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

Mr E

Beasty wrote: »

Professor Moriarty - do not post in this thread again

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you know it's misleading then you know the truth. In your own time...

Mod: See you in a fortnight.

Ironicname

suicide_circus wrote:

i felt the posting of the 2004 article was legitimate and pertinent in this case

And my mentioning of transgenderism was to highlight that science is often ignored when it suits people.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Not everything is just an opinion. The validity of climate science, for one, is not just an opinion - it's earned scientific credibility and has an entire fields research worth of evidence and work put in to back it as valid.

It would be rather a waste of time if this thread was just a restatement of peoples individual opinions again and again - without ridiculous opinions being invallidated through debate and discarded.

Indeed.

Well this thread is about greta and her travels across the world and the various opinions she is espousing.

And we know that greta reckons that civilisation is going belly up in a decade , a position not supported by the science. She also reckons all the adults in the room ruined her childhood or wtte - a position which does not hold up to scrutiny. Ironic she then advocates others to 'unite behind the science' ...
.

So apparently those screamers are allowed to hold 'opinions' but the rest of us poor scmucks are not allowed to and most tow the party line? Oh and no criticisism of any of that either?

Yup sounds legit ...

hetuzozaho

Her New Year tweet. She has had quite the year! Some cool pictures

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1212105430215860224

Unite behind the science!

gozunda

Harry Palmr wrote: »

edit - I just saw you reply above. suicide_circus

This, unfortunately is the sort of reporting that gives everyone a bad name.
...
it is deliberately framed as a "worst case" scenario but the Guardian/Observer doesn't make that clear at all, indeed it quite obviously states that the events will happen.

They should have been pulled up on this article at the time.

I would agree tbh. And thats the type of 'worst case scenarios' the Guardian regularly comes up with

It remains the Guardian is one of the principle climate alarmist media sources out there. I would take anything they report on with a bucket of salt. And no that's not denying climate change btw. 

Notably a Guardian editorial in 2019 announced they were altering their use of climate related language allegedly to be more "scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue 

Phrases mandated for use in Guardian media articles include:

global heating instead of global warming

greenhouse gas emissions instead of carbon dioxide emissions

fish populations instead of fish stocks

And my favourite

wildlife instead of biodiversity

Because they felt that "wildlife is a much more accessible word and is fair to use in many stories, and is a bit less clinical when talking about all the creatures with whom we share the planet."

Excuse my french but that's as scientifically precise as my rear end.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment

AlekSmart

Deleted User wrote: »

You're not making a great case as to why people should be harangued into paying attention to the girl.

Maybe her condition would be better managed by not placing her as the focus of a slick, shadily-funded and tightly-managed publicity campaign.....oh

I have personal and very close familial experience of Aspbergers,and I share your concerns at how Ms Thunberg's highly individual state of mind is being utilised to push the agenda which she herself fixated upon over 5 years ago.

Mr Thunberg's BBC interview allows a small chink of light to shine upon the issue of his daughter's preoccupation with the Climate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50901789

Speaking to Husain as part of the show, Mr Thunberg said his daughter had struggled with depression for "three or four years" before she began her school strike.

"She stopped talking... she stopped going to school," he said.

He added that it was the "ultimate nightmare for a parent" when Greta began refusing to eat.

To help her get better, Mr Thunberg spent more time with Greta and her younger sister, Beata, at their home in Sweden. Greta's mother, opera singer and former Eurovision Song Contest participant Malena Ernman, cancelled contracts so the whole family could be together.

With Ms Thunberg's direct action beginning in September 2018,it would seem that her overall mental state was very fragile for quite a substantial period before fame was brought into play.

It appears that the Aspbergers diagnosis was seperate to her depression.

Whilst Depression and Aspbergers are not necessarily complimentary with each other,but it would be of interest to know what specific factors contributed towards Greta's depression.

There is a telling,and possibly foreboding quote from Mr Thunberg towards the end of the BBC interview...

He added that as Greta turns 17 soon, she will no longer need to be accompanied on her travels.

"If she needs me there, I'll try to do it," he said. "But I think she'll be, more and more, going to do it by herself which is great."

It is open to conjecture whether the influence of her parents has been a deciding factor in Ms Thunberg's campaign,but it is also now somewhat clearer that political groupings are very much embedded in the Skolstrejk för klimatet movement.

Personally,as somebody who has shared an Aspbergers life,I would be VERY reluctant to take any Political involvement at face value.
I would be quite fearful for an adolescent Aspbergers person's wellbeing as they move into truly independent adulthood being clasped ever closer to a Political bosom.

It may well be that Greta's preoccupation with Climate Change was totally random,or then again,was her known intellectual predisposition targetted and manipulated so she could become the "Face" of Climate Activism ?

20Cent

They can't debate Greta on the science so have to attack her personally.

jackboy

20Cent wrote: »

They can't debate Greta on the science so have to attack her personally.

