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

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

If you can't deduce that Irish and British people live pretty much the exact same lifestyles youre not thinking things through but i suspect youre being deliberately obtuse.

Perhaps you can back up your claim with proper statistics if you’re so confident?

Thelonious Monk

So you can't use your common sense and knowledge of the world to come to the conclusion that your average westerner UK Irish whatever pollutes far more than your average poor African?

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you can't use your common sense and knowledge of the world to come to the conclusion that your average westerner UK Irish whatever pollutes far more than your average poor African?

So you can't back up your claim? Africa is a continent, not a country. Are there no people there enjoying a life style similar to their western counterparts?

Fr_Dougal

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you can't use your common sense and knowledge of the world to come to the conclusion that your average westerner UK Irish whatever pollutes far more than your average poor African?

South Africa produces more co2 than the UK, that’s a scientific fact.

You’re putting forward your assumptions as fact, you’re literally making things up as you go along. Greta wouldn’t be happy with you.

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You do realise that Irish people such as ourselves pollute far more than Africans and Indians? Not sure about Chinese.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/05/britain-annual-carbon-emissions-overtake-africa-two-weeks-oxfam

I would assume we have a similar footprint to the Brits.

Just because nations have millions of people living in abject poverty to lower the ‘per capita’ emissions does not mean that those countries are doing better, im sure if we made 3/4 of ireland struggle to feed themselves and live in huts we would appear as a green country too.

The issue becomes if any measures are taken to bring those people out of poverty that the method by which those not in poverty survive (coal power etc..) would be replicated exacerbating the problem to no end.

The western world is at peak ‘not in poverty’ , anything we do forms a scaled emissions decrease, africa and asia have to not only reform to lower emissions but also keep current levels of poverty or increase them. Its twice as big and teice as important a task to forge a clean path forward for those regions.

Thelonious Monk

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you can't back up your claim? Africa is a continent, not a country. Are there no people there enjoying a life style similar to their western counterparts?

I would imagine there are plenty of wealthy people in Africa who enjoy a Western style lifestyle. For the most part they are dirt poor. So on average they pollute far far less than we do.
I could post some links but what's the point, google pollution per capita if you're interested, you'll see most African countries way down the list.
On the other hand Ireland are pretty bad -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-has-third-highest-emissions-of-greenhouse-gas-in-eu-1.3998041

3rd highest in EU, apparently.

Thelonious Monk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Just because nations have millions of people living in abject poverty to lower the ‘per capita’ emissions does not mean that those countries are doing better, im sure if we made 3/4 of ireland struggle to feed themselves and live in huts we would appear as a green country too.

Nope we don't want to go back to living in huts and struggling to feed ourselves, we just need to change our current way of life which is wasteful and hell bent on consumerism. I know you never want to change anything and never will, so I don't even know why you post on these threads.
If you're worried about taxes, the Gov are doing f*ck all regarding climate change, so you can relax.

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Nope we don't want to go back to living in huts and struggling to feed ourselves, we just need to change our current way of life which is wasteful and hell bent on consumerism. I know you never want to change anything and never will, so I don't even know why you post on these threads.
If you're worried about taxes, the Gov are doing f*ck all regarding climate change, so you can relax.

I never said we had to go back to living in huts, my point is that is the only way asia and africa keep their ‘lower emissions per capita’ argument people keep trotting out.

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I would imagine there are plenty of wealthy people in Africa who enjoy a Western style lifestyle. For the most part they are dirt poor. So on average they pollute far far less than we do.
I could post some links but what's the point, google pollution per capita if you're interested, you'll see most African countries way down the list.
On the other hand Ireland are pretty bad -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-has-third-highest-emissions-of-greenhouse-gas-in-eu-1.3998041

3rd highest in EU, apparently.

You're doing an awful lot of assuming and imagining very little in the way of facts tbh.
Actually being poor would have the opposite effect to what you imagine. A wealthy person can afford efficient machines, method of heat etc. Whereas a poor person not so much.
For example here in Ireland a person with means can buy a highly efficient hybrid or electric car whereas someone on minimum wage can't. It's not rocket science.

