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

blinding

gozunda wrote: »

So wringing hands and giving out about everything else is a realistic solution is it? Why can't education be advocated and implemented? As per previous - education is recognised as a means of helping improve women lives, society and reducing population pressures. Or like farming and much everything else you dont agree with that either?

Ireland birth rate has been falling fairly steadily since the 1970s with a figure of 1.77 births per woman (Eurostat figures) and now below the population replacement level (without the effect of migration) considered to be 2.1 live births per woman. So looks like you'll get your drop Thelonoius - but migration should help make up for that ....

Mass immigration is only encouraging population growth . Greta the Great won’t like that !

blinding

Paddygreen wrote: »

Is anyone else hoping Corona wipes out millions of people. Humanity is a disease that needs to be exterminated. I am like His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich, Royal Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Extra Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Grand Master and First and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Additional Member of the Order of New Zealand, Extra Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Knight of the Order of Australia, Royal Chief of the Order of Logohu, Extraordinary Companion of the Order of Canada, Extraordinary Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Canadian Forces Decoration, Lord of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Personal Aide-de-Camp to His Majesty King George VI, Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom... I also want to reincarnate as a deadly virus.

I assume the Greenies will soon start using Eco / Green Terrorism to get their way . You can be sure many of them are hoping for a big wipe out with a pandemic soon . If it doesn’t come they may well hurry one up

easypazz

gozunda wrote: »

Not just 10 years - but 10 years, 252 days and 10 hours to be precise...

Something she has been variously touting in her speeches. Afaik the first was when she spoke before British parliament in April 2019, where she claimed that “Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it.”

Speech here:
https://youtu.be/rYNM4rsnNFM

"Around the year 2030"

Not the year 2030, but "around" it. By 2030 things will be advancing nicely in terms of bigger annual sea level rises etc. (unless its all a hoax)

I won't be here in 2100 when the sea will supposed be 1 metre higher, but I should be ok in 2030 and possibly 2050 and at least I will know going to my grave if its all a hoax or not.

AllForIt

KyussB wrote: »

Perfect example of peoples willingness to be 'deceived' when it suits their point of view.

The statement you are perpetuating, is that she wants net zero emissions right now, today. Not to begin the path towards that, but to have that right now straight away - which is the difference between realistic vs impossible.

You did not fact check whether or not she said that. I will bet that, rather than admit she did not say that, instead you'd just walk back the claim into weaker form.

Basically, you put forward the strong/impossible claim about what she said, in order to ridicule her - then I bet you'd wilfully/deceitfully lie, by using the weaker/realistic claim to try and back up that she did say the former.

Lets see you quote her directly, to back up what you're perpetuating - and to see if you stick to the stronger claim, or try to walk it back with the weaker claim.

It was actually the bit where he said 'she speaks with passion so we have to take her seriously' part I was referring to.

But lets say I meant it the way you took it. It is not realistic to ever have zero emissions - until such time there is a some kind of technological solution. There is nothing like that in sight, not even a hint of it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51193460/davos-forget-about-net-zero-we-need-real-zero-greta-thunberg

To say that she doesn't want zero emissions today but that we should embark on the path to zero emissions is only ever so slightly less ridiculous. There is no path to zero emissions. That is noting more than a dream of a child at this moment in time.

It seems to me Greta is saying to turn everything off even if there is no other non-polluting solution to operating our services. Even if she's right it's still ridiculous to advocate zero emissions, it'll never happen until the technology is found.

Tell me how

AllForIt wrote: »

It was actually the bit where he said 'she speaks with passion so we have to take her seriously' part I was referring to.

But lets say I meant it the way you took it. It is not realistic to ever have zero emissions - until such time there is a some kind of technological solution. There is nothing like that in sight, not even a hint of it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51193460/davos-forget-about-net-zero-we-need-real-zero-greta-thunberg

To say that she doesn't want zero emissions today but that we should embark on the path to zero emissions is only ever so slightly less ridiculous. There is no path to zero emissions. That is noting more than a dream of a child at this moment in time.

