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

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

That would be a fail I'm afraid...

So where a tweet on gretas twitter account claims that she has said - 'listen to the scientists' even though she did not mention that in the recent UN speech (possibly her most important speech to date?) [/i]

It's all a bit odd surely? Let's say I can write a tweet tomorrow claiming that my message has always been "Apples are oranges" but what I actually said was "How dare you - Apples are actually bananas" and then that proves I'm being clear? Grand so. Glad we cleared that up.

A - She didn't try to correct what she had previously said. She (rightly) did not feel a need to do so.

B - If you have spoke at the US congress the week previously and told them that Apples are Oranges, and you talk at the UN then and do not specifically think that Apples are Bananas, people aren't going to think you believe they are. (apart from the version of Gozunda who exists in the world that analogy takes place)

Tell me how

moonage wrote: »

Scientists disagree strongly about the impacts of the burning of fossil fuels on global warming. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by to the contrary.

The UN's IPCC's reports have to be taken with a large pinch of salt because of financial and political conflicts of interest. It is agenda driven. Instead of arriving at a conclusion, it starts with a position and cherrypicks evidence that backs up its apocalyptic views.

IPCC report. 120 countries, 195 organisations, thousands of scientists.

Have you got a similar body of work which supports your second paragraph?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

A - She didn't try to correct what she had previously said. She (rightly) did not feel a need to do so.B - If you have spoke at the US congress the week previously and told them that Apples are Oranges, and you talk at the UN then and do not specifically think that Apples are Bananas, people aren't going to think you believe they are. (apart from the version of Gozunda who exists in the world that analogy takes place)

This is what you quoted.

Tell me how wrote: »

Her message.

“Again and again, the same message. Listen to the scientists, listen to the scientists. Listen to the scientists!“...

Except that is not the message in her UN speech - her most important opportunity to speak to date. It was not "again and again - listen to the scientists" by any means ...

She refers once to science but only by way of scolding the adults that they have stolen her childhood etc. And how dare they!

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

This is what you quoted.



Except that is not the message in her UN speech. It was not "again and again - listen to the scientists" by any means ...

She refers once to science but only by way of scolding the adults that they have stolen her childhood. And how dare they!

Gozunda, no one, absolutely no one, is under any illusion about her message only yourself.

Have you ever been in work project meetings where each week the Project Manager states the purpose of the project except one week, they just immediately cut loose and address people for repeatedly not delivering what they had promised to do, have delayed other elements of the job or are causing cost overrun. Let me tell you, no one walks out of that meeting thinking the purpose of the project has changed. They know a point was being hammered home that they needed to act and deliver.

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

People still banging on about the non-peer reviewed flawed IPCC report? Yeah?

It’s the equivalent of picking a report by a flat earther and constantly using it as evidence.

But it’s in the report, derp.

The report is flawed, the scientists have even admitted it.

But it’s in the report, derp derp.

It’s not peer reviewed.

But it’s in the report, derp derp derp.

Do you have any other evidence?

But the report derp, derp.

Okaaaay then...

Tell me how wrote: »

IPCC report. 120 countries, 195 organisations, thousands of scientists.

Have you got a similar body of work which supports your second paragraph?

Much derp.

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Much derp.

A higher level of intelligence at play here obviously.

Fr_Dougal

Tell me how wrote: »

A higher level of intelligence at play here obviously.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111457977&postcount=5537

I suppose next you’re going to tell us all that the actual authors(the IPCC scientists) are lying about admitting that the report is flawed?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Gozunda, no one, absolutely no one, is under any illusion about her message only yourself. Have you ever been in work project meetings where each week the Project Manager states the purpose of the project except one week, they just immediately cut loose and address people for repeatedly not delivering what they had promised to do, have delayed other elements of the job or are causing cost overrun. Let me tell you, no one walks out of that meeting thinking the purpose of the project has changed. They know a point was being hammered home that they needed to act and deliver.

'Tell me how' - lots of people dont fawn over the teenagers every word as if those words are somehow holy. See this thread for example.

Anyone can make a claim as to what they have said 'again and again' . Does not mean that they have..

In that tweet - it is explicitly stated that greta's message is 'again and again, the same message. Listen to the scientists' That does not stand up to scrutiny. Tbh it's not difficult to work out.

And yet you exhort everyone to hold these sayings of greta up as gospel - give us a break.

It's clear that gretas PR machine are doing a whitewash job on her tantrum at the UN. Unfortunately for them - it doesn't wash at all.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

Derp?

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/derp



derp -
EXCLAMATION
informal
Used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action.

