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

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

ive long since disregarded your opinion of what makes sense, seeing as you commonly disregard entire posts with this type of handwave.

i called out out your "listen to the science" hypocrisy a few posts back. you cannot bridge the gap between when you want people to listen to greta and when you dont, or when accuracy matters and when it doesnt, because your whole case is built on an entirely incorrect premise that any attention is good attention.

it isnt.

and you doubling down on people who dont react the way you demand by lecturing/scolding them for any reason you feel like making up wont help your cause either.

ive set it all out in that post, as i said if you cannot see it or will not see it, that's not my problem.

but hush down barking at me and anyone else you feel like taking the high horse route with, thanks.

Yawn.
Just because you say something, does not make it so.

It is very curious that you see anyone with a different opinion to you as 'demanding' you to behave in a certain way. Let's be clear, I'm not demanding anything of you. I don't care what you do, I'm just not going to give free reign to nonsense on this topic by people who are wilfully keeping their head in the sand.

If you don't want me to discount your posts, maybe put a bit of fact or logic in to them. Or a few capital letters wouldn't go amiss either.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

"creating awareness" is not an indisputably positive value

if this thread hasnt demonstrated that, I'd be surprised!

a lot of the awareness created is "that young wan is talking ****e, I don't believe that about 2030, why isn't she in school and how many 15 years old have millionaire friends with yachts"

I know many people think you can take that and magically turn it into millions of people changing their approach to living because of a policy paper greta points to, but i have serious doubts that this is the case.

the idea that those people are doing so *because of greta* is tbh, entirely unmeasurable but i would definitely just roll my eyes at anyone who tried to tell me that she has "influenced" "millions"

There is a near universal increase in discussion about needing to act on resolving climate change, since Greta's efforts - that's very much a positive outcome.

The climate protests were explicitly modelled on what Greta had done - it's uncontestable that she is the major influence on that, in particular - that definitely happened because of Greta, and it did involve millions of people, all over the world.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Thats the thing - no one is . That was simply another part of gretas histrionics when she tried to claim that the adults in the room 'were looking to the young people for hope' or wtte at the UN conference in New York. But the problem with that - frankly it's garbage. No one is looking to greta or anyone else she dragged in for anything. Well apart from maybe some greta worshippers - but i reckon they can be excused to some degree eitherway.

Biggest coordinated protests worldwide.
Invited to speak at HoC, EU, UN and more.
EU have since declared a climate crisis.

And you think no one is paying attention?

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

i hear what youre saying, to be fair

can i ask if its not worth considering that- with every other aspect of the planning, the background staff, the contacts, the money, the influence, etc etc etc- all of this would and could have happened *without greta*

It could have, certainly - but it would have required someone else generating the awareness - so we would have been waiting a lot longer for the watershed Greta's efforts generated.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

There is a near universal increase in discussion about needing to act on resolving climate change, since Greta's efforts - that's very much a positive outcome.

The climate protests were explicitly modelled on what Greta had done - it's uncontestable that she is the major influence on that, in particular - that definitely happened because of Greta, and it did involve millions of people, all over the world.

I can see the argument, i dont agree with it meself obv

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

So are you claiming that public attention to the issue/urgency of climate change, hasn't exploded since Greta's efforts at bringing attention to it?

Only a couple of months ago, there were the biggest climate protests ever, widely credited to Greta.I mean - did she or did she not generate a massive worldwide amount of attention to the issue of climate change?

So you are changing the question? Read the comment?

You asked:

Then why is everyone looking to her..

I replied

Thats the thing - no one is . That was simply another part of gretas histrionics when she tried to claim that the adults in the room 'were looking to the young people for hope' or wtte at the UN conference in New York. But the problem with that - frankly it's garbage. No one is looking to greta or anyone else she dragged in for anything. Well apart from maybe some greta worshippers - but i reckon they can be excused to some degree eitherway.

But as to what you said above - it's a simple case of cause and effect. Would you claim that climate change wasn't already a topic of major significance pre-greta?

The thing was the whole dog and pony show generated sufficient hysteria and lo and behold a legion of greta fans appeared who believe she is the new messiah. Wash rinse and repeat.

In a similar vein Hitler brought increased attention to the problems of Germany's Economy. Just because greta may have many adherents who follow her every word - does not mean her rantings particular are correct. Btw neither does that mean greta is the same as Hitler - just that populist attention is easily swayed. And no that's not a good thing no matter what the issue is.

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

Biggest coordinated protests worldwide.
Invited to speak at HoC, EU, UN and more.
EU have since declared a climate crisis.

And you think no one is paying attention?

Short term political handwaving in response to a current and almost certainly short lived thing. Come back in five years time and I would bet the farm almost nothing of real worth will have come out of this. All the vast majority of elected politicians actually give a damn about when it comes down to brass tacks is keeping an eye on the next elections and spouting whatever they think will get votes. Cynical yes, though pretty observable too. Fundamentally changing how this world works economically, politically and practically to save the environment is a huge project and a global one. It's about the biggest one in human history.