Guy:Incognito

Grab All Association wrote: »

career peaked in the 1970s?



What exactly has his race and gender got to do with this? There's plenty of black men, white women, black women, asians etc in the world who think the whole thing is a hoax or skeptical.

Why is he going vegan (for January or a couple of days a week, the article is on the last page, where your quote comes from) "for the planet" if it's all a hoax?

Maybe hes just a ****e talker that says different things when it suits him?

Guy:Incognito

gozunda wrote: »

I do not believe Ms Ms Henderson was 'whinging' or even as you said 'taking the moral high ground'. The statement in the article came from a friend and colleague of hers. The point was not about 'defending' strangers either - no idea where that was pulled from. The point of the comment as a reply was about contrasting social media commentary.

Regarding the last paragraph - the quiz presenter did not mention anything about a "16 year old" btw. But are you seriously suggesting that Ms Henderdon was lying / pretending she didnt know of what activist had written what book - really?

I never said she was the one whinging. I meant people on here going on about it.


I never said she was lying. I said laughing at a stupid answer was grand.

Just checked the clip again, fair enough they dont say 16 year old but the question is swedish climate change activist. How many of those does anyone know. Even without swedish I'd say the vast majority of peoples first answer would be greta thunberg. The point stands that anyone with a passing interest in what's going on in the world knows about her. Even the odd glance at the news over the last few months. Regardless , it was a funny clip and getting your nose out of joint on her behalf for a funny name change joke on Twitter is ridiculous.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

Interesting you mention Curie. In 1903, she was originally not nominated for the Nobel prize in physics while her male colleagues were. A Nobel committee member stepped in and she was rightfully included in the nomination.

Some similarities for both ladies in many not wanting to acknowledge the value of their efforts.

I'd say the pages of boards would have been full of the same 'PC gone mad' posts we see today had it been around then.

Also, you do realise that Greta still has time to achieve an undergraduate degree by a similar age to both Curie and Pasteur.

You stated in your last post why would she bother. Which is it? She doesn’t seem to put a lot of faith in schooling so far.

KyussB

weldoninhio wrote: »

Where to start with such nonsense.

Why isn’t she committed to staying in school/college where she could study and perhaps discover a ‘solution’ to such a vast problem?? She’s decided that the Homer Simpson “can’t someone else do it” approach is best.

Her “sensible message” that the world is going to die in ten years?? The one that the IPCC have slapped down numerous times??

Her humour? That’s a new one on me. Practicing what she preaches? How many people have had to fly around the world to pilot these yachts she’s used??

The remaining problem preventing adequate action on climate change is political - as the needed solutions for getting us on the right path are already known - and Greta has succeeded enormously in advancing the political support for proper solutions.

This is why people hate her and condescend towards her - because she has already succeeded, and people are afraid of her successes, because it threatens their politics - that's why the response to Greta is so rabid and petty.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I would imagine there are plenty of wealthy people in Africa who enjoy a Western style lifestyle. For the most part they are dirt poor. So on average they pollute far far less than we do.
I could post some links but what's the point, google pollution per capita if you're interested, you'll see most African countries way down the list.On the other hand Ireland are pretty bad -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-has-third-highest-emissions-of-greenhouse-gas-in-eu-1.3998041
3rd highest in EU, apparently.

Jeez but your comments have a gra for continously having a go at Ireland

Facts are many African counties have significant numbers of well off & middle class. Many many more are poor but not all by any means. Take a look at the World book stats if you are in any doubt.

One of the problems with per capita footprints is that any country can have large amounts of really nasty polluting industries producing huge amounts of greenhouse emissions - but - where there is a very large population - those figures start to shrink to the point that the impact of those industries with regard to emissions apparently vanish.

Looking at overall carbon production provides a much more accurate picture tbh.

