Marian Finucane Thread

Ahwell

mgn wrote: »

So everyone that doesn't agree with the great Greta is a climate change denier then.

You still haven't explained what she said that you, as a non-climate change denier, disagree with or why it should be challenged.

Brendan Bendar

mgn wrote: »

With your agenda you can't see that FG is the problem with the voters.

I will take that as a ‘no’, carry on with biased nonsensical posts.

Callan57

mgn wrote: »

It's a sad state of affairs when a panel of adults all agree with what a 16 year old kid says, Greta said that, Greta says this, no one dare questions what she says.

So what has she said that you take issue with? It couldn't be just that she is 16 surely ... or a girl! :rolleyes:

mgn

Ahwell wrote: »

You still haven't explained what she said that you, as a non-climate change denier, disagree with or why it should be challenged.

The world's climate has changed over thousands of years, and if you think for one minute that what you do now to save the world, is going to make a bit of difference, then good luck to you.

mgn

elperello wrote: »

She just says listen to the science and make the necessary changes to protect the planet.

Nothing really radical and certainly little for a panelist on a radio show to get their teeth into.

Or finish up like David Bellamy who went against the grain, and the media finished his career because of what he believed in, not what the wanted him to believe in.

Ahwell

mgn wrote: »

The world's climate has changed over thousands of years,

But that's rhetoric of climate change denier, something you implied you weren't above, bit of a mixed message. Yes, the world's climate does change, that's not really in question. What is in question is whether human activities are significantly contributing to natural climate change through our emissions of greenhouse gases. There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that this is the case. Greta is basing her opinions on science, what are you basing yours on?

elperello

mgn wrote: »

Or finish up like David Bellamy who went against the grain, and the media finished his career because of what he believed in, not what the wanted him to believe in.

David Bellamy was a nice man. I met him briefly one time.

He did some great work in his time for which incidentally he was well rewarded.

He allowed himself to end up on the wrong side of the climate change debate for reasons I never quite understood.

The science wasn't there for him when he needed it so the die was cast mostly of his own making.

Nevertheless I will remember him as a great contributor to various forms of media who helped to champion the natural world.

mgn

Ahwell wrote: »

But that's rhetoric of climate change denier, something you implied you weren't above, bit of a mixed message. Yes, the world's climate does change, that's not really in question. What is in question is whether human activities are significantly contributing to natural climate change through our emissions of greenhouse gases. There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that this is the case. Greta is basing her opinions on science, what are you basing yours on?

Since when did the great Greta become qualified to lecture anyone on climate science, she is a sixteen year old school dropout with no qualifications being used by a group of people what no one else would listen too.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.

mgn

elperello wrote: »

David Bellamy was a nice man. I met him briefly one time.

He did some great work in his time for which incidentally he was well rewarded.

He allowed himself to end up on the wrong side of the climate change debate for reasons I never quite understood.

The science wasn't there for him when he needed it so the die was cast mostly of his own making.

Nevertheless I will remember him as a great contributor to various forms of media who helped to champion the natural world.

I don't recall him changing his opinion with the science we have now.

Ahwell

mgn wrote: »

Since when did the great Greta become qualified to lecture anyone on climate science, she is a sixteen year old school dropout with no qualifications being used by a group of people what no one else would listen too.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.

This is just a personal attack on her, you still haven't explained what it is she has said that you think needs questioning.

blinding

mgn wrote: »

I don't recall him changing his opinion with the science we have now.

Things took a turn for the worse for him lately .

He escaped by dying before the Climate Apocalypse . My own plan also .

Beechwoodspark

mgn wrote: »

The world's climate has changed over thousands of years, and if you think for one minute that what you do now to save the world, is going to make a bit of difference, then good luck to you.

Mgn I see you have an issue with Greta T pointing to (pretty much widely accepted and uncontroversial at this stage) climate science.

I would respectfully suggest you have a read of “the inhospitable earth” by David Wallace wells over Christmas

Well written and a relatively “easy read” but backed up by up to date hard science

Plenty of footnotes and citations for his assertions for you to dig into.

mgn

Ahwell wrote: »

This is just a personal attack on her, you still haven't explained what it is she has said that you think needs questioning.

If some brat of a school kid came into your place of work tomorrow and starting lecturing you about how you were doing your job, would you listen and do as you were told, would you f*ck, the would be told to get back to school and come when the were qualified to tell you.

Beechwoodspark

mgn wrote: »

Since when did the great Greta become qualified to lecture anyone on climate science, she is a sixteen year old school dropout with no qualifications being used by a group of people what no one else would listen too.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.

You sound kinda rattled by her? She’s only pointing to facts and science

Unless you have alternative facts to present?

