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

Slowyourrole

Manager in Australia's NewsCorp has resigned due to the misleading coverage of the fires and the attempt to move the focus from climate to arson.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/dangerous-misinformation-news-corp-employee-s-fire-coverage-email-20200110-p53qel.html

A News Corp employee has accused the organisation of a "misinformation campaign" filled with "irresponsible" and "dangerous" coverage of the national bushfire crisis, urging executive chairman Michael Miller to think about the "big picture".

gozunda

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Manager in Australia's NewsCorp has resigned due to the misleading coverage of the fires and the attempt to move the focus from climate to arson.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/dangerous-misinformation-news-corp-employee-s-fire-coverage-email-20200110-p53qel.html

Are we reading the same article?

Ms Townsend resigned in December and was due to leave News Corp shortly," Mr Miller said....

"News Corp stands by its coverage of the bushfires. The dedication and professionalism of our journalists and photographers have kept the community - particularly those Australians affected directly - informed and supported. We respect Ms Townsend's right to hold her views but we do not agree with them."...

News Corp Australia said the coverage recognised Australia was having a conversation about climate change, adding the role of arsonists were legitimate stories to report.

Slowyourrole

gozunda wrote: »

Are we reading the same article?

I presume so because you are quoting the organization's denial from further down the page.

gozunda

Slowyourrole wrote: »

I presume so because you are quoting the organization's denial from further down the page.

True and Its always good to provide a bit of balance. I feel sorry for the employee tbh. But theres usually more than one side to any story. I'm sure Australia have something similar to a media standards watchdog. I reckon she would have had a better outcome there tbh.

Yellow_Fern

gozunda wrote: »

True and Its always good to provide a bit of balance. I feel sorry for the employee tbh. But theres usually more than one side to any story. I'm sure Australia have something similar to a media standards watchdog. I reckon she would have had a better outcome there tbh.

That is pretty dumb. The disappearance of traditional aboriginal burning is probably a far bigger cause than long time climate change.

Jimmy Garlic

Jimmy Garlic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t-gK-9EIq4

Jimmy Garlic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t-gK-9EIq4

Jimmy Garlic

Sorry guys, just outside Ufa atm. Sketchy connection.

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I have, extensively, scientists are even backing it up.







The higher the population, the higher the number of scrotes, the more fires.



Science.

And higher fuel load due to decades of green policy ignoring tens of thousands of years of Aboriginal fire knowledge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XC0cj8sod8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XC0cj8sod8

Thelonious Monk

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Sorry guys, just outside Ufa atm. Sketchy connection.

On the bag again Jimmy?

For all of those arguing that reducing the amount of sheep won't lead to more trees growing did you see the documentary on channel 4?

In that program he shows a rural area with up lands that took the step of reducing the deer population by 90% and unsurprisingly new trees began to grow where there were none before.

Please don't believe everything the pro farm lobbyists say.

1800_Ladladlad

This makes sense to me

https://twitter.com/ExtinctionClock/status/1215941560879042561

NovemberWren

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Not true. Too many sheep and deer. So natural woodlands can't regenerate.

dunno much about this, but, are there just far too many cattle?
there always seem to be nominal amounts of sheep; and it is extremely rare to see deer ?

are people for the last 15 generations or so, just brainwashed into believing that this monoculture desert of grass, has always be this way?

on YouTube, Bealtaine Cottage, -
This is What 13 Years of Permaculture in Ireland Looks Like!

although she planted some from cuttings, might these have grown eventually.

NovemberWren

actually, the cattle would be delirious with lots, lots, lots, more woodland.

it is a nightmare to see them scrunched into some tiny hedges for shelter.

KyussB

Oh dear - a teenage girls father takes the sensible step of screening his (now famouos) daughters Facebook posts, like a lot of parents of (non-famous) kids/teenagers do - therefore climate change is a hoax...