And human history shows us that the only time such massive projects have ever happened is under kings, dictators and/or a sense of imminent threat. Such grand plans rarely survive contact with the four yearly ballot box. Try and find any national project that did so, and again this is a global issue. Look at landing on the moon. It survived the politics and politicians only because of the imminent threat of the "Commies" beating the US, when they won, they stopped going and haven't been back. By comparison solving the world's climate change makes the Apollo project look like a bike ride to the shops.

So yeah, pardon me if I'm not holding out too much hope beyond pretty minor and local changes coming along. Any change is good, but let's not delude ourselves either.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

Short term political handwaving in response to a current and almost certainly short lived thing. Come back in five years time and I would bet the farm almost nothing of real worth will have come out of this. All the vast majority of elected politicians actually give a damn about when it comes down to brass tacks is keeping an eye on the next elections and spouting whatever they think will get votes. Cynical yes, though pretty observable too. Fundamentally changing how this world works economically, politically and practically to save the environment is a huge project and a global one. It's about the biggest one in human history.

And human history shows us that the only time such massive projects have ever happened is under kings, dictators and/or a sense of imminent threat. Such grand plans rarely survive contact with the four yearly ballot box. Try and find any national project that did so, and again this is a global issue. Look at landing on the moon. It survived the politics and politicians only because of the imminent threat of the "Commies" beating the US, when they won, they stopped going and haven't been back. By comparison solving the world's climate change makes the Apollo project look like a bike ride to the shops.

So yeah, pardon me if I'm not holding out too much hope beyond pretty minor and local changes coming along. Any change is good, but let's not delude ourselves either.

There's no delusion. Just respect for someone making an effort on a worthwhile topic and forcing a global conversation about it.

Again, you are echoing Greta's comments who says that how can she say what it will take to fix this when the solution has not yet been invented. She has literally said this is going to be difficult.

Doesn't take from the fact that a solution is needed and she is advocating that we focus on finding one. I don't get why she should be berated for that.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

There's no delusion. Just respect for someone making an effort on a worthwhile topic and forcing a global conversation about it.

Again, you are echoing Greta's comments who says that how can she say what it will take to fix this when the solution has not yet been invented. She has literally said this is going to be difficult.

Doesn't take from the fact that a solution is needed and she is advocating that we focus on finding one. I don't get why she should be berated for that.

or lauded in any way at all

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

or lauded in any way at all

Why not? Anyone who has done the following by 16 years of age deserves credit.

• Has motivated the participation in the biggest coordinated protests worldwide.
• Has been invited to speak at HoC, EU, UN and more.
• Has been nominated for the Nobel Prize.
• Has won several awards worldwide.
• Has twice sailed across the Atlantic on non-luxury boats.

The fact that she is doing it for such a noble cause with so much abuse aimed at her makes it even more deserving.

Why do you not think so?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

There's no delusion. Just respect for someone making an effort on a worthwhile topic and forcing a global conversation about it. Again, you are echoing Greta's comments who says that how can she say what it will take to fix this when the solution has not yet been invented. She has literally said this is going to be difficult.
Doesn't take from the fact that a solution is needed and she is advocating that we focus on finding one. I don't get why she should be berated for that.

Tbh your previous thoughts on the issue here appear to be quite different and imo largely contrarian in their direction.

Tell me how wrote: »

...the reason I've continued to post on this insane thread, to allow climate change deniers to show their true colours in that they've got no other basis for arguing against Greta than basic hatred. ...

Anyway good to see we're making some progress with regard to the discussion and the bizarre thinking that anyone who doesnt inexplicably believe in greta is somehow a 'climate change denier'. :rolleyes:

Thelonious Monk

171170 wrote: »

Amusing to note that the leader of the Irish Greens has four kids, the party's deputy leader has 3 as too has the clown who was elected TD for Fingal last week! Evidently none of them gives much of a fukc about global overpopulation!

Is Do what I say, not what I do the new slogan of the Irish Greens?

PS Does anyone know how many sprogs Green MEP Ciaran Cuffe has?

Did anyone in the Green party ever mention having less kids?

alan partridge aha

Eamon Ryan is a smarmy looking tool.

Plumbthedepths

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Eamon Ryan is a smarmy looking tool.

By nature as well, he has suggested reintroducing the wolf to our countryside and that village people should carpool.

Thelonious Monk

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

By nature as well, he has suggested reintroducing the wolf to our countryside and that village people should carpool.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some time in the future there will be car sharing schemes around the country. It makes sense.

alan partridge aha

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if at some time in the future there will be car sharing schemes around the country. It makes sense.

Sounds good in theory but I dont like giving people a lift to work. Risk of people claiming in the event of an accident.

Dealing with work colleagues in work ok but in car want my own space.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if at some time in the future there will be car sharing schemes around the country. It makes sense.

Do you not think we should start with Dublin city congestion first??

Sounds good in theory as long as it’s VOLUNTARILY.

Micky 32

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Sounds good in theory but I dont like giving people a lift to work. Risk of people claiming in the event of an accident.