Ahwell

mgn wrote: »

If some brat of a school kid came into your place of work tomorrow and starting lecturing you about how you were doing your job, would you listen and do as you were told, would you f*ck, the would be told to get back to school and come when the were qualified to tell you.

You are still avoiding the question - what it is she has said that you think needs questioning?

Beechwoodspark

mgn wrote: »

If some brat of a school kid came into your place of work tomorrow and starting lecturing you about how you were doing your job, would you listen and do as you were told, would you f*ck, the would be told to get back to school and come when the were qualified to tell you.

I’d listen respectfully to her and I’d do my own research. Having already done that I think most of what she says stacks up.

I honestly think you have approached the climate issues being raised by GT completely arse ways

She is not lecturing you. You are free to make up your own mind and have your own views and opinions.

mgn

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Mgn I see you have an issue with Greta T pointing to (pretty much widely accepted and uncontroversial at this stage) climate science.

I would respectfully suggest you have a read of “the inhospitable earth” by David Wallace wells over Christmas

Well written and a relatively “easy read” but backed up by up to date hard science

Plenty of footnotes and citations for his assertions for you to dig into.

Sent on that message to leaders at the UN climate talks, looks like the are starting to question all the science now,

Funny how the science changes when the see what it's going to cost them.

mgn

Ahwell wrote: »

You are still avoiding the question - what it is she has said that you think needs questioning?

As i said before, she is only a puppet being told what to say.
If she is so passionate about what see is saying, why does she have to keep referring to her script.

Ahwell

mgn wrote: »

As i said before, she is only a puppet being told what to say.
If she is so passionate about what see is saying, why does she have to keep referring to her script.

That's just attacking the messenger again, you still haven't answered my question - what it is she has said that you think needs questioning?

mgn

Ahwell wrote: »

That's just attacking the messenger again, you still haven't answered my question - what it is she has said that you think needs questioning?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWJLwbfNo0

The likes of this coming from a spoilt wealthy brat.

Ahwell

mgn wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWJLwbfNo0

The likes of this coming from a spoilt wealthy brat.

Again the personal abuse, you incapable of articulating a counter argument to the message she has been making, so you attack her instead.

mgn

Ahwell wrote: »

Again the personal abuse, you incapable of articulating a counter argument to the message she has been making, so you attack her instead.

Can you explain what the message in youtube video is all about.

Ahwell

mgn wrote: »

Can you explain what the message in youtube video is all about.

Can you answer the question I asked 4 times?

you said...

It's a sad state of affairs when a panel of adults all agree with what a 16 year old kid says, Greta said that, Greta says this, no one dare questions what she says.

I've repeatedly asked what is it about what she says needs to be questioned?

mgn

Ahwell wrote: »

Can you answer the question I asked 4 times?

you said...



I've repeatedly asked what is it about what she says needs to be questioned?

Preaching to young kids that the only have 12 years left on the planet.

Ahwell

mgn wrote: »

Preaching to young kids that the only have 12 years left on the planet.

Except she never said that, what she did say is...

According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), we are less than 12 years away from not being able to undo our mistakes.

Can you refute this?

elperello

mgn wrote: »

I don't recall him changing his opinion with the science we have now.

I don't mean to be disrespectful but I have said as much about GT and DB as I wish to on this thread.

The debate on climate change is too big a subject to do justice to within the confines of a discussion about one radio show.

mgn

Ahwell wrote: »

Except she never said that, what she did say is...



Can you refute this?

Do you believe this.

Ahwell

mgn wrote: »

Do you believe this.

I have no reason not to, she is quoting a report by the world’s leading climate scientists.

Dick_Swiveller

Ahwell wrote: »

I have no reason not to, she is quoting a report by the world’s leading climate scientists.

Oh give over, they've been making these "in x years this will happen" predictions for years and nothing has come of them.

I think most people's issue with GT is the howling and rage anytime anyone dares to mention that she's a teenager who more than likely has no idea what she is talking about.

Example:

Me: I doubt she has a clue what she's on about.

GT devotee: OMG, stop attacking a child!!!!

Ahwell

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Oh give over, they've been making these "in x years this will happen" predictions for years and nothing has come of them.

You are basing that on feck all.

Meanwhile from people who actually know what they are taking about...

Now, for the first time, a group of scientists — Zeke Hausfather of UC Berkeley, Henri Drake and Tristan Abbott of MIT, and Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies — has done a systematic review of climate models, dating back to the late 1970s. Published in Geophysical Research Letters, it tests model performance against a simple metric: how well they predicted global mean surface temperature (GMST) through 2017, when the latest observational data is available.

Long story short: “We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication.”

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/12/4/20991315/climate-change-prediction-models-accurate