---

That Father Dougal poster definitely 'listens to the scientists Southpark creators'

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/06/derp-meaning-origin.html

"
The origins of the word can be traced back to BASEketball, the 1998 film by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. KnowYourMeme, which catalogues this sort of thing, says this (semi-NSFW-ish) scene is the first recorded instance of derp.

But derp found greater traction once Parker and Stone introduced a new character on South Park in 1999. In the episode “The Succubus,” the beloved Chef is replaced by Mr. Derp in the school cafeteria, who carries a hammer and hits himself in the head, yelling “Derp!” while falling on the ground. Real highbrow comedy."

drunkmonkey

Tell me how wrote: »

Gozunda, no one, absolutely no one, is under any illusion about her message only yourself.

In the game of messages she ranks right up there with a Potato.

hetuzozaho

Think it's been clear from before the UN Speech. Unite Behind the Science.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1174383423265357825

Go Greta!

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/derp



derp -
EXCLAMATION
informal
Used as a substitute for speech regarded as meaningless or stupid, or to comment on a foolish or stupid action.

---

That Father Dougal poster definitely 'listens to the scientists Southpark creators'

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/06/derp-meaning-origin.html

"
The origins of the word can be traced back to BASEketball, the 1998 film by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. KnowYourMeme, which catalogues this sort of thing, says this (semi-NSFW-ish) scene is the first recorded instance of derp.

But derp found greater traction once Parker and Stone introduced a new character on South Park in 1999. In the episode “The Succubus,” the beloved Chef is replaced by Mr. Derp in the school cafeteria, who carries a hammer and hits himself in the head, yelling “Derp!” while falling on the ground. Real highbrow comedy."

I know what it means, it was rhetorical placement given the post which I was responding to.

Tell me how

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In the game of messages she ranks right up there with a Potato.

Well, yes, if;

• Potatoes are frequently invited to the EU, House of Commons, Congress and the UN to speak about their message.
• They encourage over 10M people to join them in marching worldwide.
• They are nominated for a Nobel prize.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

'Tell me now' - lots of people dont fawn over the teenagers every word as if those words are somehow holy. See this thread for example.

Anyone can make a claim as to what they have said 'again and again' . Does not mean that they have..

In that tweet - it is explicitly stated that greta's message is 'again and again, the same message. Listen to the scientists' That does not stand up to scrutiny. Tbh it's not difficult to work out.

And yet you exhort everyone to hold these sayings of greta up as gospel - give us a break.

It's clear that gretas PR machine are doing a whitewash job on her tantrum at the UN. Unfortunately for them- it doesn't wash at all.

Why do you hate her?
Your argument is routed in nothing but that fact I'm sure at this point.

I don't exhort anyone to do anything other than not to twist reality to support their narrative. If there was any ambiguity about Greta's message, many of the vocal naysayers would be drawing attention to that (whether are Brendan O'Neil, Katie Hopkins, Jeremy Clarkson, Piers Morgan or any of the other bastions of social awareness) but they are not. You are. You alone.

Nice word play on my name there, I'll let you off without the (sic) on this one. Very clever.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Think it's been clear from before the UN Speech. Unite Behind the Science.
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1174383423265357825 Go Greta!

Greta goes places alright. Just not sure that she knows exactly where....

What you are saying is that the claim made about the 'same message' 'again and again' in gretas tweet referred to by 'Tell me how' is wrong yes?

Whatever the message she previously gave - she has not given 'the same message' 'again and again' - as a cursory check of the UN speech will clearly show.

A bit of creative greta PR going on there methinks ...

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Greta goes places alright. Just not sure that she knows exactly where....

What you are saying is that the claim made about the 'same message' 'again and again' in gretas tweet referred to by 'Tell me how' is wrong yes?

Whatever the message she previously gave - she has not given 'the same message' 'again and again' - as a cursory check of the UN speech will clearly show.

A bit of creative greta PR going on there methinks ...

No I was just saying I've felt the message was clear. Maybe wasn't, but you're up to speed now anyway. Now let's #uniteBehindTheScience together Gozunda! You in?

moonage

I agree with Greta when she says: "Listen to the scientists!"

But the type of scientists to listen to are independent ones, who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest, preferably who are not members of governmental organizations linked to th UN.

Then we are more likely to find that the climate crisis/emergency/catastrophe is bolloxology.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Why do you hate her?Your argument is routed in nothing but that fact I'm sure at this point. I don't exhort anyone to do anything other than not to twist reality to support their narrative. If there was any ambiguity about Greta's message, many of the vocal naysayers would be drawing attention to that (whether are Brendan O'Neil, Katie Hopkins, Jeremy Clarkson, Piers Morgan or any of the other bastions of social awareness) but they are not. You are. You alone.
Nice word play on my name there, I'll let you off without the (sic) on this one. Very clever.

