Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

So a dodge again.
Lets switch from timeline to temperature: Do you support limiting human greenhouse gas contribution to the global temperature rise, so that it doesn't hit 1.5°C this century? Doesn't hit 2.0°C? 3.0°C? 4.0°C?

Yup that certainly was a dodge from you. Do you think the EU ETS is a 'fraudulent accounting trick"? How about discussing the other issues I raised rather than dodging same and resorting to interrogating other posters ? To put that back at you - why do you believe that gives anyone any insight into anything? Have you actually read the latest IPCC report and if so why are you asking such daft questions? None of your comments make any sense imho.

KyussB

Basically you're dodging the discussion away into a different set of questions - try and drive the discussion into those, instead.

You're the 2nd or 3rd most frequent poster in this thread and the last - and yet nobody knows what your position is, when it comes to the timeline or temperature limits.

My own view would be - optimistically - bringing emission to net zero by 2030 - more likely 2035-40. I'd aim for the 1.5°C target - but we're probably not going to make that, so I wouldn't stop at net zero - I'd go for a hard drive into negative emissions, to try and bring us back to the 1.5°C goal - lets say 2050 at the latest for that.

With a big enough effort worldwide, I'd say it is possible to do this all by 2030-2035 - and most advisable to do it this quickly as well.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Basically you're dodging the discussion away into a different set of questions - try and drive the discussion into those, instead.You're the 2nd or 3rd most frequent poster in this thread and the last - and yet nobody knows what your position is, when it comes to the timeline or temperature limits.
My own view would be - optimistically - bringing emission to net zero by 2030 - more likely 2035-40. I'd aim for the 1.5°C target - but we're probably not going to make that, so I wouldn't stop at net zero - I'd go for a hard drive into negative emissions, to try and bring us back to the 1.5°C goal - lets say 2050 at the latest for that.With a big enough effort worldwide, I'd say it is possible to do this all by 2030-2035 - and most advisable to do it this quickly as well.

Nope. Incorrect. Wrong. The discussion had moved to the logic or otherwise of following gretas rhetoric - why you believe that using net zero carbon emissions are (according to you) a "fraudulent accounting trick". You starting asking daft unrelated questions! And we still no answer?

Re. Any favourite climate emissions reduction scenarios are irrelevant as indicated previously. I take it you are not a climate scientist - so eitherway your or mine preference means nothing. Tbh I really dont care what particular emissions reduction scenario you advocate - I'm going to stick with the actual science thanks!

So to return to the topic of the comment above what do you think of the EU ETS as discussed - re. Is it a "fraudulent accounting trick" as you suggest? If so why do you think that?

KyussB

I'd say that the complete refusal to discuss timelines for net zero scenarios, and for temperature limits, is the perfect marker of someone with no interest in timely action being taken on either issue, and who is (poorly/unsuccessfully) trying to hide that.

Acknowledging the reality of climate change but refusing to accept acting on it to actually stop exceeding well known/published temperature limits and associated carbon budget timelines - that most definitely fits the definition of a climate change denier, as it's a sliding scale which includes people refusing to accept the need for proper/timely action in addressing it.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

I'd say that the complete refusal to discuss timelines for net zero scenarios, and for temperature limits, is the perfect marker of someone with no interest in timely action being taken on either issue, and who is (poorly/unsuccessfully) trying to hide that.Acknowledging the reality of climate change but refusing to accept acting on it to actually stop exceeding well known/published temperature limits and associated carbon budget timelines - that most definitely fits the definition of a climate change denier, as it's a sliding scale which includes people refusing to accept the need for proper/timely action in addressing it.

I would say that the complete refusal to engage with what was being discused and instead trying to fudge the issue by pretending the Spanish inquisition, alleging heriticism & etc - is the perfect marker for those avoiding the topic under discussion and / or cant back up claims such as "net zero" bizarre theories of "fraudulent accounting tricks".

So how about discussing what was asked rather than dodging same and resorting to interrogating other posters in what appears to be some weird type of pissing competition?

I'll ask again - do you think that relevant to the objective of achieving 'net zero' - that the EU ETS is a 'fraudulent accounting trick"? If so why?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

I would say that the complete refusal to engage with what was being discused and instead trying to fudge the issue by pretending the Spanish inquisition, alleging heriticism & etc - is the perfect marker for those avoiding the topic under discussion and / or cant back up claims such as "net zero" bizarre theories of "fraudulent accounting tricks".

