Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow, maybe Greta would be better off talking to governments or political groupings to try to get them to enforce positive action.

I mean that would mean going to talk to maybe the EU, or UN, or HoC, or US Congress for example.

Maybe she should do that.

maybe greta and what she does or doesnt do shouldn't be your great white hope

Tell me how

[Deleted User] wrote: »

maybe greta and what she does or doesnt do shouldn't be your great white hope

You mean I'd be better off listening to the scientists?

Who else has that message?

lleti

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow, maybe Greta would be better off talking to governments or political groupings to try to get them to enforce positive action.

I mean that would mean going to talk to maybe the EU, or UN, or HoC, or US Congress for example.

Maybe she should do that.

So no personal responsibility at all? It reminds me of the place I worked in years ago, they had to put a sign on the toaster to say it was hot. Unless people are forced to do something, they are absolved of all blame for doing the wrong thing.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

BS.

It's because Greta is deferring to the scientists, I agree with her message.

No she is not. When she speaks of "the science" it is used in the same context as a preacher who asks you to accept the bible as "the word of God".

The teenager said of climate sceptics: "There's always going to be people who don't understand or accept the united science, and I will just ignore them, as I'm only acting and communicating on the science."

source

There is no such thing as "the united science", this is a construct to avoid questioning and enforce a consensus on the population. There is no consensus regarding climate change. It is just speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conjecture. Not only that, if they had the results would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. Consensus is politics and not science.

Professor Moriarty

lleti wrote: »

So no personal responsibility at all? It reminds me of the place I worked in years ago, they had to put a sign on the toaster to say it was hot. Unless people are forced to do something, they are absolved of all blame for doing the wrong thing.

But in order to make people responsible, you have to make them aware. Is Greta the ideal vehicle for that? Obviously not. But it's working in that it has sparked the conversation. A conversation that is almost certainly meaningless, given global politics, but probably the right thing to do anyway.

Professor Moriarty

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No she is not. When she speaks of "the science" it is used in the same context as a preacher who asks you to accept the bible as "the word of God".




There is no such thing as "the united science", this is a construct to avoid questioning and enforce a consensus on the population. There is no consensus regarding climate change. It is just speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conjecture. Not only that, if they had the results would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. Consensus is politics and not science.

NASA would beg to differ:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals 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.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No she is not. When she speaks of "the science" it is used in the same context as a preacher who asks you to accept the bible as "the word of God".




There is no such thing as "the united science", this is a construct to avoid questioning and enforce a consensus on the population. There is no consensus regarding climate change. It is just speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conjecture. Not only that, if they had the results would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. Consensus is politics and not science.

Ok then.
Next time a Dr recommends treatment, why don't you laugh in his face and come up with your own plan.

Tell me how

lleti wrote: »

So no personal responsibility at all? It reminds me of the place I worked in years ago, they had to put a sign on the toaster to say it was hot. Unless people are forced to do something, they are absolved of all blame for doing the wrong thing.

Straw man after strawman after strawman here.

Yes personal responsibility, but many people need viable alternatives (in terms of fuel) or to take the choice out of their hands somewhat (as was done with plastic bag tax).

Brussels Sprout

It's pretty depressing that a thread created to throw shade at a 16 year old girl for trying to do something positive for the world has nearly 5000 posts in less than 2 months.

If you use the Search This Thread tool at the top of the page you can see how many times any user posted in a thread.
Just taking some users from this page alone (anonymized but it should be pretty easy to find out who is who):

• Poster 1 - 68 posts
• Poster 2 - 201 posts
• Poster 3- 53
• Poster 4 - 91
• Poster 5- 65
• Poster 6- 494 (over 10% of the total alone)
• Poster 7 - 177

It's basically just a big circle jerk at this stage lads except nobody's going to get any satisfaction here.

Pa ElGrande

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

NASA would beg to differ:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals 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.

That does not invalidate what I said science is not done by consensus and NASA have been requested to correct their misinformation. In addition the 97% marketing ploy has been thoroughly debunked.

lleti

Tell me how wrote: »

Straw man after strawman after strawman here.