That's some real underpants gnome level logic there:
Father screens childs FB posts + ??? = Climate Change is a Hoax.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

Oh dear - a teenage girls father takes the sensible step of screening his (now famouos) daughters Facebook posts, like a lot of parents of (non-famous) kids/teenagers do - therefore climate change is a hoax...

That's some real underpants gnome level logic there:
Father screens childs FB posts + ??? = Climate Change is a Hoax.

Nice twisting there.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For all of those arguing that reducing the amount of sheep won't lead to more trees growing did you see the documentary on channel 4?In that program he shows a rural area with up lands that took the step of reducing the deer population by 90% and unsurprisingly new trees began to grow where there were none before.
Please don't believe everything the pro farm lobbyists say.

So what you are actually saying there is that excessive deer populations which are the problem? And that if we reduce the deer problem it will be fixed? Ok so.

But no - a one fits all solution doesnt work. And that's from experience of having worked in forestry and managing same.

Saying that removing certain animals will enable planted trees to grow and claiming that other animals are the reason all upland areas have no trees is not the same thing or even close.

Please dont believe everything you see on Channel 4. They are currently being funded by the plant food lobby industry to create paid for media content.
https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2019/09/23/Channel-4-invests-in-plant-based-food. Now that's some blatant lobbying for sure.

gozunda

NovemberWren wrote: »

dunno much about this, but, are there just far too many cattle?there always seem to be nominal amounts of sheep; and it is extremely rare to see deer ?are people for the last 15 generations or so, just brainwashed into believing that this monoculture desert of grass, has always be this way?on YouTube, Bealtaine Cottage, -
This is What 13 Years of Permaculture in Ireland Looks Like!although she planted some from cuttings, might these have grown eventually.

We have less cattle than we did in 1973 when Ireland Joined the EU. What we do have is nearly double the population of humans. But yes you are correct sheep numbers are also down. Deer populations tend to go through a cyclical boom and bust cycle. See the deer culling in the Phoenix park and the furore that caused.

And yes Ireland has had grasslands and god forbid even cattle for millennia. Our climate, topography and soils are uniquely suited to growing grass. But not so much arable crops The pollen record verifies that.

This is an account from Pomponius Mela, an early Roman geographer who wrote around AD 43 ie approx a 2000 years ago. Obviously given over to a little exaggeration but at the same time he noted that Ireland was unsuitable for growing wheat, but was so rich in grass that cattle would burst from eating too much if unrestrained.

On hedgerows - it is estimated that hedgerows cover up to 6.4% of the land in Ireland and form an amazing network of wooded hedgerows, banks and ditches.

But yes you are correct if we go back far enough ie before humans - there was woodland but this was preceeded by areas of bogland and secondary vegetation such as scrub. Also a considerable period when the entire country was covered in Tundra after the last Ice age 12,000 years ago when much of the country was blanketed in glaciers. Actually I'd quite like to see glaciers come back to be fair ...

AlekSmart

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

This makes sense to me

https://twitter.com/ExtinctionClock/status/1215941560879042561

Sense...?
Perhaps in inverted comma's.....' '

Anyway Ms Thunberg is now diversifying her focus and lending her considerable weight to targetting Sport AND Finance....You GO Girl !!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51082875

Play the man,not the ball...eh ?

The activists - most of them students - appeared in court in Renens, Lausanne, on 7 January to appeal against the fine. Some supporters gathered outside holding banners which read: "Credit Suisse is destroying the planet. Roger, do you support them?"

Greta Thunberg - the Swedish teenager who has become the public face of worldwide protests against government policies on climate change - joined the criticism against Federer and Credit Suisse when she retweeted a post from activists 350.org Europe.

The post said loans by Credit Suisse to companies investing in fossil fuels were incompatible with action on climate change and urged Federer to "wake up"

Mr Federer,whom Ms Thunberg appears to consider a raving "Denier" did manage a somewhat calm and reasoned response,the sorts of which does not appear to hold much sway with Ms Thunberg.

