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

Ironicname

If anyone thinks that Gretta Thunburg's anything but a puppet, they are incredibly brainwashed

Tell me how

Ironicname wrote: »

If anyone thinks that Gretta Thunburg's anything but a puppet, they are incredibly brainwashed

Ok, who is she a puppet for?

What about her behaviour indicates to you that she does not believe what she is doing and has been consistent in her message?

Gaoth Laidir

Tell me how wrote: »

Good for you.

I'm not a scientist, but have numerous degrees which I feel achieving gave me a good insight in to the premise of research/test/record/compare/predict/ publish/analyse etc which is common in scientific fields.

You still didn't comment on the points mentioned though other than to fly your flag. Does that mean you should be taken as the expert on these matters?

Why is it your practice of postponing anonymously on internet weather forums bestows a level of expertise but those publicly published professionals aren't being listened to?

I'm not claiming any greater level of expertise than a climate scientist, many of whom question the exact level of anthropogenic contribution to warming. All I'm doing is providing further information on what's being discussed, information that is of prime importance but is not being otherwise shared. Surely that constitutes a mature debate?

Tell me how wrote: »

Is this it? The 16 year old us getting the attention? Is that what the problem is.

She has repeatedly said that she does not have the answers, how could she, but that people should listen to the scientists.

Why do you have an issue with that?

Listen to the scientists. Yes, ALL the scientists, not just the ones who are (sometimes inaccurately) connected with the sole message you're chosing to believe at the expense of being fully informed. You said you shook your head and said FFS when you saw my posts, which seems a fairly immature reaction of someone who's allegedly as qualified as yourself. Surely you'd be more open to supplemental information, no? Strange, that...

Tell me how

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm not claiming any greater level of expertise than a climate scientist, many of whom question the exact level of anthropogenic contribution to warming. All I'm doing is providing further information on what's being discussed, information that is of prime importance but is not being otherwise shared. Surely that constitutes a mature debate?

Listen to the scientists. Yes, ALL the scientists, not just the ones who are (sometimes inaccurately) connected with the sole message you're chosing to believe at the expense of being fully informed. You said you shook your head and said FFS when you saw my posts, which seems a fairly immature reaction of someone who's allegedly as qualified as yourself. Surely you'd be more open to supplemental information, no? Strange, that...

I agree. You were right on one thing, the shaking of the head was because I mixed you up with someone else. Hence the frustration.

I listen to the consensus. The IPCC, the meteorologists, the scientists whose opinions I value such as Helen Czerski, Brian Cox (physicist) etc. Evevn outside of all that, I am a fundamental believer that we use materials very wastefully and so even if there was no issue with the climate right now, I would still have a problem with the way we don't optimise the resources we have. It's a very shortsighted view to do so.

have to love how shook some gretafanatics get when anyone bothers to take on the sheaf of linked reports that they keep piggybacking in order to legitimise their hectoring.

poster gretafanatic: projects a load of nonsense onto anyone not buying the bandwagon. constantly shriekS about listening to the science.

poster b: heres some other perspective on the science. heres my history of relevant interest in the topic. whats yours?

poster gretafanatic. I HAVE MANY WONDERFUL DEGREES HOW DARE YOU. DO YOU THINK YOU KNOW MORE THAN EVERY SCIENTIST IN MY LINKS *rattles links furiously*

it's so ridiculously transparent. some people just love to nag and cant bear that others get to "naaah mate, thanks tho"

Tuisceanch

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Anyhow, is there an agw signal in the warming? I'm sure there is in there somewhere. Does it need to be addressed? Certainly not with the level of frantic hyperbole that has grown recently. Should we be moving away from fossil fuels? Of course. It's a finite resource and there are much cleaner ways of powering the planet. Should we be getting away from them because we're in some dire straits, hurtling towards a point of no return? No.

I'll say it again. The message that is going out the the people is not one that is based on ALL the facts. The only man-made signal in these latest fires is down to how they were started. The conditions that have led to their severity and duration are due to a 100% natural phenomenon, as explained in great detail by learned meteorologists way more qualified than me.