So how about discussing what was asked rather than dodging same and resorting to interrogating other posters in what appears to be some weird type of pissing competition?

I'll ask again - do you think that relevant to the objective of achieving 'net zero' - that the EU ETS is a 'fraudulent accounting trick"? If so why?

This from the person who refuses to outline why they have an issue with Greta's efforts (or at least adopt a consistent position in this respect), tried to ensure that the conversation was only about Greta, has questioned the view that human action has impacted negatively on the climate and will not propose any solutions to altering human current norms to result in some productive changes.

I don't think you are in a position to accuse anyone of refusing to engage in a discussion to be fair.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

This from the person who refuses to outline why they have an issue with Greta's efforts (or at least adopt a consistent position in this respect), tried to ensure that the conversation was only about Greta, has questioned the view that human action has impacted negatively on the climate and will not propose any solutions to altering human current norms to result in some productive changes.I don't think you are in a position to accuse anyone of refusing to engage in a discussion to be fair.

Ah I see the Marx brothers

To paraphrase - ^ This from a person who will bide no comment regarding the topic of the thread that is not gushing hero worshiping and insists that everyone is a 'denier' - if they dont believe in greta and her 'message' (that with evident religous overtones)

Despite other posters having not questioned the view that human action has impacted negatively on the climate, but consistently and correctly pointing out unqualified quackery, bs and hyperbole are not 'solutions'. For sure I don't think you are in a position to accuse anyone of refusing to engage in a discussion to be fair.

Now we've got that all clear and out of the way - tell me how (as per the discussion of greta in Davos and 'net zero') - do you believe the EU ETS greenhouse gas emissions management system is a "fraudulent accounting trick"? If so why?

Hi hetuzozaho *waves*

JP Liz V1

When is her biopic with Meryl coming out

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Hi hetuzozaho *waves*

Hi ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Hi ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hey it's our favourite character > Shrugman. Coolio!

¯\_ :pac: _/¯

AlekSmart

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

They've also been sidelined by people engaging in hyperbole (Greta has engaged in some of this herself, but she's only 16), narcissists trying to boost there egos and anarchists.

The whole issue has become so politicised that the science almost gets lost. I don't understand why Greta does not invite an actual climate scientist to travel with her to explain the science. Instead we get the "stole my childhood"-esque speeches.

And yes I do agree with his statement. Not everyone that isn't a Greta fan is a climate skeptic or denier.

At this stage it's more than readily apparent that Greta Thunberg has little control over who get's to travel with her.

The level of control being exercised over her appearances,and the need to ensure that her pronouncements stay close to the original story-line is,however exposing the strains and stresses of keeping tight,effective control on campaigns which become so "popular" as to be effectively uncontrollable.

This conflict,particularly when dealing with Control Centred movements such as Extinction Rebellion,will eventually result in that old Irishism...The Split.

Just as with the "lost" quarter of a million from our own widely followed,and hugely popular Apollo House campaign,the Thunberg's and their backers will eventually be faced with a "Follow The Money" scenario....and that is when things WILL get interesting

The_Conductor

I imagine a lot of her supporters like to imagine that its all some sort of a spontaneous movement- that just happened.
They don't want to accept that there are puppet masters behind the scenes pulling the strings- and that its all stage managed within an inch of its life. Greta is going to be one very unhappy puppy when she steps out of line- and her supporters are going to be incredibly disillusioned...…...

Tell me how

The_Conductor wrote: »

I imagine a lot of her supporters like to imagine that its all some sort of a spontaneous movement- that just happened.
They don't want to accept that there are puppet masters behind the scenes pulling the strings- and that its all stage managed within an inch of its life. Greta is going to be one very unhappy puppy when she steps out of line- and her supporters are going to be incredibly disillusioned...…...

Bit in bold is key here.

• Human behavious is negatively impacting on the climate.
• This is causing a change in the natural environment which is negatively impacting on both humans and wildlife.
• There is a need for action before this becomes irreversible.

Try understanding the facts rather than allowing your imagination to have free reign.

The_Conductor

Tell me how wrote: »

Try understanding the facts rather than allowing your imagination to have free reign.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I do not understand the facts- I am significantly more qualified than you are to discuss the facts. I briefly alluded to this previously in the thread- you also didn't like it then.