Federer said he had "a great deal of respect and admiration for the youth climate movement" and was "grateful to young climate activists for pushing us all to examine our behaviours and act on innovative solutions".

"We owe it to them and ourselves to listen. I appreciate reminders of my responsibility as a private individual, as an athlete and as an entrepreneur, and I'm committed to using this privileged position to dialogue on important issues with my sponsors."

Sounds highly reasonable eh ?

Sadly not enough to make much of an impact on Greta's selfless(?) crusade.

As for Credit Suisse,they're big bad corporates and well able to respond in their own way.

Credit Suisse has said it is "seeking to align its loan portfolios with the objectives of the Paris Agreement [to combat climate change] and has recently announced in the context of its global climate strategy that it will no longer invest in new coal-fired power plants".

That investment portfolio,alone,would be in the Billions,but the CS decision will never be enough of itself to get more than a cursory shrug from the "Thunberg" machine ?

Conor McGregor better watch his position on non-renewables !! :eek:

KyussB

So they're still balls-deep in fossil fuel investments, and you want everyone to pat them on the back for a fig leaf PR move...

nthclare

NovemberWren wrote: »

dunno much about this, but, are there just far too many cattle?
there always seem to be nominal amounts of sheep; and it is extremely rare to see deer ?

are people for the last 15 generations or so, just brainwashed into believing that this monoculture desert of grass, has always be this way?

on YouTube, Bealtaine Cottage, -
This is What 13 Years of Permaculture in Ireland Looks Like!

although she planted some from cuttings, might these have grown eventually.

Cuttings are ok for wishy washy mass production of shrubs and some trees to create a nice garden, parkland or barrier.

But cuttings are clones and they're not going to reproduce like a wild plant will.

Growing from seed is a much more environmental way to sustainability and naturalisation.

Planting cuttings is like suggesting to repopulate a town with infertile people and expecting them to have kids and start their own society.

So cuttings are out of the question for a quick fix, sounds very unnatural.

AlekSmart

KyussB wrote: »

So they're still balls-deep in fossil fuel investments, and you want everyone to pat them on the back for a fig leaf PR move...

Do I ?

I pointed out the Credit Suisse PR response,which stands there for individuals to draw their own conclusions from...does this represent a problem ?

If,for example,I was a contributor into a Pension Fund managed by Credit Suisse or any of it's many subsidiaries,my priority would be the health of that fund upon my retirement.

But,then again perhaps you're correct, and I should instead make my donations,as requested, to https://350.org/

As they say themselves,'Climate Change is about Power',or as somebody once said 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute Power corrup......well......you get my drift

So,pat away.

NovemberWren

I think vast amounts of woodlands were deliberately obliterated here circa 1500's? at the time of the Plantations of the English?

and Julius caesar did not take over here because he reckoned the climate was too dark and cold, compared to Italy.

btw there is some movie being made about Grace O'Malley, so the cattle trade of those times will be addressed.

Tell me how

AlekSmart wrote: »

Do I ?

I pointed out the Credit Suisse PR response,which stands there for individuals to draw their own conclusions from...does this represent a problem ?

If,for example,I was a contributor into a Pension Fund managed by Credit Suisse or any of it's many subsidiaries,my priority would be the health of that fund upon my retirement.

But,then again perhaps you're correct, and I should instead make my donations,as requested, to https://350.org/

As they say themselves,'Climate Change is about Power',or as somebody once said 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute Power corrup......well......you get my drift

So,pat away.

Hypothetically, if you were offered the choice of a healthy retirement fund benefiting from fossil fuel investment, while your grandkids suffer real and meaningful negative effects as a result of climate change or 20% (arbitrary figure) less in the retirement fund while your grandkids live in a world with a focus on sustainability and a less harsh environment than in the first scenario, which would you pick?