Yes personal responsibility, but many people need viable alternatives (in terms of fuel) or to take the choice out of their hands somewhat (as was done with plastic bag tax).

And putting tax on petrol is creating an alternative fuel how?

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok then.
Next time a Dr recommends treatment, why don't you laugh in his face and come up with your own plan.

tut tut

DodoLurker

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

NASA would beg to differ:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals 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.

"Extremely likely" does not equate to scientific proof.
Proven equations in physics would look funny written as:


E = (extremely likely) mc2


Force = (extremely likely) mass x acceleration

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

What are you talking about, this thread is mostly just a bunch of weirdo blokes criticising her?!

So you name call anyone not in support of the circus surrounding this teenager by calling them 'weido' blokes'? Is that statement supposed to be psychic or simply bigoted?

I would strongly suggest - it's much much more bizarre to place a teenager on a pedestal and suspend all critical faculty. Doing that is certainly truly deeply 'weird' ...

Tell me how

lleti wrote: »

And putting tax on petrol is creating an alternative fuel how?

Yeah it definitely wont seek people to consider alternative options. Public transport, cycling, carpooling etc. No siree, how could it.

And if such options aren't available, sure people would never look for politicians who would support their facilitation.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

I would strongly suggest - it's much much more bizarre to place a teenager on a pedestal and suspend all critical faculty. Doing that is certainly truly deeply 'weird' ...

Except, as you know, that isn't happening. Or certainly isn't been advocated on this thread.
But you keep denying/ignoring/misrepresenting that fact.

We'll try again.

Greta's message.
'Science says there's a problem.
Science says we need to act.
Please support science and act.'

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

BS.It's because Greta is deferring to the scientists, I agree with her message.It's because she has motivated a global conversation, I applaud her behaviour.

You surprise me

Gretas 'message'
• Civilisation is going to end in 10 years, 3 months and 90 days.
• Adults have personally destroyed my childhood and future
• How dare you!

BS indeed. You deliberatly ignore that greta is certainly not deferring to the scientists and instead is coming up with her own bs doomsday message / scenarios and speeches on how her childhood / future has been ruined by 'adults' yada yada. And It's because people have placed the teenager on a pedestal of their own making and refuse to allow any criticism.

Truely a case of the emperors new clothes. I reckon it's certainly not going to end well and I'm not talking about climate change ...

lleti

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah it definitely wont seek people to consider alternative options. Public transport, cycling, carpooling etc. No siree, how could it.

And if such options aren't available, sure people would never look for politicians who would support their facilitation.

You mean the public transport options which are already fully wedged with people?

Cycling 30 miles each way?

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

. . . .as was done with plastic bag tax).

The plastic bag tax only appears to work because a cost effective alternative existed that is convenient to use. A carbon tax is a tax on your existence, unless you live off the grid or the life of the Amish there is no way to way to avoid this tax because every facet of your life in modern Ireland involves the consumption of fossil fuel somewhere in the chain. All those products you find on the shelf, the delivery of goods to your door by courier, home heating oil, your clothing, air travel, car ferry, intercity trains, involve the consumption of fossil fuels in some form. Without a valid alternative you are simply degrading peoples standard of living by progressively denying people access to fossil fuels without an alternative.

dvdman1

lleti wrote: »

And putting tax on petrol is creating an alternative fuel how?

I agree with this to a degree..its doesn't create anything but makes us poorer

What if in the near future..50% of all car sales are electric and 50% petrol/diesel

If we add substantial taxes to petrol/diesel in this scenario it helps the public make the right decision.

The coversation needs to be in creating the right choices before implementing taxes...taxes with no choices changes nothing.

gozunda

dvdman1 wrote: »

I agree with this to a degree..its doesn't create anything but makes us poorer

What if in the near future..50% of all car sales are electric and 50% petrol/diesel

If we add substantial taxes to petrol/diesel in this scenario it helps the public make the right decision.