Dealing with work colleagues in work ok but in car want my own space.

Not to mention the increase in premiums for the practice.

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if at some time in the future there will be car sharing schemes around the country. It makes sense.

Rurally it doesn't and that's what that idiot suggested.

Micky 32

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Rurally it doesn't and that's what that idiot suggested.

Yep, my car is my own and will stay that way.

Thelonious Monk

Micky 32 wrote: »

Do you not think we should start with Dublin city congestion first??

Sounds good in theory as long as it’s VOLUNTARILY.

Well yeah I'd love all cars banned from the city but that's because I cycle to work. We could take away civil servants parking for starters, there are 1000s of parking spaces in the city for civil servants of a certain grade and above. Ridiculous.
Unfortunately we don't have the public transport system to justify taking cars out of the city but the traffic is only going to get worse and worse and we have no infrastructure projects in motion to improve it, in the middle of a boom.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

Yep, my car is my own and will stay that way.

You may be the exception but, lets say someone commutes 1hr each way, and drives their car for 3.0 hours each day at the weekend. Pretty heavy car yse on average I think you would agree. They are using their car for 16 ours a week. Or, 9.5%. Lets say their car between purchase loan/savings, tax/insurance, NCT/maintenance, tolls, fuel etc that it is costing €100 a week. Still probably a bit on the conservative side you might say.
That's €100 after tax so could be up to twice as much from their gross if on high tax bracket. Lets say it is €150 a week from their gross.
Lets say they are on 40K a year gross. They are spending 18.75% of their gross just on the car. Which is idle 90% of the time. And bear in mind, I was generous with the hours in use and probably low on the cost for this very rough calculation, so the disparity could be even greater.

I know people need them to get to work and so on etc, but the idea of ride sharing or car sharing should appeal to everyone who isn't a petrol head.

Thelonious Monk

Tell me how wrote: »

I know people need them to get to work and so on etc, but the idea of ride sharing or car sharing should appeal to everyone who isn't a petrol head.

Yes sooner or later some kind of app will come out for this, I suppose Uber is one in a way, but maybe one that's less focused on making money. This could be used rurally too, sure aren't they always moaning about not being allowed drink drive to the pub.

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

You may be the exception but, lets say someone commutes 1hr each way, and drives their car for 3.0 hours each day at the weekend. Pretty heavy car yse on average I think you would agree. They are using their car for 16 ours a week. Or, 9.5%. Lets say their car between purchase loan/savings, tax/insurance, NCT/maintenance, tolls, fuel etc that it is costing €100 a week. Still probably a bit on the conservative side you might say.
That's €100 after tax so could be up to twice as much from their gross if on high tax bracket. Lets say it is €150 a week from their gross.
Lets say they are on 40K a year gross. They are spending 18.75% of their gross just on the car. Which is idle 90% of the time. And bear in mind, I was generous with the hours in use and probably low on the cost for this very rough calculation, so the disparity could be even greater.

I know people need them to get to work and so on etc, but the idea of ride sharing or car sharing should appeal to everyone who isn't a petrol head.

That’s why i said i’m all for that scheme as long as it’s not forced on people.

In my case i use my car for work not to and from work.

Plumbthedepths

Micky 32 wrote: »

That’s why i said i’m all for that scheme as long as it’s not forced on people.

In my case i use my car for work not to and from work.

The two geniuses ignore the necessity of a car rurally, your child takes sick at 2 in the morning, you rush to hospital you don't hope the communal car is free. Of course the idiocy descends to a swipe referring to pubs.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

I know people need them to get to work and so on etc, but the idea of ride sharing or car sharing should appeal to everyone who isn't a petrol head.

I thought this issue was about to be solved with electric cars. Should not everyone be able to have a car in such a future?

Tell me how

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The two geniuses ignore the necessity of a car rurally, your child takes sick at 2 in the morning, you rush to hospital you don't hope the communal car is free. Of course the idiocy descends to a swipe referring to pubs.

Nobody is unaware of the need for a car rurally. But, imagine, shock horror, if families were able to go back to owning one car rather than 2.

Also, I didn't say it had to happen, I said people should be hoping it does.

Micky 32

jackboy wrote: »

I thought this issue was about to be solved with electric cars. Should not everyone be able to have a car in such a future?

That’s if a lot of people can afford the rip off prices of those cars.

Tell me how

jackboy wrote: »

I thought this issue was about to be solved with electric cars. Should not everyone be able to have a car in such a future?

Electric cars are less harmful than combustion engines in a number of ways. But, they are not completely eco-friendly. Batteries are still made of rare materials and the energy converted to electricity to charge them is often still originating from fossil fuels.

We might get to a point where autonomous vehicles come to you from a depot in the local town for when you need a car but I'm not sure we'll see it any time soon.

Fewer cars has to be a goal.

Thelonious Monk

Also do people living rurally think everyone born there should build a one off house, and everyone should get a car at age 17? I mean this kind of seems unsustainable to me in the long run?