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

SafeSurfer

batgoat wrote: »

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Do not resort to insults. If you disagree with someones opinion state why you disagree.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

More hyper intellectual analysis.

Can't really disagree on it, he's resorted to mock Thunberg about how she speaks in English(second language). Previous nonsense that he's pushed is that Savile victims should not come forward and should keep it in the past. So he's a man known for controversial and outrageous statements so he can get more airtime.

What do you expect the author of a book called “Duty to Offend” to say?

Making outrageous statements is from the Thunberg playbook. “I want you to panic”.

Tell me how

bubblypop wrote: »

I do, I was well aware of climate change when I was younger & I believe kids today are a lot more clued in then I was.

You don't seem clued in about it now. I find it hard to believe you were any more informed as a child.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You don't seem clued in about it now. I find it hard to believe you were any more informed as a child.

What makes you think I don't know about climate change?
Just because I don't believe a child is teaching anybody anything has no connection to what I know or don't know about it.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

You don't seem clued in about it now. I find it hard to believe you were any more informed as a child.

I don’t know TMH why there’s an assumption that if people aren’t talking about something, either they’re unaware of it or they aren’t clued in about it. Most people are, but they’re just not that concerned about it. It’s not a priority for them like it is I suppose for Greta and her supporters.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

What about the 1.4M students who joined her in protesting? Do you think they were all as clued in before Greta starting getting her message across?

I'd suggest the bulk of them are typical kids who like to get a day off school. Kids bunking off school for various popular causes is not usual. It happened when I was in school and that wasn't yesterday. I even remember ernest discussions about how the planet was being destroyed and even studying the science of human impact on the environment. So imo - no the majority of ordinary people do not need to hear Ms Thungbeg screaming that we should panic and the world is about to end etc to know what is actually going on.

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you understand the principle of changing behaviors through financial or legal penalties?
Example a = plastic bag tax
Example b = smoking in workplace ban

Hang on a sec - are you now seriously suggesting that financial penalties are the solution? Well that's perfect because then there is really no need to get people to change their ways by "getting her message across"(sic) . Just tax them into oblivion - that should teach them eh?

Here's a suggestion for greta and all those school kids to really make a positive contribution to the issue of climate change. Unfortunately for them it will mean no more bunking off school or spending vast amounts of time on social media ...

Climate strikers of the world, I am therefore sorry to say so, but you have little to expect from your governments. You can keep on striking and marching in the streets for as long as you want, that won’t bring you what you hope for.

This does not mean, however, that you cannot influence the course of history in a way that may, if not avert or reverse but at least contain the climate chaos you’re going to have to face. You can. And you probably should.

Here is how: in addition to your “climate strike”, or as a substitute to it if or when you get frustrated of being denied the kind of change you want, embark with all the strength and enthusiasm of your youth on an “energy diet”. A big, fat, relentless and endless energy diet. Not only on Fridays, but every single day of the week, 365 days per year, for the rest of your life.

https://paularbair.wordpress.com/2019/03/21/a-modest-suggestion-for-the-worlds-climate-strikers/

ILoveYourVibes

Is she doing ok?

gozunda

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Is she doing ok?

On social media today like a pig in ****e. She has her own dedicated media guy with her to help publicise the journey ...

Otherwise

According to the captain of the vessel Boris Hermann*

On Friday the boat, which is a high-speed planing monohull built for the 2016-17 single-handed, non-stop round-the-world Vendée Globe race, had “experienced uncomfortable conditions and everyone is feeling a bit seasick but nothing too bad or unexpected”, Herrmann tweeted on Friday.

Or according to Gretas tweets

Eating and sleeping well and no sea sickness so far. Life on Malizia II is like camping on a roller coaster!

Who knows

*https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/greta-thunberg-four-days-into-atlantic-crossing

joe40

It really is amazing the amount of people that downplay or refuse to accept the opinions of the vast majority of scientists engaged in climate research.
I don't claim to understand all the science but I'm also pretty sure very few here do. Watching youtube clips doesn't count.

Quite simply if I was going to cross a Bridge and 100 engineers told me it was dangerous, but one said it was fine they're just scaremongering, I would find an alternative route.

This anti science, narrative at play in large sections of the public is quite alarming.

Blueshoe

joe40 wrote: »

It really is amazing the amount of people that downplay or refuse to accept the opinions of the vast majority of scientists engaged in climate research.
I don't claim to understand all the science but I'm also pretty sure very few here do. Watching youtube clips doesn't count.

