Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Pa ElGrande

auspicious wrote: »

..

Peterson is right but only insofar as to the current attitude of western capitalism.

Impactful change won't stem from government per se. It will be effected through business. Businesses survive on supply and demand and only customers can demand demand. A bottom-up demand will dictate change which business will adapt to and hence create a top-down approach and government will follow.

REUSE, RESTORE, RECYCLE, REDUCE.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1056179710424727552?lang=en


Who wants to live like Ireland of the 1950s and before? The bottom of society is pushing for a better material standard of living. Peterson made the the point that as people become wealthier they start to care more for their environment. Nothing about the current schemes are driven are bottom up, whether it goes under the green new deal or the great reset it is better framed as state capitalism or it's more historic term fascism. The irony being the country that most closely pursues this model is China, who exceed the strictest environmental standards for industrial production anywhere in the world, and are so good they are not bound by the 2015 Paris agreement until 2030. They also produce the solar panels and dump them on the world market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fcUt5_sN6A

When you see bank of Ireland promoting Green bonds (debt), Green mortgages, Green home loans, you know the only green they care about is money, and since the underpinning of these is false, don't be surprised when your savings disappear in fraudulent schemes and you are left with a reduced standard of living carrying their debts. The people who launched Greta Thunberg on the world are financiers, and $350 million per annum NGOs like Greenpeace.


Salvation will not come from a system of taxation and inflation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s4vWrHw3WY

Return To Eden - It’s all about coming home.

When Natural and human interests impinge on each other and over-regulation disturbs our biological balance. important questions arise. Do we belong to nature or does nature belongs to us? A thought-provoking story in which documentary maker Marijn Poels explores the human urge to control our climate, security and preferably the other. Balancing on a razor-thin line between regulation and manipulation. When technology reigns supreme and common sense vaporizes through the test of time, humanity is on the brink of becoming the tool. Miles away from the collective panic, fear and chaos, there is hope, inspiration and reconnection.

Thargor

gozunda wrote: »

Not my words and not stated. Nor were 9/11, vaccines or herd immunity referred to. Id suggest try again. And maybe less of ad hom about others thought processes when your own logic is evidently flawed jumping randomly from one false premise to yet another. Thanks

My reply was in response to this. None of which I'd disagree with btw.



Seems like anyone commenting anything less than gushing on our greta gets the same rubbish thrown....

:rolleyes:

Ah right you're actually a secret environmentalist you just like to spend post after post day after day sneering at the idea of children protesting against an environmental crisis that will affect them in future, right...

gozunda

Thargor wrote: »

Ah right you're actually a secret environmentalist you just like to spend post after post day after day sneering at the idea of children protesting against an environmental crisis that will affect them in future, right...

You missed this. ...

Seems like anyone commenting anything less than gushing on our greta gets the same rubbish thrown..

Plus can you understand that greta does not equal climate change. She is not 'global warming' and no-one needs absolutely no-one needs to be a greta groupie to believe in anything.

Tbh an apology for the ad hom above would have been nice - but going by prior form - your style of post on this thread and the previous one seems to involve attacking other posters with little or no discussion of the topic.

Rather you turn up - attempt to mug a poster and depart. Rinse and repeat.

If you have some deep seated personal or other issue with the topic of this thread - then go complain. Thanks.

Thelonious Monk

Thargor wrote: »

Ah right you're actually a secret environmentalist you just like to spend post after post day after day sneering at the idea of children protesting against an environmental crisis that will affect them in future, right...

It made this thread unbearable a long time ago. There's a block button though, makes the whole boards experience far nicer.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It made this thread unbearable a long time ago. There's a block button though, makes the whole boards experience far nicer.

Thelonious given the standard of your own comments - that comment more fairly applies to you.

And not just to me btw - Here's some of your replies to others on this thread.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Whatever gets you off fam

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You really are all a bunch of nutjobs in this thread

Seems you're not doing what you're telling other people to.

How about you discuss the topic and not just post crap like that? Thanks.

Thargor

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It made this thread unbearable a long time ago. There's a block button though, makes the whole boards experience far nicer.

Hilarious how the main poster and one or two other *cough* "enthusiasts" *cough* manage to find something to discuss about their obsession and her movement all day everyday for years now at this stage though isn't it? Tens of thousands of posts from a handful of people.