For example comparing countries directly - we have South Africa which produces more carbon emissions than the UK and is the single biggest emitter of same on the whole continent of Africa contributing a total of some 1.09 % of the worlds Carbon dioxide emissions

And then we have Ireland (Apparently 3rd highest ghgs in Europe) which is responsible for approx just 0.11 % of the worlds share of carbon dioxide emissions. A significant share which comes from our exports.

And yet countries like Ireland which are dependant on exports get marked down as having high per capita emissions simply because those who consume those exports in other countries do not have to account for them.

As many African countries economies continue to grow - then their own carbon footprints will rise expotentially even if they move to relatively clean energy production.

And where does that leave us? Are we fuked because we have the misfortune to be an Island nation? Do we tell other countries then cant sell and export goods because that will look bad on the per capita balance sheet?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Jeez but your comments have a gra for continously having a go at Ireland

Facts are many African counties have significant numbers of well off & middle class. Many many more are poor but not all by any means. Take a look at the World book stats if you are in any doubt.

One of the problems with per capita footprints is that any country can have large amounts of really nasty polluting industries producing huge amounts of greenhouse emissions - but - where there is a very large population - those figures start to shrink to the point that the impact of those industries with regard to emissions apparently vanish.

Looking at overall carbon production provides a much more accurate picture tbh.

For example comparing countries directly - we have South Africa which produces more emissions than the UK and is the single biggest emitter of ghgs on the whole continent of Africa and which contributes some 1.09 % of the worlds Carbon dioxide emissions

And then we have Ireland (Apparently 3rd highest ghgs in Europe) which is responsible for approx just 0.11 % of the worlds share of carbon dioxide emissions. A significant share which comes from our exports.

And yet countries like Ireland which are dependant on exports get marked down as having high per capita emissions simply because those who consume those exports in other countries do not have to account for them.

As many African countries economies continue to grow - then their own carbon footprints will rise expotentially even if they move to relatively clean energy production.

And where does that leave us?

With the need to act.
As Greta is saying over and over.

Your suggestion is, there's no point, where will that leave us?

The_Conductor

gozunda wrote: »

And yet countries like Ireland which are dependant on exports get marked down as having high per capita emissions simply because those who consume those exports in other countries do not have to account for them.

How come countries like Norway who have massive exports of oil and gas- don't have to account for their exports- but Ireland- who exports beef- does? Surely the emissions should be enumerated at the point of consumption- or production- but not a hybrid model that lets one country off scott free but hammers the other?

Eric Cartman

The_Conductor wrote: »

How come countries like Norway who have massive exports of oil and gas- don't have to account for their exports- but Ireland- who exports beef- does? Surely the emissions should be enumerated at the point of consumption- or production- but not a hybrid model that lets one country off scott free but hammers the other?

a solid marketing lobby, that and beefs emissions output is at production, extraction of oil and gas isnt really an issue for the environment , its more refining and use which is done in the country of consumption.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

With the need to act.As Greta is saying over and over.
Your suggestion is, there's no point, where will that leave us?

Christ give poor greta a break. You have her worn out with the constant blatherings of - if greta this and greta the other.

Fact is greta is a kid who reckons the civilisation is going tits up quite shortly and that all the adults in the room runed her childhood or wtte. She repeats information she has no understanding of whatsoever. She's about much use to the issues of climate change as a chocolate teapot -- neither she nor the teapot have the potential too last too long and are without substance

A question - if greta is so great at making people being woke - how come her ardent fans are apparently clueless regarding these issues?

Btw my suggestion is not that "there is no point" :rolleyes: so do try at least once and not misinterpret absolutely everything you read ok ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Christ give poor greta a break. You have her worn out with the constant blatherings of - if greta this and greta the other.

Fact is greta is a kid who reckons the civilisation is going tits up quite shortly and that all the adults in the room runed her childhood or wtte. She repeats information she has no understanding of whatsoever. She's about much use to the issues of climate change as a chocolate teapot -- neither have the potential too last too long and are without substance

A question - if greta is so great at making people being woke - how come her ardent fans are apparently clueless regarding these issues?