Quite simply if I was going to cross a Bridge and 100 engineers told me it was dangerous, but one said it was fine they're just scaremongering, I would find an alternative route.

This anti science, narrative at play in large sections of the public is quite alarming.

Engineers built and or designed the bridge.

joe40

Blueshoe wrote: »

Engineers built and or designed the bridge.

I know, I don't get your point

vladmydad

jackboy wrote: »

I’m not saying that there is nothing happening. It is highly likely that we are having an impact on the climate. We are years away from knowing the extent, consequences and what if anything has to be done about it.

The climate change issue has gone far beyond something to be studied and understood and is now in he realms of religion. Most of what we see and hear in the media is closer to religious doctrine than scientific fact. Greta has good intentions but if you listen her language is clearly religious rather than scientific.

It’s truly disturbing. I was just on Twitter and Jesus, all the establishment leftists like Philip bowcher Hayes (or whatever he’s called) are highly offended on Greta’s behalf. How dare anyone question the sailing stunt. Apparently it makes you an alt right Nazi. There’s no question this ”climate emergency” has truly become cultish.

Blueshoe

joe40 wrote: »

I know, I don't get your point

That's ok.

gozunda

joe40 wrote: »

It really is amazing the amount of people that downplay or refuse to accept the opinions of the vast majority of scientists engaged in climate research.
I don't claim to understand all the science but I'm also pretty sure very few here do. Watching youtube clips doesn't count.Quite simply if I was going to cross a Bridge and 100 engineers told me it was dangerous, but one said it was fine they're just scaremongering, I would find an alternative route.
This anti science, narrative at play in large sections of the public is quite alarming.

Greta isn't a scientist. She has taken to telling everyone we should all go "panic" because the world is ending in 12 years or something - even though at least one IPCC scientist said that was not the case ...

I think that and many people believe the whole greta yacthing thing is a bit of a media stunt.

Quite simply if I was crossing a bridge and a kid bunking off school told me to swim across the river instead - I would be correct in having some serious doubts about what I was being told by that child ...

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

Greta isn't a scientist. She has taken to telling everyone we should all go "panic" because the world is ending in 12 years or something - even though at least one IPCC scientist said that was not the case ...

I think that and many people believe the whole greta yacthing is a bit of a media stunt.

Quite simply if I was crossing a bridge and a kid bunking off school told me to swim across the river instead - I would be correct in having some serious doubts about what I was being told by that child ...

No one said she was a scientist, and I will accept the greta thing is a for publicity and awareness, but the message is sound.
I never heard anyone say the world would end in 12 years, but there is enough scietific opinion from the IPCC and others for me to accept that we are having a profound and irreversible effect on global climate.
There is no easy answer but growing public awareness is a start.
I get it, some people here do not accept there is any problem, thats your choice, and nothing I say will change your mind.
Its like the people who think meditation or diet will cure their cancer. They're anti science no amount of reason or logic will have any influence.

vladmydad

joe40 wrote: »

No one said she was a scientist, and I will accept the greta thing is a for publicity and awareness, but the message is sound.
I never heard anyone say the world would end in 12 years, but there is enough scietific opinion from the IPCC and others for me to accept that we are having a profound and irreversible effect on global climate.
There is no easy answer but growing public awareness is a start.
I get it, some people here do not accept there is any problem, thats your choice, and nothing I say will change your mind.
Its like the people who think meditation or diet will cure their cancer. They're anti science no amount of reason or logic will have any influence.

What do you want ???? Please tell us for god sakes.

Cause the only thing I’m hearing is tax tax tax

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

It really is amazing the amount of people that downplay or refuse to accept the opinions of the vast majority of scientists engaged in climate research.
I don't claim to understand all the science but I'm also pretty sure very few here do. Watching youtube clips doesn't count.

Quite simply if I was going to cross a Bridge and 100 engineers told me it was dangerous, but one said it was fine they're just scaremongering, I would find an alternative route.

This anti science, narrative at play in large sections of the public is quite alarming.

Did you ever hear the story of The Emperors New Clothes?

This whole campaign isn’t about science at all, it’s entirely about politics.

Engineers don’t belong in your analogy at all, political activists do, the kind of political activists who would throw a child into the river and then try and justify their actions by saying she wanted to swim, and you’re being mean if you point out that she’s drowning.

joe40

vladmydad wrote: »

What do you want ???? Please tell us for god sakes.