Because that is close to being the question facing people.

Don't know if anyone listened to John Gibbons on Eamon Dunphy's #The Stand' podcast but it makes for some very sinister listening. The realities of introducing CO2 emission reducing initiatives was tackled as well, but it seems that many peolpe are arguing for waiting until there is no alternative option before they will then blame governments for not giving us alternative options.

AlekSmart

Tell me how wrote: »

Hypothetically, if you were offered the choice of a healthy retirement fund benefiting from fossil fuel investment, while your grandkids suffer real and meaningful negative effects as a result of climate change or 20% (arbitrary figure) less in the retirement fund while your grandkids live in a world with a focus on sustainability and a less harsh environment than in the first scenario, which would you pick?

Because that is close to being the question facing people.

Don't know if anyone listened to John Gibbons on Eamon Dunphy's #The Stand' podcast but it makes for some very sinister listening. The realities of introducing CO2 emission reducing initiatives was tackled as well, but it seems that many peolpe are arguing for waiting until there is no alternative option before they will then blame governments for not giving us alternative options.

That kinda depends upon one's ability and belief in reading a crystal ball.
If I listen to the Thunberg camp,my (hypothetical) grandkids will have their hands on my throat,squeezing what's left of the life outa me,in order to improve their chances of living as long as me.

These decisions however,are being made without my direct input,as for example,with the Credit Suisse corporate response,although that leaves a very significant Question Mark over what this "world with a focus on sustainability and a less harsh environment" will actually be ?

So I guess the question is 'Am I worried ?'...and essentially my answer is....Nah,not really.

Tell me how

AlekSmart wrote: »

That kinda depends upon one's ability and belief in reading a crystal ball.
If I listen to the Thunberg camp,my (hypothetical) grandkids will have their hands on my throat,squeezing what's left of the life outa me,in order to improve their chances of living as long as me.

These decisions however,are being made without my direct input,as for example,with the Credit Suisse corporate response,although that leaves a very significant Question Mark over what this "world with a focus on sustainability and a less harsh environment" will actually be ?

So I guess the question is 'Am I worried ?'...and essentially my answer is....Nah,not really.

Give the Eamon Dunphy podcast a listen and come back and tell us that. I know you'll post the same thing, but then, you won't have the excuse that it is just an uneducated little girl mouthing off.

AlekSmart

Tell me how wrote: »

Give the Eamon Dunphy podcast a listen and come back and tell us that. I know you'll post the same thing, but then, you won't have the excuse that it is just an uneducated little girl mouthing off.

I will listen when I can,but just for clarity,I do not subscribe to Ms Thunberg being 'an uneducated little girl mouthing off'...far from it,as I am very closely aware of just how focused and intelligent somebody such as she can be.

I am also a little disappointed that you could 'know' that I will post the same thing,subsequent to listening to the podcast.

You could well be correct,however the great aspect of the human condition is the power of reason we possess,and the ability to use that power to alter,amend or dispose of,previously held beliefs,structures and thinking.

Right now,even I cannot say that I know how I will respond to this podcast.

My mind remains open,and I shall try to keep it so for as long as I can

Tell me how

AlekSmart wrote: »

I will listen when I can,but just for clarity,I do not subscribe to Ms Thunberg being 'an uneducated little girl mouthing off'...far from it,as I am very closely aware of just how focused and intelligent somebody such as she can be.

I am also a little disappointed that you could 'know' that I will post the same thing,subsequent to listening to the podcast.

You could well be correct,however the great aspect of the human condition is the power of reason we possess,and the ability to use that power to alter,amend or dispose of,previously held beliefs,structures and thinking.

Right now,even I cannot say that I know how I will respond to this podcast.

My mind remains open,and I shall try to keep it so for as long as I can

Maybe I'm lumping you with others on the thread who have proven an inability to accept informed opinions on the matter.

I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the podcast.

Has she realised everything's made in China yet!??