Lol. I'm sorry that was a typo on your name. My apologies.

As to your often thrown accusation as to 'why people hate her' or wtte - whenever anyone points out the huge inconsistencies in the PR machine which is the greta circus - it comes across as a very transparant and silly attempt to try and shut down any valid criticism by leveling an accusation of people 'hating her' :rolleyes:

With that logic - does that mean you 'hate' all those whose words or actions dont stand up to scrutiny ? Why would you do that? Doesn't make sense does it.

If gretas 'message' is supposedly so unambiguous - then why does the tweet have to keep on insisting that 'listen to the scientists' is the 'same message' again and again'? Odd that!

But you are correct - my argument is indeed is 'rooted' in fact as my thoughts do not deal in emotive speculation. Btw I'll let you off without the (sic) on 'routed' this time. Your faulty logic not so ...

Tell me how

moonage wrote: »

I agree with Greta when she says: "Listen to the scientists!"

But the type of scientists to listen to are independent ones, who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest, preferably who are not members of governmental organizations linked to th UN.

Then we are more likely to find that the climate crisis/emergency/catastrophe is bolloxology.

When your Dr prescribes medication to you, do you ignore his advice or the work of the scientists who have developed it because the thought that it could help your issue is bolloxology?

Even in that scenario, you'd still have some wingnuts saying there is no need to take it and you should just drink carrot juice or something? But, the majority of people trust the scientific process which lead to the medication being developed, and given the increase in life expectancy over the last 50 years, they are right to do so.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

No I was just saying I've felt the message was clear. Maybe wasn't, but you're up to speed now anyway. Now let's #uniteBehindTheScience together Gozunda! You in?

Nope as detailed in her UN speech "her message" was oddly different

A transcript - gretas 'message' from the 'How Dare You' speech at the UN Climate Action Summit:

"My message is that we'll be watching you. This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words...

But no I'm not with you on gretas science of doomsdayism for sure - where civilisations supposedly ends in 10 years, so many months and so many days . But hey who's counting? I'll leave that for you ok

moonage

Tell me how wrote: »

When your Dr prescribes medication to you, do you ignore his advice or the work of the scientists who have developed it because the thought that it could help your issue is bolloxology?

My doctor prescribed statins for me. I ignored his advice and told him I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. After much research I concluded that they were nasty little drugs with hardly any benefit.

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Nope as detailed in her UN speech "her message" was oddly different

A transcript - gretas 'message' from the 'How Dare You' speech at the UN Climate Action Summit:



But no I'm not with you on gretas science of doomsdayism for sure - where civilisations supposedly ends in 10 years, so many months and so many days . But hey who's counting? I'll leave that for you ok

Ah your not into the science. That's cool. I misunderstood.

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ah your not into the science. That's cool. I misunderstood.

Ahh no dont be so hard on yourself - I'd say you just misread - but no bother. As stated I'm not into greta's doomsdayism (that's not science btw) about the end of civilisation arising from the teenagers unfounded fears. But I dont need to tell you as you know that already.

Tell me how

moonage wrote: »

My doctor prescribed statins for me. I ignored his advice and told him I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. After much research I concluded that they were nasty little drugs with hardly any benefit.

Sure just save yourself the €50 next time and don't go to him at all.
Damn Dr, trying to keep a patient alive.

hetuzozaho

gozunda wrote: »

Ahh no dont be so hard on yourself - I'd say you just misread - but no bother. As stated I'm not into greta's doomsdayism about the end of civilisation arising from the teenagers unfounded fears. But I dont need to tell you as you know that already.

For sure! Good stuff.

hetuzozaho

May have been posted but quite an interesting article

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1183798182754435072

Fair play.

JJayoo

Is a bit daft people freaking out about a climate meltdown in 10 years when at this very moment there are millions of people who don't have access to clean water/education. Children dying because their mothers are forced to use water from a stagnant pond.

In regards to the actual climate, multiple legit sources estimating that the planet will be able to be 95% renewable energy by 2050.

The speech which Greta delivered declared that if we continue as current, then in 10 years we will have reached a tipping point.

But the reality is that renewables have become as cheap as 'dirty' energy and that is even without any subsidies.

Renewable energy investment is increasing at incredible levels, take France for example, they are already planning to decommission 4 of their nuclear power plants by 2028 as they expect renewable energy to take its place.

The UK will be bringing the world's largest offshore wind farm online in 2020 supplying energy for 1 million homes. There new nuclear power plant at hinkley will be operational by 2025 supplying energy for 6 million homes. They are also currently auctioning off sea bed area for the expansion off more offshore. Add in solar farms which are only beginning to take off in the UK and you can see that progress is being made.

