a video of rubbish in a car? That's a pathetic attack. But they can't fight the science so they go for the messenger.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

all want to peddle a message that requires us all to lower our standard of living and give more power to government over our lives

What are you being asked to do that would lower your standard of living or give the government control over you?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

in order to prevent an event that greta and others have decided is a decade

Greta decided it did she?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

away but many actual climate scientists say it could be a century away or is partly earths natural climate cycle and our job is to adapt to it not try stave it off

I'd be interested on reading this consesnus of scientists that see it as a century or more away. Can you direct me to the press release or paper they released? How much of the scientific community is in this consesnus?

Yellow_Fern

Sonics2k wrote: »

I agree, Nuclear power is the best alternative right now. The issue with that though is that it can be potentially disastrous.

A lot of people think we should keep pushing for other alternatives, keep advancing with science for clean fuels.

Absolutely she's said nothing but Asia and Africa. But the problem with that argument is that even if she did, they wouldn't give a fiddling ****e.

nuclear has its risks but nuclear in other contexts has also killed people. medical used nuclear for CT scans has killed people but no one tries to ban Ct scans.
Chernobyl was the only bad nuclear incident and considering the incredible number of errors in that case its quite extraordinary how few died in this incident.
It is not as like the USSR was otherwise a very safe place.

Akrasia

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Small yes but many dont agree with the apologetic visions of Greta. Even PrimeTime recently interviewed a Irish climate academic who attacked the climate rebellion for misrepresenting them.

The ‘misrepresentation’ was that we had 12 years to save the planet, when the clarification was that it’s already too late to prevent climate change. It was the figure of 12 years that they disagreed with and not the immense seriousness of the predicament that is climate change

Eric Cartman

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

nuclear has its risks but nuclear in other contexts has also killed people. medical used nuclear for CT scans has killed people but no one tries to ban Ct scans.
Chernobyl was the only bad nuclear incident and considering the incredible number of errors in that case its quite extraordinary how few died in this incident.
It is not as like the USSR was otherwise a very safe place.

Having toured chernobyl and seen interviews / heard guides discussing and the overall physical defects shown, it reaffirms to me both the dangers of communism and how while nuclear is the answer, not if its state owned and operated

Akrasia

Dakota Dan wrote: »

There’s no such thing as scientific consensus. There are plenty scientists that don’t agree with man made climate change.

There is overwhelming scientific consensus in the literature that climate change is real and a serious threat. The IPCC call the link to human activity ‘unequivocal’

Consensus is not the same as unanimous and ‘scientists’ can have whatever opinion they like but unless it’s backed up with published research it doesn’t count as a scientific opinion

Micky 32

Slowyourrole wrote: »

I wonder who is backing the attacks on her. I mean a video of rubbish in a car? That's a pathetic attack. But they can't fight the science so they go for the messenger

So far in this thread this is the biggest load of b*****x i have read. An attack?! Get over yourself will you? If you’re going to have someone globetrotting around the world trying to change people the people have a right to know as much as they can about Greta. Her car was rightly exposed so we know where we all stand.
I guess you’re upset because she got caught.

Sonics2k

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

nuclear has its risks but nuclear in other contexts has also killed people. medical used nuclear for CT scans has killed people but no one tries to ban Ct scans.
Chernobyl was the only bad nuclear incident and considering the incredible number of errors in that case its quite extraordinary how few died in this incident.
It is not as like the USSR was otherwise a very safe place.

Well, also Japan in recent years.

But all that aside, I do find the sheer amount of abuse and vitriol aimed at Greta to be baffling.

Even on this very thread people are directly attacking a teenage girl because of her message about climate change. It's crazy.

Micky 32

Sonics2k wrote: »

Well, also Japan in recent years.

But all that aside, I do find the sheer amount of abuse and vitriol aimed at Greta to be baffling.

Even on this very thread people are directly attacking a teenage girl because of her message about climate change. It's crazy.

So if someone disagrees or doesn’t care about what Greta is preaching that means it’s an attack?

Sonics2k

Micky 32 wrote: »

So if someone disagrees or doesn’t care about what Greta is preaching that means it’s an attack?

I didn't say that. I didn't even slightly say that.

I simply pointed out that fully grown adults are attacking and insulting a teenage girl because she's contributing to highlighting the climate change issue.

Micky 32

Sonics2k wrote: »

I didn't say that. I didn't even slightly say that.

I simply pointed out that fully grown adults are attacking and insulting a teenage girl because she's contributing to highlighting the climate change issue.

You’ll always have people somewhere attacking alright but most people on this thread aren’t they are just critical of her and don’t all agree. There’s a difference....

Sonics2k

Micky 32 wrote: »

You’ll always have people somewhere attacking alright but most people on this thread aren’t they are just critical of her and don’t all agree. There’s a difference....

Yeah, I know there's a difference.

Did I say "I'm baffled by the people who disagree with her and are making sound and reasonable conversation and debate?"

Or did I say "I do find the sheer amount of abuse and vitriol aimed at Greta to be baffling."

