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

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

greta fans sure have some cheek calling anyone else moaners in this thread. same four posters flinging out spite and fury that anyone dare question what a spoilt teenager with extremist views and a flair for bad drama has done to earn the attention of our governing structures.

angry, ad-hom, ugly stuff from one poster in particular but a few of them in it throughout. why does a teenage girl as strong and powerful as greta need ye defending her honour from mostly-imagined attacks on an irish discussion board folks? ye have some cheek labelling anyone creepy.

and still spreading the lies that anyone dubious about the above must be a climate change denier.

its poor, poor stuff.

What are her "extremist views"?

Tell me how

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Think she must be reading this thread

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I saw the tweet.

moonage

I think it's great that India and China are increasing their use of fossil fuels.

The increased CO2 levels will have a positive effect on the greening of the planet. CO2 is the gas of life, not a pollutant. Before humans began to burn fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was heading in a very dangerous direction for a very long time.

JJayoo

Higher temp and more CO2 will benefit plant life.

Bring on global warming, out with Hoomans

Veritas Libertas

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Think she must be reading this thread

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1179507708493471744

Climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet.

-IPCC report

Here is what they say on page 109.

Global warming is expected to surpass 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, even if these pledges are supplemented with very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of mitigation after 2030 (high confidence). This increased action would need to achieve net zero CO2 emissions in less than 15 years. Even if this is achieved, temperatures would only be expected to remain below the 1.5°C threshold if the actual geophysical response ends up being towards the low end of the currently estimated uncertainty range.

This fifteen year figure they mean fifteen years AFTER 2030. By this report we need to hit zero c02 emissions by 2050.. not in 12-15 years. So much uncertainty in this report...

Limiting warming to 1.5°C implies reaching net zero CO2 emissions globally around 2050 and concurrent deep reductions in emissions of non-CO2
forcers, particularly methane (high confidence). Such mitigation pathways are characterized by energydemand reductions, decarbonization of electricity and other fuels, electrification of energy end use, deep reductions in agricultural emissions, and some form of CDR with carbon storage on land or sequestration in geological reservoirs. Low energy demand and low demand for land- and GHG-intensive consumption goods facilitate limiting warming to as close as possible to 1.5°C

Then there is bat**** crazy stuff in this report also.

Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways that aim to limit global warming to 1.5°C as they address challenges and inevitable trade-offs, widen opportunities, and ensure that options, visions, and values are deliberated, between and within countries and communities, without making the poor and disadvantaged worse off

Also what does Greta have against physics all of a sudden?

One of her recent speeches:

“No matter how political the background to this crisis may be, we must not allow this to continue to be a partisan political question. The climate and ecological crisis is beyond party politics. And our main enemy right now is not our political opponents. Our main enemy now is physics. And we can not make ‘deals’ with physics.”

hetuzozaho

lleti wrote: »

Ok and carbon fibre boats and flying planes doesn't eat into that budget?

Maybe you quoted the wrong post?

ToBeFrank123

Tell me how wrote: »

Terrible parents alright.

Have raised a smart, principled, conscientious girl who by the age of 16 has spoke at UN, EU, HoC, US congress, won several awards, has been nominated for a Nobel prize, has travelled from Europe to the US on a racing yacht, has motivated over ten million people to join her on striking in order to motivate governments to protect the planet and has ticked off an entire socio-group of conspiracy theorists who hate the idea of positive action or change.

If she never does another thing, she'll have lived a more eventful and productive life than 99.9% of people on the planet.

But yeah, terrible parents.

I'm confused. I thought her childhood had been ruined? These achievements don't sound like those of a ruined childhood, rather an extremely priviliged one.

Veritas Libertas

Tell me how wrote: »

'Listen. to. the. science.'

Give this a go, a reputable geologist.