And this progress is fueled by the economic benefits of going with renewables. This economic benefit is essential and the reason that China gets branded as leading the way for renewable energy.

The world will go green in energy production because it makes sense financially. This combined with a greening off the planet, which is already happening, should make the main point that Gretta/scientists are saying = that if we were to stay at current levels, 2019, we would be in big trouble in 10 years time = null and void. This isnt me trying to put Greta or her message down, but more a reality check to all the doom and gloom that the media love whip into a frenzy.

Huge progress is being made unfortunately positive stories do not sell as well as doom.and gloom.


This has to be one of the more creative solutions I have seen, working on the same principle as Hydro pumped storage.

"Energy Vault's consists of an almost 400-foot tall, six-armed crane with custom-built concrete blocks weighing almost 35 metric tons each. As solar or wind energy is siphoned into an Energy Vault tower, an A.I. directs the concrete blocks to rise up. Then, according to the company's website, the blocks are "returned to the ground and the kinetic energy generated from the falling brick is turned back into electricity."

That kinetic energy then turns a motor, which passes through an inverter, sending the energy back into the grid. Energy Vault claims the process had a "round-trip efficiency between 80 to 90 [percent]."

Makes sense but the visuals are so bizzare, but this company has received enormous finding despite being only 2 years old.

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

gozunda

hetuzozaho wrote: »

May have been posted but quite an interesting article
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1183798182754435072
Fair play.

Indeed

Re gretas UN speech ...

How did you prepare the speech? 

– I started to think about the content of the speech around midsummer. That the message should be ”How dare you?”. To blame and shame the rulers. Then I did what I always do, I postponed thinking about it. So I started writing it a few days before the speech. 

KyussB

JJayoo wrote: »

Is a bit daft people freaking out about a climate meltdown in 10 years when at this very moment there are millions of people who don't have access to clean water/education. Children dying because their mothers are forced to use water from a stagnant pond.

In regards to the actual climate, multiple legit sources estimating that the planet will be able to be 95% renewable energy by 2050.

The speech which Greta delivered declared that if we continue as current, then in 10 years we will have reached a tipping point.

But the reality is that renewables have become as cheap as 'dirty' energy and that is even without any subsidies.

Renewable energy investment is increasing at incredible levels, take France for example, they are already planning to decommission 4 of their nuclear power plants by 2028 as they expect renewable energy to take its place.

The UK will be bringing the world's largest offshore wind farm online in 2020 supplying energy for 1 million homes. There new nuclear power plant at hinkley will be operational by 2025 supplying energy for 6 million homes. They are also currently auctioning off sea bed area for the expansion off more offshore. Add in solar farms which are only beginning to take off in the UK and you can see that progress is being made.

And this progress is fueled by the economic benefits of going with renewables. This economic benefit is essential and the reason that China gets branded as leading the way for renewable energy.

The world will go green in energy production because it makes sense financially. This combined with a greening off the planet, which is already happening, should make the main point that Gretta/scientists are saying = that if we were to stay at current levels, 2019, we would be in big trouble in 10 years time = null and void. This isnt me trying to put Greta or her message down, but more a reality check to all the doom and gloom that the media love whip into a frenzy.

Huge progress is being made unfortunately positive stories do not sell as well as doom.and gloom.


This has to be one of the more creative solutions I have seen, working on the same principle as Hydro pumped storage.

"Energy Vault's consists of an almost 400-foot tall, six-armed crane with custom-built concrete blocks weighing almost 35 metric tons each. As solar or wind energy is siphoned into an Energy Vault tower, an A.I. directs the concrete blocks to rise up. Then, according to the company's website, the blocks are "returned to the ground and the kinetic energy generated from the falling brick is turned back into electricity."

That kinetic energy then turns a motor, which passes through an inverter, sending the energy back into the grid. Energy Vault claims the process had a "round-trip efficiency between 80 to 90 [percent]."

Makes sense but the visuals are so bizzare, but this company has received enormous finding despite being only 2 years old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2bkZbKeUmQ

(fixed video link)

I agree with you about having an optimistic view of the development of renewable technology - and I think that instead of waiting for 2050, we have the ability to meet or even exceed those same renewable targets by 2030.

It's simply a matter of scale: Private industry is limited by profit margins, which inhibit the scale of rolling out renewables. Governments are not limited by profit margins, and can roll out renewables at least an order of magnitude or two faster - and do a lot more besides that, too.

There's a consensus among scientists that we are already past the point of avoiding costs (real economic costs) from the effects of climate change - that we are already at a point of 'damage control' rather than prevention - so the faster we act to eliminate carbon emissions (and even reverse them...), the better off we'll be, economically.

NIMAN