How much actual coverage does a normal individual come across of Greta Thurenburg in real life? If it wasn't for the can't look away/car crash nature of this thread I don't think I'd have seen a single mention of her anywhere in the last year? And yet he just posts and posts and posts, it's so weird...

Thelonious Monk

Thargor wrote: »

Hilarious how the main poster and one or two other *cough* "enthusiasts" *cough* manage to find something to discuss about their obsession and her movement all day everyday for years now at this stage though isn't it? Tens of thousands of posts from a handful of people.

How much actual coverage does a normal individual come across of Greta Thurenburg in real life? If it wasn't for the can't look away/car crash nature of this thread I don't think I'd have seen a single mention of her anywhere in the last year? And yet he just posts and posts and posts, it's so weird...

I have never seen that "how dare you" clip because it would make me cringe too much watching it. I'm not exactly a superfan of Greta I just agree with the message she's putting across so I think fair play to her if she gets anyone at all to listen. There are people out there and on this thread who are obsessed with her for some reason.

gozunda

Thargor wrote: »

Hilarious how the main poster and one or two other *cough* "enthusiasts" *cough* manage to find something to discuss about their obsession and her movement all day everyday for years now at this stage though isn't it? Tens of thousands of posts from a handful of people. How much actual coverage does a normal individual come across of Greta Thurenburg in real life? If it wasn't for the can't look away/car crash nature of this thread I don't think I'd have seen a single mention of her anywhere in the last year? And yet he just posts and posts and posts, it's so weird...

It would seem the main / most prolific poster on this thread is - wait for it - "Tell me how". Are you seriously saying that poster and others are 'obsessed' because of your says so?

You better let him know lol.

On a serious note - I'd like to ask you question What the are doing on this thread - if all you can do is take the piss?

Tbh those kind of comments are simply puerile

If you have a deep seated issue with the thread then simply report it.

begbysback

Has this kid not gone back to school yet?

Tea drinker

gozunda wrote: »

Reckon gretas obsession with ideas of an "existential" threat may have got a bit of a reality jolt when the pandemic started. As a teenager - its likley her ideas about the world are still forming. Dare I say perhaps even her Atlantic hopping excursions may have broadened her outlook on life and helped to lessen the fear of impending doom which she was obsessed with early on. I guess time will tell.

Greta is in this for the long haul. Greta will be banging out kids in the next 10 years regardless of their environmental impact. Even though the children face imminent doom they will still be had. Seems selfish but hey ho.
The story will then shift to "you stole my baby's future" and then we move to Time magazine piece on Greta at 40. Etc etc.
Discussion on White people being sterilised will be for families other than the Thunbergs.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There are people out there and on this thread who are obsessed with her for some reason.

You use this as passive aggressive towards other posters, but only five have more investment in the thread than you. So, what's the cause for YOUR obsession with the teen aged girl?

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

You use this as passive aggressive towards other posters, but only five have more investment in the thread than you. So, what's the cause for YOUR obsession with the teen aged girl?

I suppose I just have a morbid interest in why this girl upsets so many men

Thargor

gozunda wrote: »

It would seem the main / most prolific poster on this thread is - wait for it - "Tell me how". Are you seriously saying that poster and others are 'obsessed' because of your says so?

You better letter him know lol.

On a serious note - I'd like to ask you question What the frack are doing on this thread - if all you can do is take the piss?

Tbh those kind of comments are simply puerile

If you have a deep seated issue with the thread then simply report it.

Its a car crash as I said, you're in such a bubble of spite towards the most random of targets that certain people can't but question it, maybe I'd just shrug and ignore it like you would with most right wing boomer crap on Boards.ie but the sheer volume of it and the time period involved makes you a curiosity. Every day multiple times a day for years?

Don't pretend I'm including similar rubberneckers like Tellmehow or Thelonius in that.

gozunda

Thargor wrote: »

Its a car crash as I said, you're in such a bubble of spite towards the most random of targets that certain people can't but question it, maybe I'd just shrug and ignore it like you would with most right wing boomer crap on Boards.ie but the sheer volume of it and the time period involved makes you a curiosity. Every day multiple times a day for years?
Don't pretend I'm including similar rubberneckers like Tellmehow or Thelonius in that.

Chxst that's some level of absolute twaddle.

"Years"? this thread and previous cover less than a 12 month's ffs.

Are you're calling Tellmehow or Thelonius "rubberneckers" now? rflol.

And yes they've been posting all that time! Obsessive much?

The answer is simple - play the ball or not at all.

Why turn up - attempt to mug posters and depart. Rinse and repeat? And not just this thread either. Odd no?

And yes you called out the 'main' / most prolific poster. I clarified that for you. And to quote father Jack- I'm 'Soooooo sorry" - if thats not who you claim it is or even if that does not does not suit the evident bias and 'spite' of your comments.

Now as detailed - if you really have some deep seated antagonism towards the topic of "greta et al' on this thread. Report it.

Tell me how

begbysback wrote: »

Has this kid not gone back to school yet?

Yes. Back at school. Still doing her strike. Still calling attention to the disaster which is happening all around us.

Tea drinker wrote: »

Greta is in this for the long haul. Greta will be banging out kids in the next 10 years regardless of their environmental impact. Even though the children face imminent doom they will still be had. Seems selfish but hey ho.
The story will then shift to "you stole my baby's future" and then we move to Time magazine piece on Greta at 40. Etc etc.
Discussion on White people being sterilised will be for families other than the Thunbergs.

Takes some neck to suggest someone is going to do something ten years in to the future and to suggest that them doing such a natural thing would be selfish with zero evidence to support either element of the claim and then to go on to say how she will behave around this and throw in some conspiracy theory about sterilisation.

It highlights the challenge in getting people to listen to the science when bullsh1t like this is posted and applauded via thanks.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. Back at school. Still doing her strike. Still calling attention to the disaster which is happening all around us.

Takes some neck to suggest someone is going to do something ten years in to the future and to suggest that them doing such a natural thing would be selfish with zero evidence to support either element of the claim and then to go on to say how she will behave around this and throw in some conspiracy theory about sterilisation.

It highlights the challenge in getting people to listen to the science when bullsh1t like this is posted and applauded via thanks.

Just an observation brw.

To be fair to the poster - greta has referred to her 75th birthday in 2078 - asking 'what would her children and grandchildren would ask her about the people around back in 2018, ‘

So I guess greta is using pretty much a projection about having kids there.

Certainly I don't ever recall greta calling out overpopulation as a problem and something which has been identified as increasingly detrimental to the natual environment.

Certainly gretas grasp of the science appears to be predicated on selective issues.

No comment as to the rest. I dont know enough about it tbh.

Tea drinker

Tell me how wrote: »

Takes some neck to suggest someone is going to do something ten years in to the future and to suggest that them doing such a natural thing would be selfish with zero evidence to support either element of the claim and then to go on to say how she will behave around this and throw in some conspiracy theory about sterilisation.

It highlights the challenge in getting people to listen to the science when bullsh1t like this is posted and applauded via thanks.

Sure the science is BS, the Greta thing is a religion at this stage, i.e more BS.
Point is I have no doubt Greta will live a predictable life after all her doom mongering. It's hardly natural to have children if (as she and the climate cult claim) the world is doomed, and having children will further doom the planet given human impact. You've already back pedalled and saying her having children would be natural, so I guess apart from some face saving bluster you agree with the prediction.

Timistry

Tea drinker wrote: »

Sure the science is BS, the Greta thing is a religion at this stage, i.e more BS.
Point is I have no doubt Greta will live a predictable life after all her doom mongering. It's hardly natural to have children if (as she and the climate cult claim) the world is doomed, and having children will further doom the planet given human impact. You've already back pedalled and saying her having children would be natural, so I guess apart from some face saving bluster you agree with the prediction.

How can you say that science is BS? Climate change is a fact.. just because it is not tangible does not equate it to a falsehood.

Tell me how

Tea drinker wrote: »

Sure the science is BS, the Greta thing is a religion at this stage, i.e more BS.
Point is I have no doubt Greta will live a predictable life after all her doom mongering. It's hardly natural to have children if (as she and the climate cult claim) the world is doomed, and having children will further doom the planet given human impact. You've already back pedalled and saying her having children would be natural, so I guess apart from some face saving bluster you agree with the prediction.

How do you expect anyone to read this and not come up with the conclusion that you possess some sort of hatred for Greta and what she has achieved. None of it is rooted in logic.

I'm only curious about the motivation for such feelings.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. Back at school. Still doing her strike. Still calling attention to the disaster which is happening all around us.
...

All based on junk science that does not match reality and scientists are beginning to realise these exaggerations by activists in the media are bringing their profession into disrepute, while others use it to extract grants.

Ross McKitrick: The flaw in relying on worst-case-scenario climate model

Whenever you read a media story about how we’re heading toward catastrophe if we continue operating “business as usual” — i.e., if we don’t slash carbon emissions — the reports are almost always referring to a model simulation using RCP8.5. And you can bet that nowhere in the story will they explain that RCP8.5 is an implausible worst-case scenario that was never meant to represent a likely base case outcome, or that scientists have begun castigating its usage as a prediction of a doomed business-as-usual future.

source

Have our climate models been wrong?

. . .
When academics such as myself publish papers and university press offices put out press releases, you can be guaranteed that the most notable newsy studies will be those that employ RCP 8.5, and somewhere – I don’t think any of this is conscious, but somewhere along the way we take a scenario that is highly improbable, highly unlikely, and it goes through the process and shows up on the BBC or the front page of the New York Times as “where we’re headed” stripped of all the context and details, because it is a complicated topic, and if we repeat that hundreds of times, every year for the last decade, we get a picture of climate change that is not necessarily in conformance to what the broader literature actually says.
. . .

source

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

How do you expect anyone to read this and not come up with the conclusion that you possess some sort of hatred for Greta and what she has achieved. None of it is rooted in logic.

I'm only curious about the motivation for such feelings.

Haha - I think you're again engaging with bit too much amateur psychology there fred. "How does that make you feel?' "what made you do it" :pac:

Tbf the posters comment is little more than a projection of a controversial public figure with a troubled background. Whether any of that will happen is as likley as any of gretas own regular lines of projecting the future. Whatever happens - I personally hope it works out for her and she eventually achieves some equilibrium in her own life.

As for your 'motivation' - oddly enough thats been continuously thrown at every and any comment which wasn't gushing to date. Taking a mad guess I'd reckon its probably the same 'motivation' that anyone on a public forum including yourself has in discussing such a controversial public figure. If greta wasnt controversial I guess we wouldn't be here.

Btw from the newsfeed - it looks like the annual greta angst feist has been scheduled for the 25th following the announcement of that a series strikes to take place next Friday. Tbh its probably the last thing we need is yet more protests whether they are covid aware or otherwise. But anyway ...

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. Back at school. Still doing her strike. Still calling attention to the disaster which is happening all around us.

.

Is this the disaster that everyone is already aware of?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh its probably the last thing we need is yet more protests whether they are covid aware or otherwise. But anyway ...

Still don't understand the value and need for protests obviously.

Lots will be happy, not only the people hoping to ultimately see the change which is necessary but more opportunity for those needing to release some of that hatred/jealousy/envy/bitterness or what ever flavour of negative personal views they possess.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Still don't understand the value and need for protests obviously.Lots will be happy, not only the people hoping to ultimately see the change which is necessary but more opportunity for those needing to release some of that hatred/jealousy/envy/bitterness or what ever flavour of negative personal views they possess.

"Need" for even more protests In the face of a pandemic - you have to be feking kidding!

And above you accuse others of projection things about greta and yet make constant but crazy projections about posters and their "motives".

Man that's no more than **** throwing - and already been called out on by others.

How about people are generally concerned about a 'child' figurehead being used over normal democratic processes? And no I don't agree with your take that greta is only promoting "the science' as she calls it. She is on record calling for anarchy and pulling down western society. Whether she knows what she's talking about is yet another discussion. Lots of other legitimate concerns over climate issues being used for political/ ideological ends.

Let us not kid ourselves by being naïve...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

"Need" for even more protests In the face of a pandemic - you have to be feking kidding!

And above you accuse others of projection things about greta and yet make constant but crazy projections about posters and their "motives".

Man that's no more than **** throwing - and already been called out on by others.

How about people are generally concerned about a 'child' figurehead being used over normal democratic processes? And no I don't agree with your take that greta is only promoting "the science' as she calls it. She is on record calling for anarchy and pulling down western society. Whether she knows what she's talking about is yet another discussion. Lots of other legitimate concerns over climate issues being used for political/ ideological ends.