We're led to believe that the two sides of this debate are those who say that the only way to deal with anthropogenic climate change is to dismantle the capitalist system and those who want to pretend it's all a hoax. I think the majority of sensible people would like to deal with the problem and support the free market system

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

Give this a go, a reputable geologist.

Tis kinna funny that Maggie is in that video talking about climate change, it could be argued that since her involvement in driving the neoliberal/neoclassical consensus, environmental degradation has increased dramatically, interesting video all the same

Tell me how

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I'm confused. I thought her childhood had been ruined? These achievements don't sound like those of a ruined childhood, rather an extremely priviliged one.

I know you are Frank, I know.

All of what Greta has been done has originated out of her sense that she had to act because those responsible (the governments) had not done what needed to be done or what they had said they were going to do.

Her childhood changed as a consequence of that, that does not mean that she has not had exceptional experiences, but that she did not necessarily seek them out if she had not felt she absolutely had to act.

Tell me how

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Give this a go, a reputable geologist.

A - Is he more reputable than those contributing to the IPCC report? How do you know?

B - He categorically outlines the link between CO2 and the earth temperature and how it has long been a cause for concern (echoes IPCC and others view but denied by many on this thread)

C - His focus is maintaining a capitalist lifestyle while helping the environment? (IPCC are saying action needs to happen, Greta has said the solutions are not yet developed, neither has said that we need to revert to living in a cave)

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

I know you are Frank, I know.All of what Greta has been done has originated out of her sense that she had to act because those responsible (the governments) had not done what needed to be done or what they had said they were going to do. Her childhood changed as a consequence of that, that does not mean that she has not had exceptional experiences, but that she did not necessarily seek them out if she had not felt she absolutely had to act.

I'd disagree. At the UN conference - she went into an overt passive aggressive rant - blaming all and sundry for ruining her childhood and her future. "How dare you" etc etc

Tbh the extreme poor me attitude and tantrum truly showed that she bizarrely believes her life has been destroyed by all the adults alive.

The rant was perhaps even more inexplicable considering it was a pro-climate change event. It's not that the was a massive anti climate change contingent in the audience. She must have forgotten that the UN is one of the biggest promoters of climate change and reseach (even if they manage to get it spectacularly wrong from time to time). But even at that - they seem to draw the line at doomsdayism which this teenager rants about.

I wonder does she ever get outside that small narsistic bubble to think of the children whose lives really were destroyed by the last world war, or whose lives were overshadowed for decades by the spectre of the cold war and global annihilation or the children who grow up in poverty. But no its gretas childhood and how all the horrible adults have destroyed it on her.

Even the IPCC report which details the predicted impacts such as a critical rise in temperature have yet to happen But according to gretas hyperbole 'people are dying and 'whole ecosystems are collapsing'. People are always dying but afaik there are no widescale wipeouts of humans due to increased temperatures and ecosystems collapsing have been shown to be a direct consequence of a massive human population explosion in the last couple of centuries. But no according to gretas semi hysterical rant - only climate change is responsible for all of these and we should follow her 'opinion'.

The kid needs a serious reality break.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

I'd disagree. At the UN conference - she went into an overt passive aggressive rant - blaming all and sundry for ruining her childhood and her future. "How dare you" etc etc

Tbh the extreme poor me attitude and tantrum truly showed that she bizarrely believes her life has been destroyed by all the adults alive.

The rant was perhaps even more inexplicable considering it was a pro-climate change event. It's not that the was a massive anti climate change contingent in the audience. She must have forgotten that the UN is one of the biggest promoters of climate change and reseach (even if they manage to get it spectacularly wrong from time to time). But even at that - they seem to draw the line at doomsdayism which this teenager rants about.

I wonder does she ever get outside that small narsistic bubble to think of the children whose lives really were destroyed by the last world war, or whose lives were overshadowed for decades by the spectre of the cold war and global annihilation or the children who grow up in poverty. But no its gretas childhood and how all the horrible adults have destroyed it on her.

