Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

Fr_Dougal

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.

Your posts are losing credibility. Just as other alarmists have come out and said that Greta is, in fact, an alarmist and uses alarmist language.

That’s the reality.

KyussB

Would you say it's alarmist to state that climate emissions should be eliminated (i.e. net zero, any remaining emissions offset by carbon sinks/sequestration) in a timely manner?

Fr_Dougal

KyussB wrote: »

Would you say it's alarmist to state that climate emissions should be eliminated (i.e. net zero, any remaining emissions offset by carbon sinks/sequestration) in a timely manner?

Just think about what you’ve typed, “climate emissions’. So you have a problem with rain now? With snow? Sunshine? Wind?

Where does it end? Do you want a constant “Status Red’ for everything?

KyussB

I'll take that as a dodge, then. You know that I was referring to climate changing emissions (especially given the explicit reference to carbon emissions).

Isn't it funny/odd how every 'skeptic' who claims they are not a denialist - doesn't want to answer whether they support or oppose, eliminating climate changing emissions in a timely manner.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Would you say it's alarmist to state that climate emissions should be eliminated (i.e. net zero, any remaining emissions offset by carbon sinks/sequestration) in a timely manner?

https://youtu.be/VsHZPT2E5tg?t=50s

Net zero? Greta is telling us to 'forget about net zero'. She wants 'real zero' and she wants it now...

You wouldnt want to be "cheating and fiddling around" with net zero. Someone might get angry and we cant have that...

And we can forget about Batflue or any 'end of civilisation' - it's straight back to the stone age now

KyussB

She refers to a country offsetting their emissions, by e.g. paying another country to plant trees - a wider reference to a system of 'marketized solutions' like carbon credits, cap and trade etc..

That's a different type of 'net zero' to what I refer to.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Just going for dinner now.

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

A TV presenter is vast number of scientists?

Tell me how

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A TV presenter is vast number of scientists?

Bless you. The video was in relation to the queried claim of human practises influencing the climate.

It was difficult to figure that out.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Bless you. The video was in relation to the queried claim of human practises influencing the climate.

It was difficult to figure that out.

Your post was in reply to a request to quantify.

. Maybe you had the trouble to figure it out and posted a wrong video?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Your post was in reply to a request to quantify.

. Maybe you had the trouble to figure it out and posted a wrong video?

Nope

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.

And now, in relation to the vast number of scientists,

https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

Current number of signatories: 13,324 from 156 countries

And from NASA

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Not to mention that the IPCC report in Oct 2018 had contributions from, (iirc) 170+ different countries and organisations worldwide.

Feel free to counter with appropriate evidence and links.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Nope



And now, in relation to the vast number of scientists,

https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/



And from NASA



Not to mention that the IPCC report in Oct 2018 had contributions from, (iirc) 170+ different countries and organisations worldwide.

Feel free to counter with appropriate evidence and links.

So that is all you were asked. Why reply with patronising yet pissy posts?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Nope



And now, in relation to the vast number of scientists,

https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/



And from NASA



Not to mention that the IPCC report in Oct 2018 had contributions from, (iirc) 170+ different countries and organisations worldwide.

Feel free to counter with appropriate evidence and links.

Evidence and links of what. I maked no claims?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

So that is all you were asked. Why reply with patronising yet pissy posts?

You missed that part of my post as well apparently.
Sorry to have upset you.

Tell me how wrote: »

Just going for dinner now.

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

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You missed that part of my post as well apparently.
Sorry to have upset you.

Apology accepted

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

. . . .
Feel free to counter with appropriate evidence and links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Apology accepted

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Have a good night.

P.S. You might want to edit your second to last post.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

This guy

DR. JOHN ROBSON
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
John Robson holds a Ph.D. in American History from the University of Texas at Austin and has worked as a historian, policy analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker for three decades. He has been examining the climate change issue for many years, including both the science and the policy debates.

versus NASA or, amongst others, this guy

Attenborough was educated at Wyggeston Grammar School for Boys in Leicester and then won a scholarship to Clare College, Cambridge in 1945, where he studied geology and zoology and obtained a degree in natural sciences.

Not to mention the work he has done in the natural environment since he graduated.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Look , nevermind how misguided her views are, some of the comments about her ohline are completely out of line.

This is a person suffering with a severve form of Asbergers. She is not aware that she comes across as being intensely creepy and odd at times.