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

Bit in bold is key here.

• Human behavious is negatively impacting on the climate.
• This is causing a change in the natural environment which is negatively impacting on both humans and wildlife.
• There is a need for action before this becomes irreversible.

Try understanding the facts rather than allowing your imagination to have free reign.

You should practice what you preach, the bit in bold is key here:

Tell me how wrote: »

Lots of girls her age would have spent a year in transition year. More might have finished high school before taking a gap year and going to Australia and worked in a bar or something.

Greta has sailed across the Atlantic twice, spoken at the EU, UN, HoC and US senate. Attended World Climate forum and Davos World Forum. She has been nominated for the Nobel prize and was named Time person of the year. She has led a movement which resulted in over 10M people protesting to support her cause. And she has drawn the ire of one Donald Trump.
She will likely go to 3rd level education and I expect be enticed to attend and some of the most renowned ones on the planet should she be interested in doing so.

Double standards.

Tell me how

The_Conductor wrote: »

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I do not understand the facts- I am significantly more qualified than you are to discuss the facts. I briefly alluded to this previously in the thread- you also didn't like it then.

Get over yourself. Nothing in the post I quoted had any relationship to a fact.

Care to remind us what your qualifications are? I expect it will be useful to be able to refer some comments from other posters to you for a professional take on them.

KyussB

The_Conductor wrote: »

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I do not understand the facts- I am significantly more qualified than you are to discuss the facts. I briefly alluded to this previously in the thread- you also didn't like it then.

You're not a climate scientist - your opinion carries as much weight as any other person in the thread.

People who use credentialism - especially when their credentials aren't even within the focus of a particular issue - are usually frauds who try to argue from authority - the climate change denial industry is full of such people.


So far, the most useful standard for separating people who are actually serious about climate change, from those on the sliding scale of denialism, is to challenge them to agree to limits:
Would you agree that climate changing emissions should be eliminated (brought to Genuine Net Zero - any remaining emissions offset from within a country by GHG sinks/sequestration, per year), within a timely manner?

Do you support limiting human greenhouse gas contribution to the global temperature rise, so that it doesn't hit 1.5°C this century? Doesn't hit 2.0°C? 3.0°C? 4.0°C?

AlekSmart

Tell me how wrote: »

Lots of girls her age would have spent a year in transition year. More might have finished high school before taking a gap year and going to Australia and worked in a bar or something.

Greta has sailed across the Atlantic twice, spoken at the EU, UN, HoC and US senate. Attended World Climate forum and Davos World Forum. She has been nominated for the Nobel prize and was named Time person of the year. She has led a movement which resulted in over 10M people protesting to support her cause. And she has drawn the ire of one Donald Trump.
She will likely go to 3rd level education and I expect be enticed to attend and some of the most renowned ones on the planet should she be interested in doing so.

And you think she should have stayed in school?....

I suspect that,for many,their affinity for Greta Thunberg and any message she may be carrying is directly linked to her ability to incure Prez Trump's ire.

I'm regularly assured that since EVERYBODY hates Mr Trump,Greta's messages must be of a far higher importance in the greater scheme of things....Ya ?

Whether Greta progresses much further educationally,is entirely down to her recieving the support and and guidance somebody with her specific requirements often merit.

She may,or may not,possess the abilities to successfully follow the 3rd level study regimen,something which,I would hope,those renowned educational institutions will keep in mind ?

RandomViewer

jackboy wrote: »

And they have ruined it already by giving George Lee free reign to spout ****e. Embarrassing stuff.

RTE have to make it looks like he's working for the money they're giving him. Overexaggerating everything is a guaranteed way of putting people off.

Thelonious Monk

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/07/antarctica-logs-hottest-temperature-on-record-with-a-reading-of-183c

Warmest temp ever recorded in Antarctica. I think it was the warmest Jan in Europe too on record. I wonder how it'll be in 10 years and what effects we will see.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

Lots of girls her age would have spent a year in transition year. More might have finished high school before taking a gap year and going to Australia and worked in a bar or something.