Greta has never debated anyone on the science.

AlekSmart

20Cent wrote: »

They can't debate Greta on the science so have to attack her personally.

The Scientific "debate" on the Climate Change issue has long been happening,and continues to happen,at it's own rather stately Scientific level.

Climate Change debate has been going on long before Greta Thunberg was born,and it will continue long after she,and the rest of us,depart this world.

However,Ms Thunberg's particular contention appears to be, that this debate has continued for long enough,and the time has come to guillotine it and move on to her particular forms of direct action.

Ms Thunberg herself,for a variety of reasons,prefers a lecture style of interaction and does not appear comfortable with debating her views to any great degree.

As her father points out,her condition alows her a degree of comprehension and appreciation somewhat different to other participants in the debate,but that same condition also dismisses contrarians and their views almost offhandedly.

Mr Thunberg said. Greta was diagnosed with Asperger's - a form of autism - aged 12, something she has said allows her to "see things from outside the box".

Mainstream politics is littered with the remains of "Outside the box" thinkers,Scientific,Social and Political,many of whom simply did'nt have the understanding of basic Human Nature required to keep their views afloat and functioning.

It remains to be seen whether the adult Greta Thunberg will develop this understanding,and perhaps refine her view of greater Human Society to encompass the diversity and disparity levels which are a prerequisite for reasoned debate,scientific or otherwise ?

20Cent

jackboy wrote: »

Greta has never debated anyone on the science.

Maybe debate was the wrong word. Mean argue against her points rather than a formal type debate.

offered and answered manys the time in this thread

this thread focuses on why greta was chosen (and it's transparent to many that she *is* the choice of those directing this movement, this fantasy of her as an organic figurehead is balderdash) and any attempt to question which characteristics of hers made her suitable for this role is habitually shouted down in the manner above.

the steering of the thread into arguments about communism/free money/denialism & purity tests/"how could you, she's A CHILD/AUTISTIC/JUST WANTS TO SAVE THE WORLD/JUST POINTS TO THE SCIENCE" seem to me to be just as transparent in their attempts to remove focus on this important question.

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Scientific "debate" on the Climate Change issue has long been happening,and continues to happen,at it's own rather stately Scientific level.

Climate Change debate has been going on long before Greta Thunberg was born,and it will continue long after she,and the rest of us,depart this world.

However,Ms Thunberg's particular contention appears to be, that this debate has continued for long enough,and the time has come to guillotine it and move on to her particular forms of direct action.

Ms Thunberg herself,for a variety of reasons,prefers a lecture style of interaction and does not appear comfortable with debating her views to any great degree.

As her father points out,her condition alows her a degree of comprehension and appreciation somewhat different to other participants in the debate,but that same condition also dismisses contrarians and their views almost offhandedly.



Mainstream politics is littered with the remains of "Outside the box" thinkers,Scientific,Social and Political,many of whom simply did'nt have the understanding of basic Human Nature required to keep their views afloat and functioning.

It remains to be seen whether the adult Greta Thunberg will develop this understanding,and perhaps refine her view of greater Human Society to encompass the diversity and disparity levels which are a prerequisite for reasoned debate,scientific or otherwise ?

excellently put

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Agree and I say that as a paid up member of the climate change debate, unfortunately those who seek to make ideological capital out of this matter are greatly undermining their own cause. The article is what it is and nothing else.

Rather more pressing is the here and now rather than prognostication about the future or arguments about whether an ice core is truly representative of climate at previous juncture.

To wit - is Australia about to become the first developed economy to be made measurably poorer by climate change induced weather events. The whole continent is now tinder dry and will be until our summer/their winter at the earliest. By which point whole swaths of the most populated/income generating part of the country could be smoldering with populations uprooted and economic chains disrupted (esp with regard to the tourist trade - come to Australia and breath the smoke!)

Australia was drier during the federation drought 100 years ago. It's just more populated now

mandrake04

These bushfires are nothing new, current fires have burned through 3.6 million Hectares over the last 5-6 weeks.

Black Thursday 1851 burned 5 million Hectares in a single day, that was 1/4 of Victoria and killed 1 million sheep and '000s of cattle. (4 people I think died) gone overnight.

The biggest problem is fuel load, a wet winter followed by hot dry summer and then missed opportunities to reduce the Hazard due to warm winds. People are quick to exploit politics suit themselves but it really comes down to it it was poor timing and the horse had bolted before it was managed.

sk8erboii

mandrake04 wrote: »

These bushfires are nothing new, current fires have burned through 3.6 million Hectares over the last 5-6 weeks.

Black Thursday 1851 burned 5 million Hectares in a single day, that was 1/4 of Victoria and killed 1 million sheep and '000s of cattle. (4 people I think died) gone overnight.