It seems to me Greta is saying to turn everything off even if there is no other non-polluting solution to operating our services. Even if she's right it's still ridiculous to advocate zero emissions, it'll never happen until the technology is found.

Yes. that is why she is saying that societies and organisations must work together to develop the solutions which do not exist today.

blinding

Greta would be better off in school trying to come up with technology to solve these problems ; Rather than posing with other posers !

Tell me how

blinding wrote: »

Greta would be better off in school trying to come up with technology to solve these problems ; Rather than posing with other posers !

She has won countless awards including Time Person of the Year.
She was nominated for the Nobel Prize.
She has spoken at the EU Parliament, the HoC, the US congress, the UN and Davos.
She has sailed across the Atlantic twice.
She has motivated millions of people to join her in protesting.

The only reason you wished she stayed in school is so you wouldn't have to see a young lady being so successful.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

She has won countless awards including Time Person of the Year.
She was nominated for the Nobel Prize.
She has spoken at the EU Parliament, the HoC, the US congress, the UN and Davos.
She has sailed across the Atlantic twice.
She has motivated millions of people to join her in protesting.

The only reason you wished she stayed in school is so you wouldn't have to see a young lady being so successful.

She admitted herself that absolutely nothing has changed since she started her campaign.

jackboy

jackboy wrote: »

She admitted herself that absolutely nothing has changed since she started her campaign.

be interesting to see what income, fees, expenses etc etc her family and any associated orgs have racked up since she started getting the attention.

id say youd see real change there

galwayllm

Tell me how wrote: »

She has won countless awards including Time Person of the Year.
She was nominated for the Nobel Prize.
She has spoken at the EU Parliament, the HoC, the US congress, the UN and Davos.
She has sailed across the Atlantic twice.
She has motivated millions of people to join her in protesting.

The only reason you wished she stayed in school is so you wouldn't have to see a young lady being so successful.

Boo

blinding

jackboy wrote: »

She admitted herself that absolutely nothing has changed since she started her campaign.

She’d achieve more if she studied and came up with some new technology.

Posing with posers is a job for a poser .

easypazz

Tell me how wrote: »

She has won countless awards including Time Person of the Year.
She was nominated for the Nobel Prize.
She has spoken at the EU Parliament, the HoC, the US congress, the UN and Davos.
She has sailed across the Atlantic twice.
She has motivated millions of people to join her in protesting.

The only reason you wished she stayed in school is so you wouldn't have to see a young lady being so successful.

What has she succeeded in?

If anything she has riled Trump into throwing policies in the fire to spite her.

blinding

Deleted User wrote: »

be interesting to see what income, fees, expenses etc etc her family and any associated orgs have racked up since she started getting the attention.

id say youd see real change there

Ka-Ching..Ka-Ching..Ka-Ching.

_Kaiser_

Tell me how wrote: »

She has won countless awards including Time Person of the Year.
She was nominated for the Nobel Prize.
She has spoken at the EU Parliament, the HoC, the US congress, the UN and Davos.
She has sailed across the Atlantic twice.
She has motivated millions of people to join her in protesting.

The only reason you wished she stayed in school is so you wouldn't have to see a young lady being so successful.

Weak argument. I don't give a toss that she's a "young lady" and nor does anyone else here I reckon.

I also still don't care about her/her handlers message. I live in Ireland and no amount of prostration for the "cause" here will make a blind bit of difference to the supposed "emergency".

Come back to me when the likes of China and Africa are making really significant changes in their emissions outputs and environmental policies. Until then it's just another self-punishing crusade by the social media obsessed West to make themselves feel better about the accident of where and what society they were born into.

Tell me how

jackboy wrote: »

She admitted herself that absolutely nothing has changed since she started her campaign.

galwayllm wrote: »

Boo

So the experiences I listed above have had no benefit to her whatsoever? She would have been better placed in sitting in maths class or whatever?