Greta has sailed across the Atlantic twice, spoken at the EU, UN, HoC and US senate. Attended World Climate forum and Davos World Forum. She has been nominated for the Nobel prize and was named Time person of the year. She has led a movement which resulted in over 10M people protesting to support her cause. And she has drawn the ire of one Donald Trump.
She will likely go to 3rd level education and I expect be enticed to attend and some of the most renowned ones on the planet should she be interested in doing so.

And you think she should have stayed in school?....

She hasn’t finished her second level schooling yet. College is a bit far sighted. She’s finished the junior cycle of her secondary education.

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

She hasn’t finished her second level schooling yet. College is a bit far sighted. She’s finished the junior cycle of her secondary education.

By that rational, no 16 year old in Ireland should be preparing for college after the junior cert.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

I love how "concerned" everyone is about her "education" when she's more articulate, knowledgeable, confident and able to carry herself than any of them. It's brilliant. Brilliantly transparent of them!

CtevenSrowder

Douglas Cuddly Giant wrote: »

I love how "concerned" everyone is about her "education" when she's more articulate, knowledgeable, confident and able to carry herself than any of them. It's brilliant. Brilliantly transparent of them!

How do you know this? You don't know everyone.

jackboy

Douglas Cuddly Giant wrote: »

I love how "concerned" everyone is about her "education" when she's more articulate, knowledgeable, confident and able to carry herself than any of them. It's brilliant. Brilliantly transparent of them!

How dare you!

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

...So far, the most useful standard for separating people who are actually serious about climate change, from those on the sliding scale of denialism, is to challenge them to agree to limits:
Would you agree that climate changing emissions should be eliminated (brought to Genuine Net Zero - any remaining emissions offset from within a country by GHG sinks/sequestration, per year), within a timely manner?

Do you support limiting human greenhouse gas contribution to the global temperature rise, so that it doesn't hit 1.5°C this century? Doesn't hit 2.0°C? 3.0°C? 4.0°C?

Nope. Because the discussion is not some bizarre form of pissing up the wall competition - the selection of your own favourite temperature rise is hardly a litmus test for believing in climate change or otherwise.

And no theres clearly no such thing as a markey uppy "genuine" net zero - because its obvious you've made that up to suit your own pov. That's already been pointed out btw

And I see still not answered why you bizarrly believe greenhouse gas emissions management systems ( according to you or greta nsw) are "Fraudulent Accounting Tricks".

KyussB

Well tell me what maximum temperature rise you think is acceptable, for this century, so?

Complete silence on this and on stating a target year for reducing carbon emissions to zero, from all posters who have an issue with Greta.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

Well tell me what maximum temperature rise you think is acceptable, for this century, so?

Complete silence on this and on stating a target year for reducing carbon emissions to zero, from all posters who have an issue with Greta.

The question itself reveals your own lack of both knowledge and humility in the face of nature and science. The idea that climate is static and that people can come to believe that temperature is be controlled through taxation policy reveals a sinister level of arrogance among the people pushing this agenda who have no understanding of climate cycles or what controls them and are using a cover story called "the united science" as the vehicle for their own authoritarian desire to exert control over other people lives.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Well tell me what maximum temperature rise you think is acceptable, for this century, so?Complete silence on this and on stating a target year for reducing carbon emissions to zero, from all posters who have an issue with Greta.

Didnt read the comment at all no? I see complete silence on those points yet again.

Do you accept the latest IPCC report a
findings on climate change and their recommendations? If not why?

Why do you believe greenhouse gas emissions management systems are "fraudulent accounting tricks"?

Btw you do know that being gretas number one fan or other wise has fek all to do with climate change.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The question itself reveals your own lack of both knowledge and humility in the face of nature and science. The idea that climate is static and that people can come to believe that temperature is be controlled through taxation policy reveals a sinister level of arrogance among the people pushing this agenda who have no understanding of climate cycles or what controls them and are using a cover story called "the united science" as the vehicle for their own authoritarian desire to exert control over other people lives.

That's just fobbing off the question. If we're talking about human civilization based contributions to climate change, then I am talking about emissions and temperature changes that are driven by human activity.

Pick a temperature limit: What human-driven temperature rise, do you think is acceptable this century? 1.5°C? 2.0°C? 3.0°C? 4.0°C?

Pick a number.

All we have here, are supposed 'skeptics' who want to hide behind the veil of 'complexity' - to avoid admitting that they don't want to commit to any limits.