Greta Thunberg (Continued...)

sabat

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

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


...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.

They are genuinely freakin' nutjob terrorists; they are now advocating attacking our food supply:

In Autumn last year, the BBC broadcast a three-part series called What Britain Buys And Sells In A Day.It inadvertently showcased many of the vulnerabilities engineered into our food and manufacturing industries, which rely on a seamless, orderly, globally enabling environment to function.

The first step to designing actions to transmit these vulnerabilities would be for the centre of XR to reach out to systems experts, alongside the people who understand impacted industries and who can pinpoint the stories to tell. What for example will will happen exactly when that smooth enabling environment gives way?

This is a war crime under the Geneva Convention-time to make this group illegal and start cracking skulls.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Brilliant

So somehow you think all those who don't worship greta or 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 tall that not a bit odd no?

You'll have to edit this post a second time.

I don't worship her, I support her message and efforts.

So, why do you hate her?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

You'll have to edit this post a second time. I don't worship her, I support her message and efforts.So, why do you hate her?

. Nope clear signs of hero worshiping there - as demonstrated by the fact that you think anyone who points out any inconsistencies or replies to another comment etc 'hate' her. Now that is truely truely bizarre.

hetuzozaho

You guys could probably take most of your posts to PM?

Click user name and you get the option to PM

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

. Nope clear signs of hero worshiping there - as demonstrated by the fact that you think anyone who points out any inconsistencies or replies to another comment etc 'hate' her. Now that is truely truely bizarre.

What is your point with this post?

Can you please copy your last post and point out where you explained your hatred.

This is a subtle point, in virtually all my posts I am indeed challenging those who disagree with her and using logic and evidence to support my position.

You are free to hate but I am curious as to why. You differ in most posters who come with links or some form of evidence (irrelevant or inaccurate mind) to undermine her message in that you just simply try to do so at this point almost exclusively without a supporting argument. You did earlier on in the first thread moved through a variety of arguments as pointed out previously, but even this bouncing around supports the view that your motivation is on a personal level.

Why do I care as to your motivation? As I have said, I feel the message relating to the call for action needs to be heard and so I think that it is important to point out that at least some of those trying to undermine it have no logical basis for doing so.

This last point answers hetuzozaho's post also.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^

What is your point with this post?

One issue of many is employment. Practically all of us are dependent on 24x7 availability of electricity and those involved in production cannot plan around random energy they need a reliable supply. If you have not noticed the data centers have started buying up supply.

In Germany the wind power industry is in the middle of a deep crisis as the public is becoming resistant to more wind turbine parks plus the industry is facing economic and technical obstacles all of which has put the brakes on wind turbine park construction.

Construction of wind turbines experiences "dramatic slump"

As the industry associations Bundesverband Windenergie (BWE) and VDMA Power Systems announced, in 2019 only 325 new wind turbines with 1078 megawatts were built. That was 55 percent less than in the previous year. Because plants were also dismantled, the number rose by a total of 243 wind turbines to around 29,500 across Germany.

BWE President Hermann Albers spoke of a "dramatic slump" in Berlin on Tuesday. If the demand for electricity grows, an additional 5000 megawatts per year will be necessary to achieve 65 percent green electricity by 2030. For 2020, the associations expect an increase of 1400 to 1800 megawatts - more than last year, but still not enough from their point of view.

source

Wind 'on its knees' as profits vanish, says industry pioneer

“Prices have gone too low,” said O’Connor, the founder and former chief executive of MRP. “The whole of the industry right now is on its knees, the whole of the supply industry. The average profitability in the wind turbine industry is about zero,” he told Offshore & Floating Wind Europe in London.

source

Redundancies, Bankruptcies, Unrealistic Power Contracts: The Wind Industry Crisis Deepens

Eddie O’Connor, the founder of Airtricity and Mainstream Renewable Power, is one of the most notable entrepreneurs in the wind industry and is consequently regarded with awe. His personal success speaks for itself, and if he chances to add anything further, obiter dicta, people pay attention. Speaking at a Reuters conference, Offshore and Floating Wind Europe 2019, which was held in London on the 11th and 12th of November this year, Mr O’Connor seems to have dropped a bombshell. Reports claim that he shocked his audience by describing the wind sector as “on its knees” and in a state of “failure”, because “cut-throat” competition has driven contracted power prices to levels so low that wind is no longer “profitable”.

source

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

One issue of many is employment. Practically all of us are dependent on 24x7 availability of electricity and those involved in production cannot plan around random energy they need a reliable supply.