Well awhile back a poster referred to a study by a noted climate sceptic, RICHARD A. MULLER, who and I quote:

"Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

I can accept that there is uncertainty about the impact of this warming trend on our climate and that not everybody considers it an emergency, in that action needs to be taken now, but you seem to be sceptical about the correlation between man made co2 emissions and temperature rises. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position but I'm finding it hard to find any source to justify such a position. Even the articles you posted awhile back which I read didn't defend that position. Again perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position because I took it that you were irritated by the, as you perceive it,sensational reporting by the media and that you were trying to draw attention to the detail.

The Greta thing is just somebody, a child in fact,who had the temerity to express an opinion and maybe caused some people to pay more attention. Not sure what the problem is with that. There's nothing stopping people from studying the subject themselves and forming their own opinions. I'm not sure why people consider her an existential threat to their current lifestyles as there are many vested interests with far deeper pockets who I'am sure are fighting the good fight to prevent a nihilistic communist takeover of the planet.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

1. No she didn't. Please prove otherwise.
2. No such organisation exists. Pure fabrication hysterically regurgitated for propaganda purposes.

You need to apply yourself better to the subject matter to be taken seriously. Catastrophic failure. A 16 year old could debate better. Here's some reading material to better acquaint yourself with the subject. You're welcome.

https://www.ippr.org/files/2019-02/this-is-a-crisis-february2019.pdf

1. Oh good grief - did you actually watch / listen to her hysterical speech at the UN conference in the US or are you being just particularly obtuse?

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

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

2. Thats quoted from the previous poster or did you not read that bit?

Certainly a need to try harder for sure

That 16 year old also need to 'try a bit harder' ...

Gaoth Laidir

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree. You were right on one thing, the shaking of the head was because I mixed you up with someone else. Hence the frustration.

I listen to the consensus. The IPCC, the meteorologists, the scientists whose opinions I value such as Helen Czerski, Brian Cox (physicist) etc. Evevn outside of all that, I am a fundamental believer that we use materials very wastefully and so even if there was no issue with the climate right now, I would still have a problem with the way we don't optimise the resources we have. It's a very shortsighted view to do so.

Well the guys who know the most, and are the closest to the scene, are the BOM meteorologists and climatologists, and they have laid out in detail their reasons why the conditions have been so conducive to fires lately. If you do indeed listen to the scientists then you must also listen to these and accept that the comments that are attributing these fires to man's effect on climate are inaccurate and need to be challenged.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok, who is she a puppet for?

What about her behaviour indicates to you that she does not believe what she is doing and has been consistent in her message?

It's been detailed many many times already in this thread how our greta is anything but consistent for you and yet do not acknowledge that. Odd no?

KyussB

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think you got the wrong guy. Where did I deride scientists? All I pointed out was that this year's bushfires are due to a natural phenomenon that is well understood and not linked to man. This followed your tweets on the koalas and professor. The amount of immediate attribution of literally every event now to man - be it the bushfires, Venice flooding, Oman hurricanes, you name it - is totally ridiculous at this stage, but it goes on unabated.

You've almost 10,000 posts in dozens of different threads over 5 years, but not one of them in a scientific forum, such as the Weather forum. That's fine, maybe you're not scientifically minded, no more than I'm politically minded. I'm posting in the Politics forum purely to try to educate people that may not have have the scientific interest or knowledge to objectively analyse these events. Purely relying on media coverage, which is what you've quoted, is not the best course of action.

Go to the weather forum and look at my posts on e.g. Arctic and Greenland ice melt to see if I'm making it up or not. I don't go for hyperbole one way or the other, but it seems most people do nowadays.

You have no interest in genuine science - you have a history of reciting known denialists like e.g. Ray Bates, who has links to known climate change denial organizations.

You have fuck all interest in science - you cherry pick your 'science', with zero regard to its credibility, and expressly for the purpose of furthering a purely political viewpoint - of climate change denial.

There is no science in climate change denial - it is all politics - and the scientific consensus among climate scientists, is resoundingly clear about this.

Your posts are pure politics, with a completely unconvincing and polar-opposite position, with regards to what actual credible climate scientists say.

is_that_so

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I wonder has this 16-yr old ever heard of the Indian Ocean Dipole or Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. No, I didn't think so.

She doesn't have to because the scientists have already got this covered.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You have no interest in genuine science - you have a history of reciting known denialists like e.g. Ray Bates, who has links to known climate change denial organizations.You have fuck all interest in science - you cherry pick your 'science', with zero regard to its credibility, and expressly for the purpose of furthering a purely political viewpoint - of climate change denial.There is no science in climate change denial - it is all politics - and the scientific consensus among climate scientists, is resoundingly clear about this.Your posts are pure politics, with a completely unconvincing and polar-opposite position, with regards to what actual credible climate scientists say.