Even the IPCC report which details the predicted impacts such as a critical rise in temperature have yet to happen But according to gretas hyperbole 'people are dying and 'whole ecosystems are collapsing'. People are always dying but afaik there are no widescale wipeouts of humans due to increased temperatures and ecosystems collapsing have been shown to be a direct consequence of a massive human population explosion in the last couple of centuries. But no according to gretas semi hysterical rant - only climate change is responsible for all of these and we should follow her 'opinion'.

The kid needs a serious reality break.

This thread started before she spoke to the UN and you were very vocal in your complaints around Greta then, you still are but now you keep referring to her UN speech like that's been the problem all along yet it was the first time she was unable to control her emotional entirely.

I know your focus is on trying to find fault with Greta, I cant figure out why. I know it has next to nothing to do with the environment at this point although you've used false arguments on that to try to undermine her for a period as well.

Would love a reality check on what's truly bothering you but doubt we're going to get it.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

This thread started before she spoke to the UN and you were very vocal in your complaints around Greta then, you still are but now you keep referring to her UN speech like that's been the problem all along yet it was the first time she was unable to control her emotional entirely.I know your focus is on trying to find fault with Greta, I cant figure out why. I know it has next to nothing to do with the environment at this point although you've used false arguments on that to try to undermine her for a period as well.Would love a reality check on what's truly bothering you but doubt we're going to get it.

Have you been reading the thread no? I believe the topic under discussion relative to greta's trip to the US is the UN conference. Do keep up.

To counter your various off topic accusations - Your own comments have unfailingly resorted to the use of gretacisms and generalised greta worship. That hasn't changed even before or even after the UN conference.

And I can tell you for sure her hysterical rantings at the UN did not change my mind for the better

Not the first time she has gone ott either. The relevant issue here - I strongly dislike hyper emotive bull**** bizarrely being hailed as the new woke reality.

And utterly incredible how some cannot see or wont see what is evident. But there we go. What's new eh?

Edit: Back on topic - it was interesting to note you failed to debate any of the points made I made relative to gretas contributions at the UN conference but instead resorted to the old hoary chestnut of attributing any criticism as attacking / 'finding fault with Greta' (sic) ...

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

Terrible parents alright.

Have raised a smart, principled, conscientious girl who by the age of 16 has spoke at UN, EU, HoC, US congress, won several awards, has been nominated for a Nobel prize, has travelled from Europe to the US on a racing yacht, has motivated over ten million people to join her on striking in order to motivate governments to protect the planet and has ticked off an entire socio-group of conspiracy theorists who hate the idea of positive action or change.

If she never does another thing, she'll have lived a more eventful and productive life than 99.9% of people on the planet.

But yeah, terrible parents.

How do you know she is smart

weldoninhio

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Read The Uninhabitable Earth. It details what we should expect if we continue on our current trajectory. We’re on course for at least 3 increase by 2100. Apparently 2 degree is the tipping point, where things would be bad. Aiming for 1.5 is still a challenging future, but we might be able to adapt and cope. It’d still mean terrible storms, drought, mass migration, but we might be able to cope. At 2 then it’s every woman for herself.

A book by a journalist, based on an essay he wrote that "received mixed to negative criticism from scientists". :rolleyes:

lleti

weldoninhio wrote: »

How do you know she is smart

She has a superpower obviously.

ToBeFrank123

Tell me how wrote: »

I know you are Frank, I know.

All of what Greta has been done has originated out of her sense that she had to act because those responsible (the governments) had not done what needed to be done or what they had said they were going to do.

Her childhood changed as a consequence of that, that does not mean that she has not had exceptional experiences, but that she did not necessarily seek them out if she had not felt she absolutely had to act.

Yes, instead of being in school learning something she's travelling the world and treated like a celebrity.

How bloody awful.

She will no doubt get a free scholarship to some fancy US University in due course, something the average American has to pay up to 100K for.