Also, she hasn't said nothing has changed, she has said not enough has changed.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Weak argument. I don't give a toss that she's a "young lady" and nor does anyone else here I reckon.

I also still don't care about her/her handlers message. I live in Ireland and no amount of prostration for the "cause" here will make a blind bit of difference to the supposed "emergency".

Come back to me when the likes of China and Africa are making really significant changes in their emissions outputs and environmental policies. Until then it's just another self-punishing crusade by the social media obsessed West to make themselves feel better about the accident of where and what society they were born into.

Ok, I get it. You are selfish and short sighted. Point taken.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

So the experiences I listed above have had no benefit to her whatsoever? She would have been better placed in sitting in maths class or whatever?

Also, she hasn't said nothing has changed, she has said not enough has changed.

I’m sure they benefited her. They achieved nothing for her cause though. She did say the worlds leaders have done nothing, so in other words nothing has changed.

Tell me how

jackboy wrote: »

I’m sure they benefited her. They achieved nothing for her cause though. She did say the worlds leaders have done nothing, so in other words nothing has changed.

Yet.

gozunda

easypazz wrote: »

"Around the year 2030"Not the year 2030, but "around" it. By 2030 things will be advancing nicely in terms of bigger annual sea level rises etc. (unless its all a hoax)
I won't be here in 2100 when the sea will supposed be 1 metre higher, but I should be ok in 2030 and possibly 2050 and at least I will know going to my grave if its all a hoax or not.

It's not the the timeline either - its the whole general alarmism of "10 years 252 days and 10 hours" exactly that gets me tbh :pac:

Btw at a risk of repeating that again- that whole general idea in that already been blown out of the water by one of the IPCC scientists who said:

Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

Regarding sea level thingy - from what I read - that is a worst case emissions scenario with the relevant IPCC report claiming sea levels could rise between 1 - 4 feet by 2100.

Fr_Dougal

Greta needs to be sacked and replaced with someone who can actually build relationships with the stakeholders. All she’s doing is damaging the cause by alienating people.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Perfect example of peoples willingness to be 'deceived' when it suits their point of view.The statement you are perpetuating, is that she wants net zero emissions right now, today. Not to begin the path towards that, but to have that right now straight away - which is the difference between realistic vs impossible.You did not fact check whether or not she said that. I will bet that, rather than admit she did not say that, instead you'd just walk back the claim into weaker form.
Basically, you put forward the strong/impossible claim about what she said, in order to ridicule her - then I bet you'd wilfully/deceitfully lie, by using the weaker/realistic claim to try and back up that she did say the former.
Lets see you quote her directly, to back up what you're perpetuating - and to see if you stick to the stronger claim, or try to walk it back with the weaker claim.

Well looking at the speech she gave at Davros - to be fair there's a lot of ambiguity there with her referring to 'net zero' emissions in a double negative type statement and she goes back and forth on it a few times.

Ben Shapiros tweet -

Thunberg called for a "zero emissions" economy, beginning right now.

Greta says this.

We don't need to lower emissions. Our emissions need to stop if we are going to save the world."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/51191940

Though not the first time when she has said similar as far as I remember

Infering others might "wilfully/deceitfully lie" for some odd reason just to prove a point or something (though I'm uncertain what that is tbh) is at best puerile regardless of what the headlines are...

Thelonious Monk

There's a Horizon doc about overpopulation about to start on BBC2 if anyone is interested

easypazz

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There's a Horizon doc about overpopulation about to start on BBC2 if anyone is interested

Lagos......jesus!

Thelonious Monk

easypazz wrote: »

Lagos......jesus!

I know, Jesus. We're f*cked!

blinding

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I know, Jesus. We're f*cked!

Fooked by too much fooking ! Careful Now.