The biggest problem is fuel load, a wet winter followed by hot dry summer and then missed opportunities to reduce the Hazard due to warm winds. People are quick to exploit politics suit themselves but it really comes down to it it was poor timing and the horse had bolted before it was managed.

500,000 million animals dead so far. Im sure thats all natural

Lillydee

Go Greta!

mandrake04

sk8erboii wrote: »

500,000 million animals dead so far. Im sure thats all natural

As far as bushfires go it doesn't discriminate.

mandrake04

mandrake04 wrote: »

As far as bushfires go it doesn't discriminate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/11312694

Worth a read. The drought conditions in Australia are nothing new. Drought is the normal there. Difference is of the federation drought occurred today it would be worse. Not because if climate change but because of increased agriculture and population. But it's easier to say it's our fault and we should pay more taxes rather than point out endless population growth and the wasteful consumer economy

mandrake04

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/11312694

Worth a read. The drought conditions in Australia are nothing new. Drought is the normal there. Difference is of the federation drought occurred today it would be worse. Not because if climate change but because of increased agriculture and population. But it's easier to say it's our fault and we should pay more taxes rather than point out endless population growth and the wasteful consumer economy

Bushfires are very important to Australia's ecosystem it helps with biological diversity, many species depend on fire to regenerate that wouldn't thrive without burning the top cover. Fire depends on climatic conditions (dry/drought) and the weather (hot/wind). This is natural cycle that happens every so often, sometimes small fires sometimes large fires. But by nature a lot of species of plants are very combustible.

If you didn't have drought then you don't have favorable conditions for bushfire's, if you don't have fires they you have an ecosystem that is out of kilter. Been going on for '000s if not millions of years.

Bushfires are bad, but bushfires are also good... got to respect nature.

suicide_circus

sk8erboii wrote: »

500,000 million animals dead so far. Im sure thats all natural

could it be there is more livestock in Australia now than in 1851?

quokula

suicide_circus wrote: »

could it be there is more livestock in Australia now than in 1851?

There are certainly a lot more firefighters and fire defences now than in 1851.

And 1851 was the culmination of peak fire season in February. It's barely the start of regular fire season right now yet these fires have been burning for weeks and are expected to continue to grow next week, which is as far as can be reasonably forecast.

I do wonder what kind of mindset it takes to see so much suffering and to see a country burn, and to immediately start doing the mental gymnastics involved in trying and minimise it and finding some extreme outlier event nearly 200 years ago to imply that it's all completely normal and we should do nothing to try and mitigate it.

is_that_so

Was curious about the whole Australian climate issues, bushfires aside. This seems to offer a reasonable synopsis.

https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_offices/australia/environmental_problems_in_australia/

MrAbyss

Unfulfilled Climate Hysteria down the Orwellian Memory Hole.

is_that_so

MrAbyss wrote: »

Unfulfilled Climate Hysteria down the Orwellian Memory Hole.

Any chance you can turn that cryptic crossword clue into a properly formed English sentence? Save the rest of us having to face yet another YouTube video telling it like it is!

1800_Ladladlad

gozunda

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Thats not the only gig either. Never realised greta had a previous career advertising fruit drinks ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3XCK75EZ0Q

The resemblence is uncanny - even down to lecturing the grown ups ...

gozunda

is_that_so wrote: »

Any chance you can turn that cryptic crossword clue into a properly formed English sentence? Save the rest of us having to face yet another YouTube video telling it like it is!

I believe the poster is referring to the deliberate rewriting of history or at least that which was written as detailed in George Orwells vision of a dystopian future -1984

To be fair I played it and It's just over 3 mintes watching and self explanatory. Worth watching if you are interested ...

The_Conductor

Is Greta officially a spokesperson for Greenpeace- or are they simply propping her up- and if so- why? Surely Greenpeace are able to put forward their own people- many of whom are scientists in their own rights and eminently qualified to talk about whatever it is they choose to talk about? Greta may have appealed to a new generation of school children- the same as others appealed to many of us in the past- but what future does she have as a protestor when her chosen protest (school strikes) has a limited shelf life? Will Greenpeace move onto the next voice of the moment and put their resources behind whatever the next big thing is?

Day 72 today (despite it being a holiday)

drunkmonkey

Well she's 17 today your right she can't play the school child card for much longer. I wonder will she go back or will some woke University just hand her a degree. I'd love to know her and her parents net worth before and after her strike. Her ad revenue alone must have made her a millionaire.

is_that_so

gozunda wrote: »

I believe the poster is referring to the deliberate rewriting of history or at least that which was written as detailed in George Orwells vision of a dystopian future -1984

To be fair I played it and It's just over 3 mintes watching and self explanatory. Worth watching if you are interested ...

I see the Orwell reference but he was a good writer, this poster not so much. Pass on the video thanks as there are already enough YouTube experts and opinions to sink a fleet of oil tankers! Avoiding YouTube is fast becoming my NY resolution! :P