You will be in agreement with Greta's message so that we need to unite behind the science to develop solutions which allow for society to function as it must in today's world as such solutions do not already exist.

It is no good to look in to an empty coal pit and say, 'but we need coal to function'.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

You will be in agreement with Greta's message so that we need to unite behind the science to develop solutions which allow for society to function as it must in today's world as such solutions do not already exist.

It is no good to look in to an empty coal pit and say, 'but we need coal to function'.

What you are tacitly admitting is that both Greta and yourself have no solutions to offer. Any leader pushing her preferred solution of real 0 can only be a very dangerous ideologue that will slaughter all around him in pursuit of that goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGSuE7_HdeE

Beasty

Tell me how wrote: »

Gozunda, why do you hate Greta?

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^

What is your point with this post?

Discuss the topic. If you have an issue with a post or poster please report it and leave the modding to the mods

biko

Finnish scientists:

During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.”

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

What you are tacitly admitting is that both Greta and yourself have no solutions to offer. Any leader pushing her preferred solution of real 0 can only be a very dangerous ideologue that will slaughter all around him in pursuit of that goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGSuE7_HdeE

You are jumping to a prejudiced conclusion here.

A, Greta has said that she doesn't have the answers, because, how could she, she is a child. That does not undermine the message that the change is needed.

B, Greta highlighting that change is needed does not mean that world leader will adopt a similar position without consideration of the implementation.

C, Even if someone was advocating for change, that does imply that they will slaughter all round them in pursuit of that goal.

D, My position is that the conversation needs to be had, on the last thread, I gave several examples of things I would do immediately if I was in a position to implement such laws.

KyussB

Real zero vs Net zero requires clarifying the definitions of each.

Net Zero = Reducing emissions by having a market for 'carbon offsets', where you can produce greenhouse gasses without offsetting them yourself, by buying carbon credits and trading them - schemes like that, which easily allow accounting fraud.

Real Zero = Not producing carbon emissions - and I would also include, directly having carbon sinks/sequestration, that either directly produce the greenhouse-gas-generating fuel you use - or which locally/directly offset your emissions, with no market or trading scheme.

There's a lot of scope for going after 'Real Zero' - while trashing the easily exploited 'Net Zero' trading schemes - and while allowing flexibility with retiring greenhouse-gas-generating infrastructure, even past the point of achieving 'Real Zero'.

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

Finnish scientists:

During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.”

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

Let's see how this claim stands up. Already, there is doubts as to their methodology.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

CtevenSrowder

biko wrote: »

Finnish scientists:

During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.”

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or cited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.

If the paper has not been peer reviewed it is essentially useless.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Real zero vs Net zero requires clarifying the definitions of each.
Net Zero = Reducing emissions by having a market for 'carbon offsets', where you can produce greenhouse gasses without offsetting them yourself, by buying carbon credits and trading them - schemes like that, which easily allow accounting fraud.

Real Zero = Not producing carbon emissions - and I would also include, directly having carbon sinks/sequestration, that either directly produce the greenhouse-gas-generating fuel you use - or which locally/directly offset your emissions, with no market or trading scheme.

There's a lot of scope for going after 'Real Zero' - while trashing the easily exploited 'Net Zero' trading schemes - and while allowing flexibility with retiring greenhouse-gas-generating infrastructure, even past the point of achieving 'Real Zero'.

I think that's a little bit mixed up there tbh.

Heres a better explanation:

What’s the difference between net zero, and real zero? Easy enough to understand, actually. Net Zero means that for all the carbon we put into the atmosphere, we must work to remove an equal amount*. ...

But, that says Greta, is not enough. We need absolute (real) zero. What’s absolute zero? Well, it’s exactly what it sounds like. To reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere over time, we do not just need to increase our de-carbonisation activities, like tree planting. We need to stop emitting carbon altogether. 