These are the symtoms of her condition and they should not be so callously scoffed at.

Tell me how

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Look , nevermind how misguided her views are, some of the comments about her ohline are completely out of line.

You mean like this one.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

This is a person suffering with a severve form of Asbergers. She is not aware that she comes across as being intensely creepy and odd at times.

This was such an obvious self-own, I am sure it was intended to be as such.

Also, her views aren't misguided, the central tenet of them (action is needed on human practices) is widely supported by the scientific community.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

This guy
...

Not to mention the work he has done in the natural environment since he graduated.

As much lauded by the media and others as he is - the 'British cultural icon' Sir David - with the idea of becoming a geologist completed a two year degree in the 'natural sciences' in 1947. Since then his main occupation has been making TV documentaries - and receiving a bunch of honorary awards

A climate scientist he is not.

Pa ElGrande

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Look , nevermind how misguided her views are, some of the comments about her ohline are completely out of line.

This is a person suffering with a severve form of Asbergers. She is not aware that she comes across as being intensely creepy and odd at times.


These are the symtoms of her condition and they should not be so callously scoffed at.

Even worse her condition and conditioning are being cynically exploited by a group of people surrounding her for their own benefit whether that be financial or lust for power. Don't overlook either that for their entire lives just like Greta our own children have faced the incessant propaganda from people pushing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. This been actively promoted in the public school system since the 1990s and depending on family circumstances may cause or exacerbate anguish and depression among them culminating in catastrophic ends like suicide for those on the margins. Parents may even experience factitious disorder by which someone deceives others by appearing sick, by purposely getting sick or by self-injury externalising itself as concern about "the climate" which seems to be what's happened with both Greta and her sister due to their family circumstances. For Greta and her family climate seems to have become a proxy fight against their personal problems as least that is what Ulrike Stockmann concludes based on reading Gretas mothers book.


Those of us who grew up in the 1970s/80s will remember the Campaign for Nuclear (CND) disarmament which certainly did cause anguish and a sense of foreboding among the population. It got much too expensive to maintain the nuclear weapons arsenals and they were cut back plus the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed. In recent decades both the United States, Russia and countries in South East Asia have all gotten interested in missile development through their "space exploration programs" which NASA was the original cover for the US development of ICBMs and still is today with hypersonic missiles and the US has even launched space force (seriously).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z26XJbnpeA

In an rather strange development the UN has revived the old two minutes to midnight doomsday clock scare featuring none other than Mary Robinson who has been milking the climate change gravy train for some time.


Comparing “climate change” to the intensity of all the other threats, it seems completely out of place and of far less magnitude and urgency. Despite 73 years of predicting doomsday proximity, it has never materialized.

You need to ask yourself: Do you feel more threatened by nuclear armageddon, or the possibility of the climate changing? And will we be introducing duck and cover to classrooms when the temperature rises or rain falls?

As if this is not sinister enough, remember extinction rebellion, well here is what some of their members are thinking right now.

In this pamphlet, we concern ourselves principally with the UK, but a majority world-facing narrative is an equally important and urgent requirement. The new story will not be one about ‘the environment’ or ‘green’ issues. It will be human-centric and rooted in the indelible truth that we are living in a world that has evolved as if dangerous climate change did not exist. Bringing this realisation to life is our story untold. It says we don’t all go from now to extinction sometime
after 2080 with nothing else in between. We lose everything that matters to us on the way: our public services, our security, our community, our homes, our food, our water. And ultimately the people we love. It is a story of unstoppable loss unless we act now. It is a story that starts with eliciting vulnerability.

source

By eliciting vulnerability they are engaging in cult behaviour by stripping their members of their identity and replacing it with a new one and that is how they intend to proceed and your children are their target.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

This guy

As a historian he is well placed to document the history of the climate change movement. I am sure you will enjoy this presentation about fraud and statistical chicanery among climate scientists uncovered in 2009.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8xd0LCeRQ

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Even worse her condition and conditioning are being cynically exploited by a group of people surrounding her for their own benefit whether that be financial or lust for power. Don't overlook either that for their entire lives just like Greta our own children have faced the incessant propaganda from people pushing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. This been actively promoted in the public school system since the 1990s and depending on family circumstances may cause or exacerbate anguish and depression among them culminating in catastrophic ends like suicide for those on the margins. Parents may even experience factitious disorder by which someone deceives others by appearing sick, by purposely getting sick or by self-injury externalising itself as concern about "the climate" which seems to be what's happened with both Greta and her sister due to their family circumstances. For Greta and her family climate seems to have become a proxy fight against their personal problems as least that is what Ulrike Stockmann concludes based on reading Gretas mothers book.