Cause the only thing I’m hearing is tax tax tax

We need to move away from reliance on fossil fuels. There will need to be lots of different ideas some may work some won't.

What do you want?? Just continue as we are. Is that the plan.

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Did you ever hear the story of The Emperors New Clothes?

This whole campaign isn’t about science at all, it’s entirely about politics.

Engineers don’t belong in your analogy at all, political activists do, the kind of political activists who would throw a child into the river and try and then try and justify their actions by saying she wanted to swim, and you’re being mean if you point out that she’s drowning.

So the IPCC aren't scientists. This is bigger than greta thurberg.

vladmydad

joe40 wrote: »

We need to move away from reliance on fossil fuels. There will need to be lots of different ideas some may work some won't.

What do you want?? Just continue as we are. Is that the plan.

Yes actually I believe we should do absolutely NOTHING. If the US and China are not cutting emissions the why would a tiny rock do so.

How will the eclectic grid handle millions of electric vehicles and electric heating systems ?? How many billions will that cost. How do We make up for the billions that will be lost to our agricultural sector. What about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be lost in “environmentally unfriendly” industry’s. Do you really believe people will ever give up cheap airfare ? And if more people means more emissions then why the **** do leftists keep push mass immigration ?? And why is our government pushing for another One million people over the next 15 years ?

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

So the IPCC aren't scientists. This is bigger than greta thurberg.

Good lord, nobody is saying the IPCC aren’t scientists. It’s been pointed out time and time again that these issues are bigger than Greta Thunberg. It’s been pointed out time and time again that Greta is simply a child who has no understanding of the issues involved, yet if anyone points out the bleeding obvious, they’re being mean, or they’re somehow intimidated, or some other nonsense to distract from the fact that you just don’t have a very strong case to argue your point of view.

You say we need to move away from fossil fuels for example. We can’t, it’s as simple as that. We depend upon fossil fuels to enjoy our current lifestyles. Renewable energies just cannot provide the amount of energy needed to keep our economy going.

gozunda

joe40 wrote: »

No one said she was a scientist, and I will accept the greta thing is a for publicity and awareness, but the message is sound.I never heard anyone say the world would end in 12 years, but there is enough scietific opinion from the IPCC and others for me to accept that we are having a profound and irreversible effect on global climate.
There is no easy answer but growing public awareness is a start.I get it, some people here do not accept there is any problem, thats your choice, and nothing I say will change your mind.
Its like the people who think meditation or diet will cure their cancer. They're anti science no amount of reason or logic will have any influence.

You opined about people ignoring scientists on a thread about greta. She is not a scientist and no many people dont swallow whats she saying. Her 'message' is anything but sound tbh. Take a read through the thread - plenty of posts giving a good background on this.

Again the 12 years and end of our world thing has already been detailed here. See: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110994998&postcount=749
It was also all over the extinction rebellion movement in the last few months. Theres fek all logic there btw - but some people are just going to ignore that unfortunately.

Of note the majority of people here are not denying anything btw nor are they ' anti science' (sic) from what I've seen here either. What many have done is point on the bullcrsp being peddled on the back of much what is being said by various scientists.

Again I'd suggest taking a proper read of the thread ...

joe40

vladmydad wrote: »

Yes actually I believe we should do absolutely NOTHING. If the US and China are not cutting emissions the why would a tiny rock do so.

How will the eclectic grid handle millions of electric vehicles and electric heating systems ?? How many billions will that cost. How do We make up for the billions that will be lost to our agricultural sector. What about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be lost in “environmentally unfriendly” industry’s. Do you really believe people will ever give up cheap airfare ? And if more people means more emissions then why the **** do leftists keep push mass immigration ?? And why is our government pushing for another One million people over the next 15 years ?

You have raised plenty of legitimate problems to moving away from fossil fuels.
But out of curiosity do you mean we should do nothing because any actions will be ineffective or unworkable.
Or do you mean we should do nothing because fossil fuels aren't a problem and climate change is a hoax.

vladmydad

joe40 wrote: »

You have raised plenty of legitimate problems to moving away from fossil fuels.
But out of curiosity do you mean we should do nothing because any actions will be ineffective or unworkable.
Or do you mean we should do nothing because fossil fuels aren't a problem and climate change is a hoax.

No I believe in science and if it’s indicating that, globally, we need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels then so be it.