*Of note increasing forestry cover is part and parcel of a 'net zero' emissions scenario.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-climate-change-crisis-target-net-zero-carbon-billions-funding-a9124446.html


Personally I really cant see the Chinese or even many others agreeing with absolute / real zero now or even in the near future as It effectively means completely shutting down life as we know it ....

https://gript.ie/thunberg-stop-breathing/

KyussB

Here is what she says directly:

“Let’s be clear. We don’t need a ‘low-carbon economy’. We don’t need to ‘lower emissions’. Our emissions have to stop to stay if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5C degrees target.

“And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus then we must forget about net-zero – we need real zero.

“Because distant net zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget – which applies for today, not distant future dates. If high emissions continue like now even for a few years, that remaining budget will soon be completely used up.

She is referring the having positive emissions today, and then negative emissions to offset that in the future - that is the form of net zero she opposes (along with other forms of cheating the numbers).

It's all within the context of staying in the carbon budget. She doesn't exclude carbon sinks and sequestration from the mix at all.

Also - slaying one of the other misquotings of Greta that you bring up all the time:
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1219692675332542465

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Here is what she says directly:

“Let’s be clear. We don’t need a ‘low-carbon economy’. We don’t need to ‘lower emissions’. Our emissions have to stop to stay* if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5C degrees target.“And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus then we must forget about net-zero – we need real zero“ Because distant net zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget – which applies for today, not distant future dates. If high emissions continue like now even for a few years, that remaining budget will soon be completely used up.

She is referring the having positive emissions today, and then negative emissions to offset that in the future - that is the form of net zero she opposes (along with other forms of cheating the numbers).It's all within the context of staying in the carbon budget. She doesn't exclude carbon sinks and sequestration from the mix at all.
Also - slaying one of the other misquotings of Greta that you bring up all the time:
.https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1219692675332542465

But incorrect*. As you detailed...

Here is what she says directly:
“Let’s be clear. We don’t need a ‘low-carbon economy’. We don’t need to ‘lower emissions’. Our emissions have to stop...

“And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus then we must forget about net-zero – we need real zero

And she wants this Now

Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.
Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies.
And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels. We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021. We want this done now.

The rest unfortunately your own supposition....

The tweet linked was in fact reference to another tweet about this ...

https://twitter.com/wef/status/1219669787044872194?s=20

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

Here is what she says directly:

“Let’s be clear. We don’t need a ‘low-carbon economy’. We don’t need to ‘lower emissions’. Our emissions have to stop to stay if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5C degrees target.

“And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus then we must forget about net-zero – we need real zero.

“Because distant net zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget – which applies for today, not distant future dates. If high emissions continue like now even for a few years, that remaining budget will soon be completely used up.

She is referring the having positive emissions today, and then negative emissions to offset that in the future - that is the form of net zero she opposes (along with other forms of cheating the numbers).

It's all within the context of staying in the carbon budget. She doesn't exclude carbon sinks and sequestration from the mix at all.

Also - slaying one of the other misquotings of Greta that you bring up all the time:

I suppose it’s hardly surprising Greta’s message gets confused and is sometimes contradictory, considering her social media posts and speeches are written by more than one person.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

But incorrect*. As you detailed...

And she wants this Now

The rest unfortunately your own supposition....

What she said fits my interpretation. She does not exclude carbon-sinks/sequestration from the equation - she excludes accounting tricks, where emissions in the present, are 'offset' by carbon-sinks/sequestration long in the future.

The Twitter link slays your misquoting of her, as saying 'the end is nigh' in 'x' amount of years - she says:

There are of course no magical “dates” for “saving the world”

KyussB

Since the concept of Net Zero emissions is a useful one, but is muddied by the ability to engage in accounting trickery and fraud with the numbers, through failed market solutions in trading 'carbon credits' and the like, I think a modified version of that term would be useful.

Genuine Net Zero - for lack of a better term - I'd define as being measured per-country, and over the course of a year - where the climate changing impact of all greenhouse gasses, offset by the climate change reducing impact of all greenhouse gas sinks and sequestration etc., nets to zero.