The coversation needs to be in creating the right choices before implementing taxes...taxes with no choices changes nothing.

I would agree with one important provision..

Using electrical vehicles is simply tokenism unless the energy used to fuel them is not primarily dependant on fossil fuels or on renewable energy which is only made possible by even more fossil fuels.

Otherwise its all make believe...

lleti

dvdman1 wrote: »

I agree with this to a degree..its doesn't create anything but makes us poorer

What if in the near future..50% of all car sales are electric and 50% petrol/diesel

If we add substantial taxes to petrol/diesel in this scenario it helps the public make the right decision.

The coversation needs to be in creating the right choices before implementing taxes...taxes with no choices changes nothing.

Exactly.

I have to use my car. If I have to pay 2c/l more for petrol I will, because the alternative is buying an electric car for 30k, building charge points etc. That's money I do not have.

Professor Moriarty

DodoLurker wrote: »

"Extremely likely" does not equate to scientific proof.
Proven equations in physics would look funny written as:


E = (extremely likely) mc2


Force = (extremely likely) mass x acceleration

Okay.

Thelonious Monk

lleti wrote: »

I think everyone is aware of the message now...

Yet...you'd think peoples actions would begin to change by now no?

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1018260113814061057?lang=en

It was quite ironic actually....record breaking heatwaves in Europe on the same day a record number of flights tracked online.

So are you and the people who thanked that post agreeing that the CO2 produced by airlines are causing man made climate change?

Thelonious Monk

Hopefully carbon taxes on fuel encourage people not to live in the middle of nowhere being totally reliant on cars which we are wont to do in Ireland, and we start to develop and plan our towns and cities in a way that encourages people to walk and cycle and use public transport more

reg114

So much nit picking and mindless squabbling about carbon taxes and how dare the authorities apply even more taxes to citizens 'already overburdened'. Nero fiddled while Rome burned to the ground.

Folks, peoples' moaning about the inconvenience of carbon taxes will be mocked by future generations because they will have been proven by then , ( 20 / 30 years time) to have been completely useless.

As of 2019, it is irrefutable that global temperatures will rise by at the most conservative estimate 2 degrees, this has been backed up by 97% of Climate scientists based on cold hard facts and statistics. Global warming is already a reality so faffing about over carbon taxes and carbon credits is finger in the dam stuff. From 1901 to 1990 sea levels rose by 1mm per year, from 1993 to 2010 sea levels rose 3 mm per year, thats an exponential increase in sea level rising which is already having terminal implications for global weather conditions nevermind the fact that 65 % of the worlds population lives within a few kilometres of the sea. Yet people are banging on about carbon taxes ?!!!

Folks a reality check is needed.

Economic growth based on consumerism / materialism has gone unchecked since the industrial revolution, global temperatures rising, polar caps melting and the destruction of the rain forests have occurred simultaneously. What people refuse to accept is either humanity radically alters how it goes about its business or face the inevitable cataclysmic ecological consequences. This isnt scaremongering, is will absolutely come to pass in the near future.

Its beyond ludicrous that an American company like Apple for example. produce phones in China which are then transported by cargo ships to Ireland. Thats a distance of 10,000 nautical miles for you to have a shiny new iPhone in your pocket .. And yet the vast majority of goods we purchase in ireland come from the far east. This simply cannot continue.

The only way humanity can halt global warming beyond 2 degrees globally is to change our way of life. Consumerism which encourages buying the latest of everything every year cannot continue. Mass ownership of petrol / diesel guzzling cars should be ended yesterday. Foreign travel would have to be severely curtailed until a carbon neutral mode of international transport for an island like Island has been discovered. This is just the very tip of the iceberg to use an ironic saying given the context. Everything will be affected from the clothes we wear to the food we eat.

People will scoff suggesting these few measures are utterly alarmist, indeed such scoffing is the philosophy of climate change deniers who always remind me of the character of Larry Vaughan , The obdurate Mayor of Amity in Jaws, who insists the status quo must persist and that there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Folks I urge you to inform yourselves of the science like Greta Thunberg has done, read Naomi Klein's book This changes everything, which distills all the information you need about the life altering seriousness that we face as a human race. You will then see how ridiculously pathetic it is to be arguing about pitifully pointless carbon taxes.