Btw my suggestion is not that "there is no point" :rolleyes: so do try at least once and not misinterpret absolutely everything you read ok ...

Yep, nothing. As always.

suicide_circus

gozunda

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I never said she was the one whinging. I meant people on here going on about it.I never said she was lying. I said laughing at a stupid answer was grand.
Just checked the clip again, fair enough they dont say 16 year old but the question is swedish climate change activist. How many of those does anyone know. Even without swedish I'd say the vast majority of peoples first answer would be greta thunberg. The point stands that anyone with a passing interest in what's going on in the world knows about her. Even the odd glance at the news over the last few months. Regardless , it was a funny clip and getting your nose out of joint on her behalf for a funny name change joke on Twitter is ridiculous.

So sorry are you still saying Ms Henderson just pretended not to know who greta was?

Looking at the clip the girl was certainly not being disingenuous imo.

Im afraid you're the one tieing yourself in knots over a simple comment about someone being told to kill themselves because she got some some swedish kids name wrong - its fairly pathetic if you cant see that. But no matter...

gozunda

The_Conductor wrote: »

How come countries like Norway who have massive exports of oil and gas- don't have to account for their exports- but Ireland- who exports beef- does? Surely the emissions should be enumerated at the point of consumption- or production- but not a hybrid model that lets one country off scott free but hammers the other?

Good question. Something I've been pointing out for some time.

Tell me how

She's just doing it for attention they say.
She just wants it to be about her they say.
Meanwhile.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1214150289378435072

is_that_so

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you can't use your common sense and knowledge of the world to come to the conclusion that your average westerner UK Irish whatever pollutes far more than your average poor African?

I'm not sure Africans would take kindly to being lumped into a homogeneous blob!

gozunda

is_that_so wrote: »

I'm not sure Africans would take kindly to being lumped into a homogeneous blob!

Agree. I think it quite hilarious that there are those whose ideas appear to be predicated solely on Trocaire Adverts and similar.

Africa has a growing entrepreneurial culture and many countries on the continent have rapidly expanding education and professional sectors

There may be a range of issues (not unlike many other parts of the world ) but anyone thinking that its all poverty and foreign aid needs a serious wake up.

Interesting read here.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mfonobongnsehe/2018/08/27/meet-the-38-year-old-entrepreneur-who-built-a-1-billion-oil-company-in-ghana/

Tell me how

Econometrics wrote: »

What evidence is that there that humans are causing significant changes in the climate?

IPCC Summary report

Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure
SPM.1) {1.2}

Econometrics wrote: »

Predictions were made 100 years ago and numerous times since then of climate catastrophe which never happened.

You do realise that there have been one or two scientific and technological advances over the last 100 years or so leading to more awareness and more accurate forecasting?

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

IPCC Summary report





You do realise that there have been one or two scientific and technological advances over the last 100 years or so leading to more awareness and more accurate forecasting?

Human activities are ESTIMATED.

estimated
[ verb es-tuh-meyt; noun es-tuh-mit, -meyt ]
SEE DEFINITION OF estimated
adj.supposed
Synonyms for estimated

predicted
approximated
guessed at

Tell me how

Econometrics wrote: »

On what basis do you believe the forecasting is accurate?

On the basis that scientific participants from 170 countries and organisations have contributed to this report.

On the basis that 97% of the scientific community agree that it is so.

On what basis do you believe it is inaccurate?

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

IPCC Summary report





You do realise that there have been one or two scientific and technological advances over the last 100 years or so leading to more awareness and more accurate forecasting?

Still using that flawed report as your single source of scientific research?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111457977&postcount=5537

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Still using that flawed report as your single source of scientific research?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111457977&postcount=5537

Yep. As long as the scientific community are in support of it, I will be happy to do so.

What do you want to use?