I think it mainly comes across from that rant - you dont know what 'science's is tbh

id say that the poster responsible for several hundred posts about neoliberalism in a thread about the platforming of a raging child as the face of a worldwide panic movement,

one of the top three posters quickest to throw terms like 'denialist' at anyone who doesnt cheer their outbursts;

id say that poster has the least possible credibility in accusing any other poster in this thread of politicising the issue

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell, 'I know there needs to be change, but I'm damned if a young girl is going to be the one who makes it happen'.

Appears all the dinosaurs haven't been killed just yet.

Nor by the looks of things have posters who imagine counter-insults are a higher form of debate.
As for the child can't say that I'd put much store in what any 16 year old tells me, even me at 16 and hey I really knew it all too!

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

1. Oh good grief - did you actually watch / listen her speech at the UN conference in the US or are you being just particularly obtuse?



https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

2. Thats quoted from the previous poster or did you not read that bit?

Certainly a need to try harder for sure

That 16 year old also need to 'try a bit harder' ...

1. She was responding to a question about the message she has for world leaders so her stating that "You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words." is certainly using poetic license in personalizing the issue but the accusation of empty words is not without merit. You can't, however,infer from that she is blaming all adults for her crappy life as you put it. Anyway you're an adult so you can forgave her that I imagine. Far more interesting and substantive was the subsequent

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control."

Is there some reason do you think that justifies not taking action and why the people who are invested with the authority to act to mitigate the risk have not done so? She talk's of the risk which is cemented in the reports that they commissioned. What's you're problem with somebody voicing such an opinion besides them being a 16 year old? Democracy is OK or do you not think so?

2. Why are you quoting from a previous poster if not to make a point? To be honest I can understand why people might take exception to the words of a 16 year old but at least she is coherent.

BTW you can use the 'insert link' icon when posting links. Saves some time when responding to posts

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

1. She was responding to a question about the message she has for world leaders so her stating that "You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words." is certainly using poetic license in personalizing the issue but the accusation of empty words is not without merit. You can't, however,infer from that she is blaming all adults for her crappy life as you put it. Anyway you're an adult so you can forgave her that I imagine. Far more interesting and substantive was the subsequent

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control."

Is there some reason do you think that justifies not taking action and why the people who are invested with the authority to act to mitigate the risk have not done so? She talk's of the risk which is cemented in the reports that they commissioned. What's you're problem with somebody voicing such an opinion besides them being a 16 year old? Democracy is OK or do you not think so?

2. Why are you quoting from a previous poster if not to make a point? To be honest I can understand why people might take exception to the words of a 16 year old but at least she is coherent.

BTW you can use the 'insert link' icon when posting links. Saves some time when responding to posts

'poetic license' me backside

Not the first time shes blamed the adults for wrecking her life / dreams either

And no no need for the extensive quote - I already linked it thanks!

I think it's cute you think she she wasn't being hysterical ...

Oh and I quoted another poster because I dont need anyones permission to do so and I happen to agree with them. No need to tell others how to post thanks.

Happy now?

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

You have no interest in genuine science - you have a history of reciting known denialists like e.g. Ray Bates, who has links to known climate change denial organizations.

You have fuck all interest in science - you cherry pick your 'science', with zero regard to its credibility, and expressly for the purpose of furthering a purely political viewpoint - of climate change denial.

There is no science in climate change denial - it is all politics - and the scientific consensus among climate scientists, is resoundingly clear about this.

Your posts are pure politics, with a completely unconvincing and polar-opposite position, with regards to what actual credible climate scientists say.

Wow

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

I think it mainly comes across from that rant - you dont know what 'science's is tbh

Deleted User wrote: »

id say that the poster responsible for several hundred posts about neoliberalism in a thread about the platforming of a raging child as the face of a worldwide panic movement,

one of the top three posters quickest to throw terms like 'denialist' at anyone who doesnt cheer their outbursts;

id say that poster has the least possible credibility in accusing any other poster in this thread of politicising the issue

Reminder that these two posters regularly defend/back-up sources linked to Koch funding (some of the most notorious propagandists on the planet) - and have repeatedly refused/dodged the simple question, about whether a pattern of funding from the Koch oil oligarchs, is discreditable to people claiming to be 'experts' on climate change.