That term would exclude all market-trading schemes for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, would exclude all schemes for 'buying' an ability to emit more greenhouse gasses, and would exclude anything outside of the countries borders from being included in the calculation.

I'm not going to try and cover all corners and have a 'perfect' definition - just exclude enough of the worst fraudulent cases as being considered 'genuine' net zero.

Any time I use the term 'net zero' in my arguments, assume that I mean Genuine Net Zero.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

What she said fits my interpretation. She does not exclude carbon-sinks/sequestration from the equation - she excludes accounting tricks, where emissions in the present, are 'offset' by carbon-sinks/sequestration long in the future.
The Twitter link slays your misquoting of her, as saying 'the end is nigh' in 'x' amount of years - she says: There are of course no magical “dates” for “saving the world”

Watching that video - the kid is being clearly being snidely sarcastic regarding existing carbon trading policies . It does not mean same are 'tricks' or otherwise because she claims they are. But yes her 'real zero' does mean exactly what it says on the tin ie - 'she' wants no carbon emissions whatsoever - and just in case you missed it - this is what greta wants ....

Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.

Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies.

And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021. We want this done now.

And btw her twitter link above is in reply to a ' World Economic Forum" tweet.

And yes the kid remains on record pontificating about the likley end of our present civilisation

"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it"

The evident backtracking of that hyperbole after this was pointed out as complete rubbish is irrelevant. The only thing which is being 'slayed' is a continued lack of critical thinking tbh. Also Incredible we have some adults hanging onto the kids words as gospel tbh.

Not only one saying that btw

https://youtu.be/8RVooYlyl20?t=2m1s

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

The evident backtracking of that hyperbole after this was pointed out as complete rubbish is irrelevant. The only thing which is being 'slayed' is a continued lack of critical thinking tbh. Also Incredible we have some adults hanging onto the kids words as gospel tbh.

Not only one saying that btw

https://youtu.be/8RVooYlyl20?t=2m1s

You haven't shown a single example of possessing a desire to participate in critical thinking across your 900+posts on the these threads. Not a one. Zero.

And still focusing on the 2030 date like while still misunderstanding even her basic point in relation to that.

And using Ben Shapiro as evidence to undermine her message?

Why is that you and others are willing to believe conservative right wing views on this topic but want to ignore the words from people qualified and working extensively on the topic?

CtevenSrowder

Decent vid that shows the complexity involved Climate models. I'd much rather this man to have the platform that Greta does as his views are far more nuanced as he knows the science.

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Decent vid that shows the complexity involved Climate models. I'd much rather this man to have the platform that Greta does as his views are far more nuanced as he knows the science.

I'm glad you like the video and can therefore take it that you agree with his statement that 'We've established beyond doubt that human kind is warming the planet".

Greta is calling for people like Tim to get center stage. She is doing so because heretofore, they have largely been sidelined while business interests take priority.

gozunda

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fkCo_trbT8&t=941s

Decent vid that shows the complexity involved Climate models. I'd much rather this man to have the platform that Greta does as his views are far more nuanced as he knows the science.

Thanks. I hadn't came across that guy previously.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Watching that video - the kid is being clearly being snidely sarcastic regarding existing carbon trading policies . It does not mean same are 'tricks' or otherwise because she claims they are. But yes her 'real zero' does mean exactly what it says on the tin ie - 'she' wants no carbon emissions whatsoever - and just in case you missed it - this is what greta wants ....



And btw her twitter link above is in reply to a ' World Economic Forum" tweet.

And yes the kid remains on record pontificating about the likley end of our present civilisation



The evident backtracking of that hyperbole after this was pointed out as complete rubbish is irrelevant. The only thing which is being 'slayed' is a continued lack of critical thinking tbh. Also Incredible we have some adults hanging onto the kids words as gospel tbh.

Not only one saying that btw

https://youtu.be/8RVooYlyl20?t=2m1s

Ending of investments/subsidies in the fossil fuel industry - complete disinvestment from that industry...

You're arguing that letting the fossil fuel industry fend for itself, is equivalent to the complete elimination of emissions - that one of the most profitable industries in the world won't survive without the government subsidies and pension fund etc. investments they get...

