Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.
Options
Comments
-
Rockbeast2 wrote: »Go Nuclear or Go Home!
I'm sneaking off for a nice Indian. With rice AND Naan bread!
Take care.
rb
Indian.... Nuclear.... I think you should most definitely stay at home...
0 -
-
Climate Marxists using children to carry the Soviet flag around Limerick
That is this **** in a nutshell.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Tell me how wrote: ». . . .
Particularly so when the climate activists are motivated by scientific reports. . . .
They don't read any science reports on climate. When challenged they can't even quote the part of the science report that backs up their claims, the material they get sounds "sciency" but they are are only green coloured material authored by the likes of an Taisce.
Take Greta Thunberg, the queen of climate alarmism. We were all waiting to hear what she had to say, so she wisely said almost nothing. She merely tabled the October 2018 IPCC report looking at the small differences between future warming of 0.5 degrees and 1.0 degrees C.
Thunberg told the American congress that they should read this report and that they were not doing enough. She never said what was important in the report, if anything, or what the Americans should be doing that they are not already doing. I am sure she did not want to be cross examined on specific statements and the congress people did not read it either.
I have a dream that the powerful take the climate crisis seriously. The time for their fairytales is overAnd why is it so important to stay below the 1.5 degree limit? Because that is what the united science calls for, to avoid destabilising the climate, so that we stay clear of setting off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control. Even at 1 degree of warming we are seeing an unacceptable loss of life and livelihoods.
source
No science reports support that statement from Greta, that's all in her imagination. In fact the reports show something else entirely.
These people did not arrive at their conclusions from science reports, they got there through the efforts of NGOs pushing fake news.Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
. . . . .as they are always raving about Communists/Marxists etc. - even though nobody here is Marxist/Communist, and nobody in Ireland, outside of Libertarians on Boards perhaps, gets rabid about conspiracy theories involving Communists.
. . . .
Beneath the science veneer and you will find radical far-left enviro-activist types infiltrating the cause and promoting themselves.
Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Pa ElGrande wrote: »They don't read any science reports on climate. When challenged they can't even quote the part of the science report that backs up their claims, the material they get sounds "sciency" but they are are only green coloured material authored by the likes of an Taisce.
Take Greta Thunberg, the queen of climate alarmism. We were all waiting to hear what she had to say, so she wisely said almost nothing. She merely tabled the October 2018 IPCC report looking at the small differences between future warming of 0.5 degrees and 1.0 degrees C.
Thunberg told the American congress that they should read this report and that they were not doing enough. She never said what was important in the report, if anything, or what the Americans should be doing that they are not already doing. I am sure she did not want to be cross examined on specific statements and the congress people did not read it either.
I have a dream that the powerful take the climate crisis seriously. The time for their fairytales is over
No science reports support that statement from Greta, that's all in her imagination. In fact the reports show something else entirely.
These people did not arrive at their conclusions from science reports, they got there through the efforts of NGOs pushing fake news.
I have never in my life read a scientific study about the effects of smoking.
Should I therefore not have an opinion on the harm cigarettes do?
The vast majority of climate scientists, NASA, IPCC have have provided the science.
Most people are not qualified or have the time to read first hand scientific studies.
It is however really easy to trawl the internet to find alternative narratives.
I will continue to listen to the experts on this issue, not infowars or fox news.0 -
Pa ElGrande wrote: »They don't read any science reports on climate. When challenged they can't even quote the part of the science report that backs up their claims, the material they get sounds "sciency" but they are are only green coloured material authored by the likes of an Taisce.
Take Greta Thunberg, the queen of climate alarmism. We were all waiting to hear what she had to say, so she wisely said almost nothing. She merely tabled the October 2018 IPCC report looking at the small differences between future warming of 0.5 degrees and 1.0 degrees C.
Thunberg told the American congress that they should read this report and that they were not doing enough. She never said what was important in the report, if anything, or what the Americans should be doing that they are not already doing. I am sure she did not want to be cross examined on specific statements and the congress people did not read it either.
I have a dream that the powerful take the climate crisis seriously. The time for their fairytales is over
No science reports support that statement from Greta, that's all in her imagination. In fact the reports show something else entirely.
These people did not arrive at their conclusions from science reports, they got there through the efforts of NGOs pushing fake news.
I have never in my life read a scientific study about the effects of smoking.
Should I therefore not have an opinion on the harm cigarettes do?
The vast majority of climate scientists, NASA, IPCC have have provided the science.
Most people are not qualified or have the time to read first hand scientific studies.
It is however really easy to trawl the internet to find alternative narratives.
I will continue to listen to the experts on this issue, not infowars or fox news.
The cause/effect relationship of smoking is a ridiculous comparison to the cause/effect relationship of carbon and climate. One would have to be simplistic to make such a comparison.Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis
0 -
I have never in my life read a scientific study about the effects of smoking.
Should I therefore not have an opinion on the harm cigarettes do?
Your analogy failed because Greta tells you to listen to the scientists and gives you a report to read which it turns out does NOT support her catastrophic claims.
No reputable scientist supports Gretas catastrophism and it is likely they are disgusted that their work is being claimed as the basis to make such outrageous statements that in turn undermines their credibility. Wherever they originate Gretas claims are not based on science.
This is about the left side of politics wanting a revolution based on CAGW or at least capturing enough mind share to have these children in ten years all voting in a socialist government.
Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
Pa ElGrande wrote: »Your analogy failed because Greta tells you to listen to the scientists and gives you a report to read which it turns out does NOT support her catastrophic claims.
No reputable scientist supports Gretas catastrophism and it is likely they are disgusted that their work is being claimed as the basis to make such outrageous statements that in turn undermines their credibility. Wherever they originate Gretas claims are not based on science.
This is about the left side of politics wanting a revolution based on CAGW or at least capturing enough mind share to have these children in ten years all voting in a socialist government.
Greta is not important, and everyone knows she is not a scientists and she has never claimed to be a scientist.
She is simply raising awareness, and promoting the IPCC reports.
Everything else is just noise, but it is the thing people that who don't want to accept climate change is a problem latch onto.
It is easy to ridicule what you call alarmism, but the world is undoubtedly facing a huge crisis caused by climate change.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CXmvVtybgM
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement