Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

zom

Greta Thunberg nominated for 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, with her name registered as a trademark recently, very good example that green business is very good business and we should go more green in Ireland.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200131/greta-thunberg-nominated-for-2020-nobel-peace-prize

gozunda

zom wrote: »

Greta Thunberg nominated for 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, with her name registered as a trademark recently, very good example that green business is very good business and we should go more green in Ireland.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200131/greta-thunberg-nominated-for-2020-nobel-peace-prize

I see she is also claiming trademark on 'School Strike for Climate'

Thunberg also intends to get a trademark for "Skolstrejk för klimatet" (School Strike for Climate),

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/us/greta-thunberg-trademark-trnd/index.html

I wonder what the group of kids who actually came up with that idea and instigated the whole movement think about it

About Us:
At the Global Youth Summit in Tutzing in May 2015, we came up with the idea of a global school strike for climate action

https://web.archive.org/web/20150904000342/http://www.climatestrike.net/

MakingMovies2

gozunda wrote: »

I see she is also claiming trademark on 'School Strike for Climate'



https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/us/greta-thunberg-trademark-trnd/index.html

I wonder what the group of kids who actually came up with that idea and instigated the whole movement think about it




https://web.archive.org/web/20150904000342/http://www.climatestrike.net/

That could just be for legal purposes or to prevent it from being misused by people attempting to besmirch the movement. I'm sure the motivations aren't as cynical as turning a quick buck.

gozunda

MakingMovies2 wrote: »

That could just be for legal purposes or to prevent it from being misused by people attempting to besmirch the movement. I'm sure the motivations aren't as cynical as turning a quick buck.

No not any money angle tbh. Just the 'school strike for climate' is apparently being trademarked by greta as her own. But I suppose if the the group who came up with it have no objections ...

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nuclear power, sanctions against asia and africa until they clean up their act, make electric cars completely tax free, no VAT on condensing gas boilers, solar or new clean fuel technology, re instate free recycling bin lifts, a bottle return scheme, An EU funded R&D fund available to universities and provate enterprise to research cleaner power technologies.

Cool. So, you agree action is needed. Makes it even more bizarre to be so vehemently against someone who has done so much to make this a public conversation over the last 12 months. And, if I am not mistaking, is no fan of the Greens here in Ireland.

How do you think your ideas should be implemented?

Tell me how

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not just the bourgeois westerners who have been encouraged to remain childless- keep in mind China- which is in population decline.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/business/china-birth-rate-2019.html

Their child rate is now at 1.6

However, India is at 2.3.

Ireland's birthrate is 1.9 and the UK and the US are 1.8

Conversely the birthrate in Africa as a whole is still expanding at 4.8

(replacement rate = 2.0)

The only surprising thing is that David Attenborough had the guts to call out the growth in population for what it is...…….

Ireland's birthrate, or other western nation birth rates has nothing to do with a desire to help the environment.

Give Africa the same level of development and industry that 1st world countries have enjoyed and I think you'll find the same will happen there.

Just rocking up and saying you need to lower your birth rate dramatically without the above is very much a case of, do as we say, not as we do.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

No not any money angle tbh. Just the 'school strike for climate' is apparently being trademarked by greta as her own. But I suppose if the the group who came up with it have no objections ...

So many of your posts read like someone who has been jilted by Greta but still has a crush on her.
Are you in fact an 18 year old Swedish lad? Or why do you hate her so much, yet want to talk about her obsessively?

Those of us with more posts on the topic than you (only me by the way ) are at least motivated by the fact that she is communicating a necessary and positive message. What's your motivation?

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Cool. So, you agree action is needed. Makes it even more bizarre to be so vehemently against someone who has done so much to make this a public conversation over the last 12 months. And, if I am not mistaking, is no fan of the Greens here in Ireland.

How do you think your ideas should be implemented?

It already was a public conversation. It's been a public conversation for years and years.

KyussB

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nuclear power, sanctions against asia and africa until they clean up their act, make electric cars completely tax free, no VAT on condensing gas boilers, solar or new clean fuel technology, re instate free recycling bin lifts, a bottle return scheme, An EU funded R&D fund available to universities and provate enterprise to research cleaner power technologies.

Taking this path, when do you think it would lead to the elimination of climate emissions? (bringing them to net zero - with remainig emissions offset by carbon sinks/sequestration)

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It already was a public conversation. It's been a public conversation for years and years.

So why have things gotten worse and the necessary action hasn't happened?

When did 10M protest on the topic before Greta started drawing attention to it?

Do you think she should have done nothing?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Cool. So, you agree action is needed.Makes it even more bizarre to be so vehemently against someone who has done so much to make this a public conversation over the last 12 months. And, if I am not mistaking, is no fan of the Greens here in Ireland. ..

Tell me how wrote: »

So many of your posts read like someone who has been jilted by Greta but still has a crush on her.
Are you in fact an 18 year old Swedish lad? Or why do you hate her so much, yet want to talk about her obsessively?

...

Jeez what's the story with with the bs hyper aggressive type personalizations directed at everyone? Maybe stick to the playing the ball and not so much kicking the players - is that asking too much?

And just in case you may not be aware no-one absolutely no-one who supports climate change needs to be a fan of greta. It simply doesn't wash. Thinking other wise is just bizarre tbh.

It's already been demonstrated by many posters in many hundreds of posts that greta et al has done more for her cause of alarmism - than anything actually to do with the actual science or facts. And btw no I see no 'hate' here. Simply objective opinion. Any projection otherwise is simply puerile

And yes we know you are the kids number one fan and refer to her 'obsessively'. But whatever you are into yourself. But no need to get into a tantrum - just because you do not agree with others when the say they're not.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Jeez what's the story with with the bs hyper aggressive type personalizations directed at everyone? Maybe stick to the playing the ball and not so much kicking the players - is that asking too much?

And just in case you may not be aware no-one absolutely no-one who supports climate change needs to be a fan of greta. It simply doesn't wash. Thinking other wise is just bizarre tbh.

It's already been demonstrated by many posters in many hundreds of posts that greta et al has done more for her cause of alarmism - than anything actually to do with the actual science or facts. And btw no I see no 'hate' here. Simply objective opinion. Any projection otherwise is simply puerile

And yes we know you are the kids number one fan and refer to her 'obsessively'. But whatever you are into yourself. But no need to get into a tantrum - just because you do not agree with others when the say they're not.

Disagreement with your views, issues with your logic and bemusement at your motivation does not equate to a tanturm.

You have been given countless opportunities to defend your position (hatred of Greta and/or her message) with logic, you have declined to do so.

You spent a good potion of this thread telling people the topic was 'Greta' and not to go outside it and yet you suggest I refer to her obsessively. Come on man.

Once more for those at the back who can't hear it, and those at the front who are unable thus far to grasp it. Greta isn't important, her message is. But, given the dedication she has to promoting that message, she deserves credit not ridicule or dismissal.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Disagreement with your views, issues with your logic and bemusement at your motivation does not equate to a tanturm. ..

TLDR: That crap is being directed at anyone you dont agree with.

What is certainly a tantrum is claiming anyone discussing the topic of the thread as being "vehemently against" or 'hating' her. Or making up bull****e about "jilted 18 year old Swedish lad' with a 'crush'. And as you missed it - I was quoting your 'obsessively' comment back at ya lol. But jeez get a grip on it lad. That type of stuff is just feking loco. It's a discussion not a fan club. But yes greta is little more than an alarmist in the stuff shes spouting. Plenty of posters have pointed that out. Thats it really.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

TLDR:

What is certainly a tantrum is claiming anyone discussing the topic of the thread as being "vehemently against" or 'hating' her. Or making up bull****e about "jilted 18 year old Swedish lad' with a 'crush'. And as you missed it - I was quoting youur 'obsessively' comment back at ya lol. But jeez get a grip on it lad. That type of stuff is just fuking loco. It's a discussion not a fan club. But yes greta is little more than an alarmist in the stuff shes spouting. Plenty of posters have pointed that out. Thats it really.

Wow. Truth hurts. Apparently.

I don't care your personal motivations, the message needs to be listened to. Greta is doing what she can to ensure that happens. I support her efforts.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow. Truth hurts. Apparently.I don't care your personal motivations, the message needs to be listened to. Greta is doing what she can to ensure that happens. I support her efforts.

Too funny - you first you asked what was my 'motivation' and now apparently you dont care. So that was a tantrum there then ? Fair enough. But seriously fek away off with that rubbish. If you wish to discuss the topic of a comment do so and play the ball.

This is the reply to another poster which you went and bizarrely had that tantrum over

gozunda wrote: »

No not any money angle tbh. Just the 'school strike for climate' is apparently being trademarked by greta as her own. But I suppose if the the group who came up with it have no objections ...

Now if you have any actual contribution to that - then I'll certainly discuss that. Otherwise I'll leave you throwing ****e.

KyussB

A: "lol greta fan club, obsessed with greta lol"
B: *Puts forward view that climate change should be dealt with in a timely manner, asks if people support/oppose this - does not mention Greta"
A: *verbal flailing* "i wont answer that, anyway the topic is about greta! back on topic..."

C: *Points out Greta has helped enormously in spreading awareness of the need to act on climate change in a timely manner*
A: "lol greta fan club, obsessed with greta lol"

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

A: "lol greta fan club, obsessed with greta lol"
B: *Puts forward view that climate change should be dealt with in a timely manner, asks if people support/oppose this - does not mention Greta"A: *verbal flailing* "i wont answer that, anyway the topic is about greta! back on topic..."
C: *Points out Greta has helped enormously in spreading awareness of the need to act on climate change in a timely manner*
A: "lol greta fan club, obsessed with greta lol"

Claims not mentioning greta. Lambasts anyone mentioning actual topic. Result = Fail #No 2 fan

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

Cool. So, you agree action is needed. Makes it even more bizarre to be so vehemently against someone who has done so much to make this a public conversation over the last 12 months. And, if I am not mistaking, is no fan of the Greens here in Ireland.

How do you think your ideas should be implemented?

What do you mean by the Greens here in Ireland? You live in the United States.

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

What do you mean by the Greens here in Ireland? You live in the United States.

With great focus and mental fortitude, I manage to carry on a conversation which is largely taking place in Ireland as if I too am physically present there.

Would you expect someone in London for the weekend to use statements like, 'The problem they have in Ireland is' instead of 'Our issue in Ireland is'.

I have spent 95%+ of my life living in Ireland and will do so again, I don't need to clarify this point on every post.

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

With great focus and mental fortitude, I manage to carry on a conversation which is largely taking place in Ireland as if I too am physically present there.

Would you expect someone in London for the weekend to use statements like, 'The problem they have in Ireland is' instead of 'Our issue in Ireland is'.

I have spent 95%+ of my life living in Ireland and will do so again, I don't need to clarify this point on every post.

I think this is a challenge that climate alarmists have across the board, they misrepresent the reality of the situation a lot.

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I think this is a challenge that climate alarmists have across the board, they misrepresent the reality of the situation a lot.

What? Has the reality in Ireland changed in the last 12 months?

Or do you think your view or opinion is what reality is? That would certainly be a common behaviour amongst climate change deniers.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

What? Has the reality in Ireland changed in the last 12 months?

Or do you think your view or opinion is what reality is? That would certainly be a common behaviour amongst climate change deniers.

So a climate change denier is someone who trusts their own opinions over those of a child?

gozunda

Meanwhile back in the real world apparently our new messiah has recently been immortalised(?) in wax...

https://gritdaily.com/greta-thunberg-has-a-wax-figure-but-is-this-really-necessary/

Tea drinker

Tell me how wrote: »

I have spent 95%+ of my life living in Ireland and will do so again, I don't need to clarify this point on every post.

Well maybe you should, same like if we don't like Greta Thunberg - or dislike even more how she is being used - then we need to defend our strange and unusual fascination with an adult child.
If you don't believe the scientists after the millionth failed climate model, then you are a climate change denier - even if you aren't!
Looks it's the nature of (all) boards these days, people are here to get outraged and fling poo at one another. Lots of people seem to be into that.

Tell me how

jackboy wrote: »

So a climate change denier is someone who trusts their own opinions over those of a child?

Another of those who hasn't grasped it. The message is listen to the science. That's it.

If you are a scientist working in this field, and your work has shown conflicting results, then sure, go right ahead.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

Another of those who hasn't grasped it. The message is listen to the science. That's it.

Her message has gone far beyond ‘listen to the science’.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Another of those who hasn't grasped it. The message is listen to the science. That's it.