Thargor

gozunda wrote: »

I would agree with one important provision..

Using electrical vehicles is simply tokenism unless the energy used to fuel them is not primarily dependant on fossil fuels or on renewable energy which is only made possible by even more fossil fuels.

Otherwise its all make believe...

The majority of electric cars will be charged at night when the country is running on renewables, the percentage of power coming from renewables makes huge jumps every year, this is true across the world, led by China and India.

Anyway the massive waste and greenhouse gas emissions that go into getting fossil fuels to the pump only for most of that energy to be wasted by internal combustion engines (theoretical max is 40% efficiency) is criminal.

Professor Moriarty

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

That does not invalidate what I said science is not done by consensus and NASA have been requested to correct their misinformation. In addition the 97% marketing ploy has been thoroughly debunked.

Thanks for dropping those links in without supporting them. Obviously you didn't read them.

Your first link was a letter written by a libertarian think-tank whose mission is to promote climate change denial. Marks: 2/10

Incidentally that letter quoted Richard Tol, who wrote the 2014 Guardian opinion piece - your second link. Tol published research in 2014 which had to be withdrawn and rewritten because of missing minus signs.Even then it was severely criticised. Nobody pays any attention to him since. Marks: 2/10

Your third link is to an Australian blogger writing in 2013. It's a 'complex' argument that is ultimately nothing more than a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on Cook. Bit like a small dog yapping for attention. 3/10

KyussB

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Here is a list of megaprojects completed in the world. Each had a clear aim, a clear goal and clearly set out how they aimed to achieve this.
The green new deal says "Put money into r&d" and "change to entirely green new energy in 12 years".

The green new deal does not outline how to achieve it's goals and private enterprise is and has been working on this for a long time; which has already lead to big change in carbon output and new technologies.



Really all we need to do is put money into R&D into transporter and replicator technology ala Star Trek. Then we won't have any emissions at all, and we solve world hunger.

How do you expect to implement the policies before the tech is developed?

I've already outlined key specific goals of R&D: Substitution of rare-earths in renewable energy tech - something that there is already progress on, but it needs a few orders of magnitude greater research to make it happen faster - same with energy storage, there are loads of avenues for alternative methods of grid energy storge that don't use rare earths, which are still in the lab. Rapidly solving these low-hanging-fruit problems allows worldwide mass-production of this tech, for a rapid transfer of all economies to renewable energy.

You know this though, as it's been said so many times already - and you only go on about Star-Trek level tech, because your argument is rhetorical - aiming to make R&D seem impractical.

The sheer breadth of R&D that can be done, across all areas of our economy, is staggering - absolutely enormous, there is no lack of useful research to do - but the private sector is limited to doing research on a for-profit basis, which means it simply can not scale - we need government funded R&D, to scale it up several orders of magnitude.

The principle problem is this: The private sector can never scale to the level of effort that governments can, simply because governments have whole-economy-scale spending power, that nobody in the private sector will ever have - that's why you need governments to undertake projects/missions, that are of unusually large scale, like this.

It's just something the private sector is completely incapable of doing in a timely manner - simply down to the way our economies are built, and the constraints on the private sector.

In the meantime, there is still a metric shitload of work to do even while developing new tech - such as retrofitting every single building out there, to maximize energy efficiency - massive expansions of public transport infrastructure - retrofitting energy infrastructure to support the adaptation of renewable energy storage/generation - etc..

There is completely no lack of useful work to be done - the scale of available useful work, is enormous.

Graces7

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Hopefully carbon taxes on fuel encourage people not to live in the middle of nowhere being totally reliant on cars which we are wont to do in Ireland, and we start to develop and plan our towns and cities in a way that encourages people to walk and cycle and use public transport more

Interesting idea. will not work of course. many places do have rural transport also and we do not get stuck in traffic jams with engines running...