What I’m saying is the climate doesn’t discriminate. If Ireland dramatically cuts it’s emissions but China, India Russia Brazil US, continue to increase theirs, the climate doesn’t say “oh wait Ireland did its bit so no extreme weather for them”. That’s ridiculous, we’ll suffer regardless.

And this ridiculous notion by Irish climate campaigners, that if we make an effort then China will follow us lol, are they listening to the west regarding human rights or Hong Kong ??

recedite

vladmydad wrote: »

And this ridiculous notion by Irish climate campaigners, that if we make an effort then China will follow us lol, are they listening to the west regarding human rights or Hong Kong ??

It is a ridiculous notion alright, but that's because China is way ahead of us already.

Some 344 Chinese cities were found to have solar systems producing energy at lower prices than the grid, without any subsidies, according to the research published in the journal Nature Energy.
China has made huge progress in developing solar projects and pledged to invest 2.5 trillion yuan ($367 billion) in renewable power generation — solar, wind, hydro and nuclear — from 2017-2020.

Meanwhile, in Ireland you could go to the trouble and expense of installing solar PV on your own roof, and export that green electricity to the grid, but you wouldn't get paid a cent for it. Because there is no feed-in tariff available. How's that for a disincentive.

Tell me how

vladmydad wrote: »

No I believe in science and if it’s indicating that, globally, we need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels then so be it.

What I’m saying is the climate doesn’t discriminate. If Ireland dramatically cuts it’s emissions but China, India Russia Brazil US, continue to increase theirs, the climate doesn’t say “oh wait Ireland did its bit so no extreme weather for them”. That’s ridiculous, we’ll suffer regardless.

And this ridiculous notion by Irish climate campaigners, that if we make an effort then China will follow us lol, are they listening to the west regarding human rights or Hong Kong ??

By the same logic, no one would pay taxes because some big business pay very little.

Your posts just read as you not wanting to change anything about your life.

No one is suggesting China will copy Ireland as such (bye bye strawman) but if you are a member of an international agreement you should aim to fulfil the responsibilities you signed up to.

suicide_circus

Tell me how wrote: »

By the same logic, no one would pay taxes because some big business pay very little.

Your posts just read as you not wanting to change anything about your life.

No one is suggesting China will copy Ireland as such (bye bye strawman) but if you are a member of an international agreement you should aim to fulfil the responsibilities you signed up to.

on the water charges thread you have people saying they wont pay for excess usage while others are unmetered and can use as much as they want. its the same logic at play here.

Tell me how

vladmydad wrote: »

Yes actually I believe we should do absolutely NOTHING. If the US and China are not cutting emissions the why would a tiny rock do so.

How will the eclectic grid handle millions of electric vehicles and electric heating systems ?? How many billions will that cost. How do We make up for the billions that will be lost to our agricultural sector. What about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be lost in “environmentally unfriendly” industry’s. Do you really believe people will ever give up cheap airfare ? And if more people means more emissions then why the **** do leftists keep push mass immigration ?? And why is our government pushing for another One million people over the next 15 years ?

I'm actually glad you said the part in bold so succinctly and that those posters who thanked it did so because it is exactly the view I suspected most who are complaining about Greta held.

It's inherently and entirely selfish and ignorant of the bigger picture.

The second paragraph of your post is what we need to figure out and what the climate activists are saying will have to be figured out.

Just so you know, less than 10% of jobs which people are doing today existed 100 years ago, things change, they will continue to do so.

PMBC

vladmydad wrote: »

Yes actually I believe we should do absolutely NOTHING. If the US and China are not cutting emissions the why would a tiny rock do so.

How will the eclectic grid handle millions of electric vehicles and electric heating systems ?? How many billions will that cost. How do We make up for the billions that will be lost to our agricultural sector. What about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be lost in “environmentally unfriendly” industry’s. Do you really believe people will ever give up cheap airfare ? And if more people means more emissions then why the **** do leftists keep push mass immigration ?? And why is our government pushing for another One million people over the next 15 years ?

Its a question of living/surviving differently or not surviving. Concentrate on the message not the messenger

Tell me how

suicide_circus wrote: »

on the water charges thread you have people saying they wont pay for excess usage while others are unmetered and can use as much as they want. its the same logic at play here.

Yes, and equally short sighted.

Dakota Dan

Blueshoe wrote: »

It's not the people in Europe I'm talking about.

Worldwide? Last time I checked that included Europe.