For the unwary Greta uses a carefully constructed phrase "the united science" by which she demands listening to scientists who should reinforce what she believes and says anyway.

Neither yourself nor Greta differentiate between science and fiction in regard to the Earths climate and instead rely on groupthink where people in your respective social circles agree about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, however, most people are just going along because they feel obligated to reach an agreement and avoid conflict.

Anyone who has been following the science over the decades knows there is massive uncertainty in the reports and the reports convey this it their writings with the use of ambiguous, obfuscatory or weasel words such as: can, could, conjectured, considered, expected, may, might, perhaps, possibly, projected and unprecedented. For the media who never let facts get in the way of a good story that gets translated to phrase like unprecedented, unparalleled, extraordinary, apocalyptic, bizarre, catastrophic, devastating, extreme and of course the non attributable scientists say and experts warn. You will notice they rely on you never reading the original research paper and just use selected quotes from their go to person or lobbyist in order to meet their publishing deadlines.


When challenged where they get their numbers that show cars and buses being washed down O'Connell Street, they defer to the IPCC but not the specific text. So where does the IPCC find these numbers since the empirical data measurements do not support the propaganda images shown recently on RTE? Well the answer is from projections based on assumptions in Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP) and if you want to know more read A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Judith Curry and Larry Kummer.


The IPCCs RCP 8.5 is the junk science at the root of the panic. I will leave you with Judith Currys conclusions and you can read her article discussing this.


3 degrees C?

1.2 C of additional manmade warming over the remainder of the 21st century isn’t ‘dangerous.’ Yes, there is substantial uncertainty in how the climate of the 21st century will actually play out, and we will undoubtedly be surprised.

But reframing the ‘warming’ with an early 21st century baseline, rejecting RCP8.5 and using more credible values of TCRE (Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions) goes a long way towards putting manmade global warming into perspective over the course of the 21st century.

source

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

For the unwary Greta uses a carefully constructed phrase "the united science" by which she demands listening to scientists who should reinforce what she believes and says anyway.

Neither yourself nor Greta differentiate between science and fiction in regard to the Earths climate and instead rely on groupthink where people in your respective social circles agree about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, however, most people are just going along because they feel obligated to reach an agreement and avoid conflict.

Anyone who has been following the science over the decades knows there is massive uncertainty in the reports and the reports convey this it their writings with the use of ambiguous, obfuscatory or weasel words such as: can, could, conjectured, considered, expected, may, might, perhaps, possibly, projected and unprecedented. For the media who never let facts get in the way of a good story that gets translated to phrase like unprecedented, unparalleled, extraordinary, apocalyptic, bizarre, catastrophic, devastating, extreme and of course the non attributable scientists say and experts warn. You will notice they rely on you never reading the original research paper and just use selected quotes from their go to person or lobbyist in order to meet their publishing deadlines.


When challenged where they get their numbers that show cars and buses being washed down O'Connell Street, they defer to the IPCC but not the specific text. So where does the IPCC find these numbers since the empirical data measurements do not support the propaganda images shown recently on RTE? Well the answer is from projections based on assumptions in Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP) and if you want to know more read A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Judith Curry and Larry Kummer.


The IPCCs RCP 8.5 is the junk science at the root of the panic. I will leave you with Judith Currys conclusions and you can read her article discussing this.


3 degrees C?

The two points in bold are related. You are decrying group think, and then presenting evidence from Judith Curry a noted opponent of the IPCC. Is she trusted to be entirely impartial.

I'm not saying Judith is wrong, I'm saying the vast numbers of scientists and climatologists agree that climate change is an issue which is being exacerbated by human practices and we need action to change this.

You might call it 'group think', I call it a consensus.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not saying Judith is wrong, I'm saying the vast numbers of scientists and climatologists agree that climate change is an issue which is being exacerbated by human practices and we need action to change this.

You might call it 'group think', I call it a consensus.

Please quantify "vast numbers of scientists" with a specific figure and show your data that supports the two specific claims you made that climate change is exacerbated by human practices and we need action to change this. After all if it is consensus you will have unanimous agreement.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Please quantify "vast numbers of scientists" with a specific figure and show your data that supports the two specific claims you made that climate change is exacerbated by human practices and we need action to change this. After all if it is consensus you will have unanimous agreement.

Just going for dinner now.

I know you like videos, this covers some of your questions.