Micky 32

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yeah, I know there's a difference.

Did I say "I'm baffled by the people who disagree with her and are making sound and reasonable conversation and debate?"

Or did I say "I do find the sheer amount of abuse and vitriol aimed at Greta to be baffling."

You might know the difference of both those statements but you don’t know the difference in reality it seems.

Sonics2k

Micky 32 wrote: »

You might know the difference of both those statements but you don’t know the difference in reality it seems.

I'm sorry, but what are you waffling on about?

I made a very, very clear statement and you seem to be confused by it? Instead of saying I don't understand the difference, can I suggest you improve your reading comprehension.

Micky 32

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm sorry, but what are you waffling on about?

I made a very, very clear statement and you seem to be confused by it? Instead of saying I don't understand the difference, can I suggest you improve your reading comprehension.

Really? Why don’t you go and learn the difference between criticism and attacks.

Sonics2k

Micky 32 wrote: »

Really? Why don’t you go and learn the difference between criticism and attacks.

Okay, we'll try this again.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yeah, I know there's a difference.

Did I say "I'm baffled by the people who disagree with her and are making sound and reasonable conversation and debate?"

Or did I say "I do find the sheer amount of abuse and vitriol aimed at Greta to be baffling."

Micky 32

Sonics2k wrote: »

Okay, we'll try this again.

Yes we will try this again and i’ll repeat. Go and educate yourself the difference between abusing someone and being critical to someone.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

Do you have a scientific study to back up your claim that the need to tackle climate change is ‘a pile of pooh’

Hahahaha - that's clearly not what was said. I stated that the Green New Deal was a pile of pooh. That idea imo been endlessly promoted and soundly thrashed many times already in the thread. Take a read back for you sins ...

But hold on there a dang minute partner. So little old me has to provide scientific 'proof' of what I'm saying but greta gets a free pass for all the demented warblings she comes out with! Grand so!

Yeah sounds absolutely fair :rolleyes:

Akrasia wrote: »

She doesn’t have to answer the scientific questions or provide the answers herself. Her message is to listen to the science and dedicate the resources needed to tackle the problem. Greta is not the contrarian, you are. She does not have to back up her opinion with evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong, you do.

Tea drinker

Slowyourrole wrote: »

I wonder who is backing the attacks on her. I mean a video of rubbish in a car? That's a pathetic attack. But they can't fight the science so they go for the messenger.





What are you being asked to do that would lower your standard of living or give the government control over you?






Greta decided it did she?






I'd be interested on reading this consesnus of scientists that see it as a century or more away. Can you direct me to the press release or paper they released? How much of the scientific community is in this consesnus?

If the rubbish is in the car it's not an attack, it's just exposing she or someone in the entourage is a messy fecker.
Saying any criticism of the messiah is an attack on the climate change religion is similar to the frenetic attempts at quashing discussion of Catholicism and it's crimes.

KyussB

There hasn't been any substantive rebuttal of the Green New Deal - only ideological objections - pretty much the same as how there have been no substantive rebuttals of anyting Greta said.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

There hasn't been any substantive rebuttal of the Green New Deal - only ideological objections - pretty much the same as how there have been no substantive rebuttals of anyting Greta said.

Nope it's remains a large pile of pooh imo. And I'm not the only one who has pointed that out. You've provided no backup that any of the various daft ideas detailed are in anyway realistic or even provided any proof of the basic concepts of same. This has been already detailed many times. But I suppose like greta you dont have to provide any proof either. I remain utterly unconvinced by any of it tbh. :rolleyes:

KyussB

A fairly literal application of the 'Pooh Pooh' fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

There hasn't been any substantive rebuttal of the Green New Deal - only ideological objections - pretty much the same as how there have been no substantive rebuttals of anyting Greta said.

https://cmandchaos.wordpress.com/2018/06/25/winnie-the-pooh-and-climate-change/

Christopher Robin was quite excited by the flood, and measured the rise of the water with care each morning. Yes it was rising. Despite being mature and knowledgeable one, he was not really that concerned about anyone else – he was thinking about them and where they were, but he was safe on his high ground and it was fun.

Pooh, works with the situation as it develops. He acts first through finding his feet wet, then through hunger and then narcissism – thinking the message in the bottle with all the ‘P’s in it must be about him. Determined to read the message he invents a boat (which naturally he calls “The floating Bear”) – which doesn’t quite work as it should, but it works well enough (“For a little while Pooh and The Floating Bear were uncertain as to which of them was meant to be on the top”).

One of the things we might want to consider is that before the flood, everyone is wrapped in their own concerns, but after the flood, as seems to be the case in many disasters, people co-operate and come together

Sonics2k

Sonics2k wrote: »

I didn't say that. I didn't even slightly say that.

I simply pointed out that fully grown adults are attacking and insulting a teenage girl because she's contributing to highlighting the climate change issue.

A child with spectrum was chosen to spokes, so no one can criticise without being accused like you do. Very cynical.