It is quite simple to discredit these posters - just ask and watch them refuse to answer the simple question: Is Koch funding discreditable to people claiming to be climate 'experts'/'scientists'?

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

'poetic license' me backside

Not the first time shes blamed the adults for wrecking her life / dreams either

And no no need for the extensive quote - I already linked it thanks!

I think it's cute you think she she wasn't being hysterical ...

Oh and I quoted another poster because I dont need anyones permission to do so and I happen to agree with them. No need to tell others how to post thanks.

Happy now?

You seem fixated on her emotional outburst but ignore the substantive part of her response to the question she was posed. Can you not get over your fixation?You've surely done it to death by now. Nobody suggested you needed permission to quote another poster but initially you seemed to distant yourself from it and now you admit you agree with it i.e. a planetary catastrophe cult. Well unless you can substantiate such a claim then it's perhaps you that's being a tad hysterical and not the 16 year old girl who has so inflamed your intellect. Not telling you how to post but rather pointing out the features of the site that make for a more productive exchange. You should treat the site as an educational opportunity to hone your grasp of the details which is why I posted the link https://www.ippr.org/files/2019-02/this-is-a-crisis-february2019.pdf as it's best not to just fixate on the statements of a 16 year old but rather diversify your sources and invest in your intellectual capital.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Reminder that these two posters regularly defend/back-up sources linked to Koch funding (some of the most notorious propagandists on the planet) - and have repeatedly refused/dodged the simple question, about whether a pattern of funding from the Koch oil oligarchs, is discreditable to people claiming to be 'experts' on climate change.It is quite simple to discredit these posters - just ask and watch them refuse to answer the simple question: Is Koch funding discreditable to people claiming to be climate 'experts'/'scientists'?

Afaik the general thing on boards is to discuss the post not attack the posters. But hey ...

But christ almighty - not back on the feking Koch conspiracy / oil oligarchs ****e again! I swear this thread is like a bad trip on acid or something. And absolutely sfa to do with 'greta'

Though to be fair - It's quite simple to blow this crap sky high - just ask what's the title of the thread and watch utter confusion reign for at least half a dozen pages or so

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Oh christ almighty - not back on the feking Koch conspiracy / oil oligarchs ****e again! I swear this thread us like a bad trip on acid or something...

Though to be fair - It's quite simple to blow this crap sky high - just ask what's the title of the thread and watch utter confusion reign for at least half a dozen pages or so ...

The thread title was written by someone who has been banned from contributing due to an incapacity to participate in the discussion without reverting to waffle and meme dumps to try to silence those supporting the effort Greta has done and continues to do.

It's hardly to be taken as a demonstrative summation of all of Greta's efforts.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

You seem fixated on her emotional outburst but ignore the substantive part of her response to the question she was posed. Can you not get over your fixation?You've surely done it to death by now. Nobody suggested you needed permission to quote another poster but initially you seemed to distant yourself from it and now you admit you agree with it i.e. a planetary catastrophe cult. Well unless you can substantiate such a claim then it's perhaps you that's being a tad hysterical and not the 16 year old girl who has so inflamed your intellect. Not telling you how to post but rather pointing out the features of the site that make for a more productive exchange. You should treat the site as an educational opportunity to hone your grasp of the details which is why I posted the link https://www.ippr.org/files/2019-02/this-is-a-crisis-february2019.pdf as it's best not to just fixate on the statements of a 16 year old but rather diversify your sources and invest in your intellectual capital.

So you agree it was hysterical then? Fair enough. Sorry you don't like others mentioning that. But there we go eh. And You did ask why I quoted another poster

Why are you quoting from a previous poster if not to make a point..

And just in case it wasnt already obvious - I replied it was because I agreed with them. And no - no one needs anyones permission to do so. It is a freekin cult. That has been shown in detail many times on this thread. Take a read for yourself. And no that does not deny climate change but it does show the alarmists up for the absolute nonsense that is being spread like manure on a dry spring day.