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Greta needs to be sacked and replaced with someone who can actually build relationships with the stakeholders. All she’s doing is damaging the cause by alienating people.

Who has she alienated? Who might have been inclined to do something positive I mean.

Also, who would you nominate get's her job (which isn't a job) if she is sacked (which she can't be)?

BluePlanet

gozunda wrote: »

Not just 10 years - but 10 years, 252 days and 10 hours to be precise...

Something she has been variously touting in her speeches. Afaik the first was when she spoke before British parliament in April 2019, where she claimed that “Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it.”

Speech here:
https://youtu.be/rYNM4rsnNFM

So you either are intentionally misrepresenting her speech, or you are unintentionally doing it.

She said in 10 years time if we do not alter our CO2 producing:
we set off an irreversible chain reaction
This chain reaction will:

most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it

She doesn't say that civilization ends in 10 years.
In fact she doesn't put a date as to when civilization 'ends'.

She is saying we have a 10 year window to change course.
After that, we are into consequences that end 'civilization as we know it'.
Note too that she did not say the 'end of civilization', just the end of the civilization we now know.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting the climate views of a 16 yrd old girl?
You making a straw-man argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

gozunda

BluePlanet wrote: »

So you either are intentionally misrepresenting her speech, or you are unintentionally doing it.She said in 10 years time if we do not alter our CO2 producing:
we set off an irreversible chain reaction
This chain reaction will:most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it
She doesn't say that civilization ends in 10 years.In fact she doesn't put a date as to when civilization 'ends'.She is saying we have a 10 year window to change course.After that, we are into consequences that end 'civilization as we know it'.Note too that she did not say the 'end of civilization', just the end of the civilization we now know.Are you intentionally misrepresenting the climate views of a 16 yrd old girl?You making a straw-man argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Would you get out of that with that stupid stuffed straw rubbish. Not the only one saying that whole alarmist 'end of civilisation' reference is a crock of crap.

Btw she says nothing in that about any "CO2 producing". Read that again - or are you deliveratly misrepresenting what Greta is saying? How Dare You! :eek:

And exactly why are you hung up on the "16 year old girl" bit :rolleyes: No the IPCC does not say that civilisation is going to end at all.

Its the whole doomsday ****e that's been used by Greta and others. I'll go with what the IPCC guy said thanks. Not that type of bs.

This is what one of the IPCC scientists said:

Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

Looks like Greta believes in dragons. I dont

AllForIt

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes. that is why she is saying that societies and organisations must work together to develop the solutions which do not exist today.

But any stupid fool could suggest that. Scientists have invented ways to create energy. They didn't set about to do it such a way to create emissions deliberately. The ways we make energy are the only ways we know how to do it. We still can't harness wind or solar to the levels of nuclear reactors or by burning coal, and we haven't got any portable energy source for vehicles that's as good as oil. If we make more electric cars we still have the problem of producing even more electricity than we use now.

If you invented a new way to create energy that was viable to be mass produced you'd be a multi-billionaire overnight. Even if the creation of it resulted in emissions. And if you did it in such a way there there were no emissions you'd be a billionaire and a considered a God.

So the idea that all it takes is to demand the worlds governments to put their heads together to invent some new non-polluting alternative energy sources - is just so painfully naive and it's no wonder she's being ridiculed for it. She's demanding the impossible.

blinding wrote: »

Greta would be better off in school trying to come up with technology to solve these problems ; Rather than posing with other posers !

This is absolutely correct - she would. Along with all the other climate change activists.

BluePlanet

gozunda wrote: »

Would you get out of that with that stupid stuffed straw rubbish.

Oh i see, you're not able to understand nuance in language so reflexively strawman what someone says.

gozunda

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh i see, you're not able to understand nuance in language so reflexively strawman what someone says.

:pac:
Exuse my French - but 'nuance' my rearend. That type of alarmism 'end of civilisation' bs has nothing to do with nuance my friend. Stick with the science and you should be fine.