Let us not kid ourselves by being naïve...

Seriously? You expect us to believe that?

That's so patently untrue on this thread and I would go so far as to say is condescending towards the efforts of young people who get out in the real world and try to invoke change rather than inhibit those doing so on the internet.

If you want to talk about Greta being on the record, lets compare the amount of times she has called for listening to the science versus any claim you have of her promoting anarchy. If you want to use her words, lets use them.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Seriously? You expect us to believe that? That's so patently untrue on this thread and I would go so far as to say is condescending towards the efforts of young people who get out in the real world and try to invoke change rather than inhibit those doing so on the internet.

If you want to talk about Greta being on the record, lets compare the amount of times she has called for listening to the science versus any claim you have of her promoting anarchy. If you want to use her words, lets use them.

What about the pandemic? Dont believe that's an issue either no? Grand so.

Haven't been reading others concerns on this thread? Just substituting your own bias and objection? Yeah sure that works ...

Again projecting your beliefs with emotive use of 'young people' in order to bolster your own opinion. Yeah sure that works ....

Hillarious you think that a greta slogan shouting competition means you would win the discussion

And nope no-one is 'inhibiting' anything by having a discussion about these issues. Unless that is you are suggesting that everyone you don't agree with should be silenced?

Tell me how

And doing more than just talking.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1308705418655469569

That's not dealing with climate problems, it's using money as a band aid. Like govts solving climate change with more taxes. If the foundation wanted to do something they could invest that money in providing alternative energy sources in heavy oil using countries.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not dealing with climate problems, it's using money as a band aid. Like govts solving climate change with more taxes. If the foundation wanted to do something they could invest that money in providing alternative energy sources in heavy oil using countries.

Would you tell someone who needed a band aid that you were going to put the money in to buying a newer item which was safer so they wouldn't cut themselves?

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

...

If you want to talk about Greta being on the record, lets compare the amount of times she has called for listening to the science versus any claim you have of her promoting anarchy. If you want to use her words, lets use them.

Greta calls on you to listen to the "united science", that is whatever accords with her own apocalyptic beliefs. It is fanaticism dominated by strong emotional convictions that absolutely dominate and permanently determine her thinking, her linear worldview allows no understanding of political, economic and social consequences of the regulations and prohibitions that result.

“People are dying because of the consequences of the climate and environmental emergency and it will get worse,” she declared. “Nothing is being done despite all the beautiful words and promises of our elected officials… We are being betrayed by those in power and they are failing us. But we will not back down, and if you feel threatened by that then I have bad news for you: we will not be silenced because we are the change and change is coming whether you like it or not.”

source

If you read the Guardian or other media uncritically then you might form that impression, however when you look at the data globally, in 2019, about 9,000 people lost their lives in natural catastrophes compared with 15,000 in 2018. The overall trend is towards lower numbers of victims thanks to better prevention measures and this is in the face of a human population that has increased substantially since the records began. The average deaths per annum for natural disasters is ~60,000 globally.

Historically, droughts and floods were the most fatal disaster events. Deaths from these events are now very low – the most deadly events today tend to be earthquakes.

source

There is no science to support her claim, there are only computer models that make erratic assumptions that do not measure against the real world, these projections are pushed in the media. Most adults are not blind to this they realise over time that it is false and correctly ignore it, Greta has become fixated on this and all the people around her providing feedback serve to reinforce her beliefs, one of these is an activist/scientist with whom she consults called Kevin Anderson.

Climate scientist Kevin Anderson has advised anyone willing to listen that, if we fire up the fossil fuels enough to hike atmospheric heat by 4C, only around half a billion people will survive. Anderson says, “I think it’s extremely unlikely that we wouldn’t have mass death at 4 degrees C. If you have got a population of nine billion by” — a.k.a. before — “2050 and you hit 4 degrees C, 5C or 6C, you might have half a billion people surviving.”

source

The root of Andersons pervasive alarmism is Malthus who was the first of the alarmism modellers, he has been proved wrong time and again, as have been his followers such as Paul Ehrlich, whose catastrophic predictions should be a laughing stock, but nobody is laughing The Club of Rome in the 1970’s also showed us models to scare us, also proved totally wrong, now nearly 50 years and counting.