Myself from months ago:

The same Ulrike Stockmann who runs a Libertarian think tank which regularly works alongside Koch funded think tanks like Cato - writing in a publication known for denialism regarding the leading human role in tipping climate change...

Once again you're citing batshit Libertarian souces, that work alongside oil oligarch propaganda networks.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Myself from months ago: The same Ulrike Stockmann who runs a Libertarian think tank which regularly works alongside Koch funded think tanks like Cato - writing in a publication known for denialism regarding the leading human role in tipping climate change...Once again you're citing batshit Libertarian souces, that work alongside oil oligarch propaganda networks.

Oh chzrst - not this crap again :rolleyes:

And again - yeah I think we get it - you dont like the posters sources. At least the poster explains their reasoning and provides links - which is something that some certainly dont.

Anyway hope someone somewhere is getting some return and being paid for each instance of use of those absolute "batshit " phrases ...

KyussB

Notice as well, the people who insist they're not 'denialists', always support propaganda tied to the Koch's - among the most notorious propagandists on the planet - and the ones who are the most well documented at manufacturing and publishing false information about climate change.

Never a word of disagreement from these posters, at use of those propaganda sources - but when you point out the use of those propaganda sources, they have loads to say in disagreement at that being pointed out.

Same posters that unconvincingly claim they support 'solutions' to eliminating climate changing emissions, to try and shake off the Denialist label - but won't state whether they support solutions eliminating emissions in a timely manner - not even giving a timeframe e.g. eliminating emissions within decades? centuries? millenia?

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Notice as well, the people who insist they're not 'denialists', always support propaganda tied to the Koch's - among the most notorious propagandists on the planet - and the ones who are the most well documented at manufacturing and publishing false information about climate change.Never a word of disagreement from these posters, at use of those propaganda sources - but when you point out the use of those propaganda sources, they have loads to say in disagreement at that being pointed out.Same posters that unconvincingly claim they support 'solutions' to eliminating climate changing emissions, to try and shake off the Denialist label - but won't state whether they support solutions eliminating emissions in a timely manner - not even giving a timeframe e.g. eliminating emissions within decades? centuries? millenia?

Even more koch eh?

Lol. What " in a timely manner" like greta who is telling us to 'forget about net zero'? The same who says she wants 'real zero' and she wants it now.

Is that timely enough for you or is it that you dont actually agree with her? Does that make you a "Denialist" then?

Tell me how

Gozunda, why do you hate Greta?

Pa ElGrande

Here is what real 0 looks like. Power for the privileged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svtHP3JqG20

This will become a very serious problem mid decade if low-density random unreliable energy policies are not halted. Currently we in Ireland are dependent on natural gas and there are plans to use French nuclear energy via an interconnect if it gets built, the question is though will France have the capacity? That may not be obvious considering what in happening in Germany.


The looming German capacity crunch

The German policy narrative is for renewables growth to offset the closure of nuclear, coal & lignite capacity…. but the numbers tell a different story.
<snip>
Historically, periods of low renewables have been met with an increased dispatch of gas and coal generation. As coal and nuclear generation falls away, Germany will need to rely increasingly on existing gas, new flexible capacity and imports to balance the system.

Germany, however, is not going through an energy transition alone. France is closing its coal fleet by 2022, Belgium is phasing out its nuclear fleet by 2025 and Italy & the Netherlands are closing coal fleets by 2030.

Conventional wisdom states that increased interconnection between countries will help balance markets in periods of low or high wind, but is that the case? An analysis of wind load-factors by country shows how interconnection might not be the panacea commonly assumed.

source

Undoubtedly by mid decade Demand Side Response (DSR) is going to be the reality in our lives.

Tell me how

^^^

What is your point with this post?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Gozunda, why do you hate Greta?

Brilliant

So you think that those who simply point out the obvious inconsistencies of an argument - 'hate' greta? As you said "Hilarious" ...

But let me ask Tell me how - why do you hero worship greta - is all that not a bit odd no?