Its really terrible what they are inflicting on her!

Professor Moriarty

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yes, instead of being in school learning something she's travelling the world and treated like a celebrity.

How bloody awful.

She will no doubt get a free scholarship to some fancy US University in due course, something the average American has to pay up to 100K for.

Its really terrible what they are inflicting on her!

All the while, sticking climate change into the face of people like you. Go Greta.

Jimmy Garlic

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

All the while, sticking climate change into the face of people like you. Go Greta.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1FxfR3lg6Q

Ash.J.Williams

weldoninhio wrote: »

How do you know she is smart

Because a ****ing complete dipso would not be able to address the UN

ToBeFrank123

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

All the while, sticking climate change into the face of people like you. Go Greta.

Wow, talk about a gigantic misrepresentation of my position on the topic.

Read back my posts, see what I said, feel free to apologise.

I'll give you a hint, I said climate change is real. We don't need a 16 year old kid travelling the world and lecturing us on how we should travel less, to tell us the bloody obvious.

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

I

I wonder does she ever get outside that small narsistic bubble to think of the children whose lives really were destroyed by the last world war, or whose lives were overshadowed for decades by the spectre of the cold war and global annihilation or the children who grow up in poverty. But no its gretas childhood and how all the horrible adults have destroyed it on her.

Of course she does. Even in the quote you keep using about her childhood, she thinks of others. Everyone chops off the end to suit them.

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying."


She agrees she is one of the lucky ones. So you agree with her on something

Suttree

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We don't need a 16 year old kid travelling the world and lecturing us on how we should travel less, to tell us the bloody obvious.

You really would think that, but apparently not.

Professor Moriarty

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Wow, talk about a gigantic misrepresentation of my position on the topic.

Read back my posts, see what I said, feel free to apologise.

I'll give you a hint, I said climate change is real. We don't need a 16 year old kid travelling the world and lecturing us on how we should travel less, to tell us the bloody obvious.

We do need a 16 year old to champion urgent action on climate change in the absence of any other champion.

ToBeFrank123

Suttree wrote: »

You really would think that, but apparently not.

Its the scientists using verifiable science that will always make the strongest case.

Not a privileged western teenager telling everyone her childhood has been ruined, before embarking on a tour of North America.

She's not deprived, her childhood was not ruined, so why tell lies?

Unless you've been living in a cave with no access to the news for the last 10 years, you cannot avoid the effects of climate change.

Ash.J.Williams

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its the scientists using verifiable science that will always make the strongest case.

Not a privileged western teenager telling everyone her childhood has been ruined, before embarking on a tour of North America.

She's not deprived, her childhood was not ruined, so why tell lies?

Unless you've been living in a cave with no access to the news for the last 10 years, you cannot avoid the effects of climate change.

i'm not an expert in Aspergers but is it not possible that a single issue such as the environment could bother a child with that condition, and occupy a lot of head space?

ToBeFrank123

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

We do need a 16 year old to champion urgent action on climate change in the absence of any other champion.

Trump, Putin and the rest have ignored her. Trump this week is trying to stop California from setting its own emissions limits. Putin said she doesn't understand a complex world.

The really big players have ignored her.

Developing nations like China and India will be the really big polluters this century. When will she head there and make a big deal of it?

You cannot cut back emissions overnight. It takes decades of research and work to do it. Just look at the very slow progress developing affordable electric cars with significant range and even they are not environmentally friendly if you factor in construction.

The EU will make vague commitments, then sign up to the disastrous Mercosur.

weldoninhio

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Because a ****ing complete dipso would not be able to address the UN

I've seen many a dipso stand on a street corner and rant nonsensically (and they didn't need cue cards), same as Greta did at the UN. I'm fairly sure a dipso wouldn't care if s/he was addressing the wall or the UN.

lleti

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

All the while, sticking climate change into the face of people like you. Go Greta.

I wish Greta would follow through on her beliefs.