As for....
"diversify your sources and invest in your intellectual capital"

Thanks for that. I'm still on the floor

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

The thread title was written by someone who has been banned from contributing due to an incapacity to participate in the discussion without reverting to waffle and meme dumps to try to silence those supporting the effort Greta has done and continues to do. It's hardly to be taken as a demonstrative summation of all of Greta's efforts.

Having a go at a poster who cannot respond is hardly cricket is it? And indeed yes the thread title stands afaik. I note the greta worship continues unabated. What are the latest words of wisdom from her this week do you know?

Tell me how

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Well the guys who know the most, and are the closest to the scene, are the BOM meteorologists and climatologists, and they have laid out in detail their reasons why the conditions have been so conducive to fires lately. If you do indeed listen to the scientists then you must also listen to these and accept that the comments that are attributing these fires to man's effect on climate are inaccurate and need to be challenged.

So you think the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report are incorrect?

Saying humans are impacting on climate change and that one of the consequences is an increased occurrence of forest fires is not the same as saying that humans lit a match that started the last one or every one that occurs.

You may be interested in this from the American Meteorological Society

Final remarks

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

AlekSmart

gozunda wrote: »

Having a go at a poster who cannot respond is hardly cricket is it? And indeed yes the thread title stands afaik. I note the greta worship continues unabated. What are the latest words of wisdom from her this week do you know?

On a broader scale,there is something "off" about Greta herself,and by association the team who remain in the background in all of her travails.

I wonder if Nostradamus had anything to say about this ? :eek:

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

So you agree it was hysterical then? Fair enough. Sorry you don't like others mentioning that. But there we go eh. And You did ask why I quoted another poster. And no - no one needs anyones permission to do so. It is a freekin cult. That has been shown in detail many times on this thread. Take a read for yourself. And no that does not deny climate change but it does show the alarmists up for the absolute nonsense that is being spread like manure on a dry spring day. I would perhaps suggest you make subsequent replies a little less personal and stick to the topic in hand - it makes for better discussion tbh

As for....
"diversify your sources and invest in your intellectual capital"

Thanks for that. I'm still on the floor

There's no need to be so defensive. We're all friends here. I'm simply pointing out that I think your fixation on Greta as being the figurehead of a 'planetary catastrophe cult' is way out there. I'm sure you've given it much thought though and as such you can substantiate it if you haven't already. I'm glad you liked my financial terminology. It was just a humorous attempt to steer you to reading a interesting report produced by a progressive British think tank. It can pay to be informed. I get it though that you're really more interested at the moment in discussing the cult of Greta and I'm afraid I've nothing really to add except that she is a 16 year old who has spoken some home truths to powerful people. Anyway it was great talking to you and I'll let you get back to your main topic of interest.

Akrasia

2019 is 85% likely to be the 2nd warmest year on record.
We’re already more than 1c warmer than pre industrial temperatures yet people like Gaoth Laidir still thinks Bates and Lindsen’s climate sensitivity figure of 1c is credible.

This says everything about how seriously they take the science.

Have you any explanation for how ECS could be 1c when we’re already passed this value and haven’t even reached a doubling of C02 yet?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Having a go at a poster who cannot respond is hardly cricket is it? And indeed yes the thread title stands afaik. I note the greta worship continues unabated. What are the latest words of wisdom from her this week do you know?

I'm not having a go, I'm stating a fact.

gozunda

AlekSmart wrote: »

On a broader scale,there is something "off" about Greta herself,and by association the team who remain in the background in all of her travails.

I wonder if Nostradamus had anything to say about this ? :eek:

Theres claims in the media she's a time traveller!. Maybe that's it!

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/girl-in-121-year-old-photo-from-uw-archives-looks-exactly-like-greta-thunberg-sparking-internet-jokes-that-shes-a-time-traveler/

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

There's no need to be so defensive. We're all friends here. I'm simply pointing out that I think your fixation on Greta as being the figurehead of a 'planetary catastrophe cult' is way out there. I'm sure you've given it much thought though and as such you can substantiate it if you haven't already. I'm glad you liked my financial terminology. It was just a humorous attempt to steer you to reading a interesting report produced by a progressive British think tank. It can pay to be informed. I get it though that you're really more interested at the moment in discussing the cult of Greta and I'm afraid I've nothing really to add except that she is a 16 year old who has spoken some home truths to powerful people. Anyway it was great talking to you and I'll let you get back to your main topic of interest.

Nope. Btw I see you are fairly new to this. No worries