The only people thick enough to believe that - are the ones economically illiterate enough to mix up buying oil for use, with 'investment'.


Here is how you misquote her all the time:

gozunda wrote:

And greta apparently believes the end of civilisation is happening in exactly 10 years 3 months

gozunda wrote:

she continues to claim that civilisation is going to end in exactly 10 years

Here are Greta's own words proving these are all a misrepresentation:

It’s never too late to do as much as we can, every fraction of a degree matters. There are of course no magical “dates” for “saving the world”.

You even quote-mine her to change what she says from "the end of civilization as we know it" to just "the end of civilization" - which are completely different meanings.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Ending of investments/subsidies in the fossil fuel industry - complete disinvestment from that industry...
You're arguing that letting the fossil fuel industry fend for itself, is equivalent to the complete elimination of emissions - that one of the most profitable industries in the world won't survive without the government subsidies and pension fund etc. investments they get...The only people thick enough to believe that - are the ones economically illiterate enough to mix up buying oil for use, with 'investment'.

Incorrect. I have not suggested they should or shouldn't be left 'fend for themselves.
The only 'thick people' as you referred to them would be any who bizarrely fail to acknowledge what greta is advocating- which is viz and I quote

Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.

.

And yes grera wants the industry halted and reinforces that when she demands zero emissions.

We don’t need a ‘low-carbon economy’. We don’t need to ‘lower emissions’. Our emissions have to stop

And yup she wants all that NOW

KyussB wrote: »

here is how you misquote her all the timeHere are Greta's own words proving these are all a misrepresentation: *"It’s never too late to do as much as we can, every fraction of a degree matters. There are of course no magical “dates” for “saving the world”....

Again incorrect. I see you are quoting out of context again. But no matter. As per my previous comment - I provided the exact quotes of the type of rubbish and hyperbole she regularly comes out with. The above tweet* you found using Google ie is in reply to a recent tweet from the World Ecomonic Forum. Ie this one.

https://twitter.com/wef/status/1219669787044872194?s=20

Nothing to do with what she said regarding her previous speech and I quote btw.

"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it"

It remains that this is exactly what she tried to pass as informed commentary. And the fact stands its is 1) hyperbole and 2) complete horse manure (even ignoring the crazy dates)

And again it's another example of the rubbish that some adults are listening to and defending. It really makes no sense whatsoever.

KyussB

You're deliberately quote-mining her again, to lie about what she said - you're claiming she wants the fossil fuel industry to stop existing overnight - but what she said was:

We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

You were going on about her claiming civilization ends EXACTLY on a certain date - you made that up - the quote from her tweet directly contradicts that.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm glad you like the video and can therefore take it that you agree with his statement that 'We've established beyond doubt that human kind is warming the planet".

Greta is calling for people like Tim to get center stage. She is doing so because heretofore, they have largely been sidelined while business interests take priority.

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.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You're deliberately quote-mining her again, to lie about what she said - you're claiming she wants the fossil fuel industry to stop existing overnight - but what she said was We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.You were going on about her claiming civilization ends EXACTLY on a certain date - you made that up - the quote from her tweet directly contradicts that.

Nope. And again incorrect. I do have to ask which of the following are you having difficulty with?

"We don’t need a ‘low-carbon economy’. We don’t need to ‘lower emissions’. Our emissions have to stop"

And in the same speech and context greta demands that:

"all companies, banks, institutions and governments Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction. Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies. And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels. We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now"

Btw you evidently forgot about or 'quote mined' that last bit or perhaps was that "to lie about what she said"?

And btw not the only one who has pointed out what she's demanding. See the video I linked if you are in doubt. Odd you do not wish to accept that no?

And yes her previous speech was quoted directly in my reply to you above. But again the point about her 'end of civilisation...' (for full quote pls see previous) diatribe is that it is hyperbole. That's it. Though at this stage you actually have convinced just about everyone that if greta claimed black was white and if anyone pointed out that was not so - you would automatically take a contrarian view.

The point is that both these speeches are prime examples of the the of stuff which the kid is constantly coming out with. Apparently she is smart enough to backtrack whenever it gets pointed out what is being claiming does not stand up to scruriny

I'm sorry if you dont like others highlighting that. That's it.