nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Jimmy Garlic

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SafeSurfer

Expose of the “shadowy cabal” behind Greta Thunberg in today’s Sunday Times article by Dominic Green “The Plot To Forge A Climate Warrior”.

Dakota Dan

gozunda wrote: »

On social media today like a pig in ****e. She has her own dedicated media guy with her to help publicise the journey ...

Otherwise

According to the captain of the vessel Boris Hermann*

Or according to Gretas tweets

Who knows

*https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/greta-thunberg-four-days-into-atlantic-crossing

Somebody's telling fibs.

Dakota Dan

joe40 wrote: »

It really is amazing the amount of people that downplay or refuse to accept the opinions of the vast majority of scientists engaged in climate research.
I don't claim to understand all the science but I'm also pretty sure very few here do. Watching youtube clips doesn't count.

Quite simply if I was going to cross a Bridge and 100 engineers told me it was dangerous, but one said it was fine they're just scaremongering, I would find an alternative route.

This anti science, narrative at play in large sections of the public is quite alarming.

Would you jump off a bridge if a scientist told you?

Tell me how

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Would you jump off a bridge if a scientist told you?

Yes, if the produced a peer reviewed consensus why it was safe to do so.

Would you?

Pa ElGrande

joe40 wrote: »

So the IPCC aren't scientists. This is bigger than greta thurberg.

Correct they are not, they are a committee. Checkout Maurice Strong (kickbacks for the UN oil for food), Rajendra Pachauri (Sexual harassment), and Christiana Figueres (sits on the board on an Oil company)

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not experts on climate. The IPCC was formed in the late 80s, NOT to test the assumption that carbon emissions were driving heat and heat was driving dangerous "climate change" or catastrophic anthropogenic "global warming" as they branded it back then, BUT to broadcast it. It is a politicised forum, pushing out people who are frustrated by the way discussions of findings and theories in its working papers are distilled into political alarms in the summary materials used by politicians and the press. The IPCCs terms of reference are only to report on climate change caused by human activity, other factors that affect climate are excluded.

The scheme works as follows: Working group 1 is told to provide the scientific basis for human caused global warming, the other two groups have to accept the findings of working group 1 and it’s from these other groups that the “we’re all gonna’ drown”, “go extinct due to roasting to death” unless we pay money to these special interest groups. There is an additional twist the IPCC committee releases a policy document for government first before the findings of working group 1 are released which must then be changed so there is no contradiction with the policy group.[/QUOTE]

jackboy

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Would you jump off a bridge if a scientist told you?

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes, if the produced a peer reviewed consensus why it was safe to do so.

Would you?

You have too much faith in the peer review system. There are lots of issues with this, it is far from foolproof.

There are also risks with consensus. Consensus are useful for information but dangerous when actions are taken based on them. Consensus implies that all the facts are not known.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes, if the produced a peer reviewed consensus why it was safe to do so.

Would you?

Geocentricism was the peer reviewed scientific consensus for a long time. Then Copernican heliocentrism theory takes over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS-1Q0dl648

gozunda

jackboy wrote: »

You have too much faith in the peer review system. There are lots of issues with this, it is far from foolproof.

There are also risks with consensus. Consensus are useful for information but dangerous when actions are taken based on them. Consensus implies that all the facts are not known.

Agreed it is widely accepted that the peer review system has some major issues / flaws and needs to be significantly overhauled

https://www.biospace.com/article/the-mess-that-is-peer-review-and-what-should-be-done-about-it-/

Regarding concensus - ditto for example- In 1933 the national socialist party achieved the majority vote in 33 german electoral districts. Only 2 districts voted otherwise...

Orderofchaos

Doesn't she know that each click is bad for the environment. She should be spreading her message on recycled paper from managed forests.
#stop tweeting

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

Agreed it is widely accepted that the peer review system has some major issues / flaws and needs to be significantly overhauled

https://www.biospace.com/article/the-mess-that-is-peer-review-and-what-should-be-done-about-it-/

Regarding concensus - ditto for example- In 1933 the national socialist party achieved the majority vote in 33 german electoral districts. Only 2 districts voted otherwise...

So just to be clear on your views relating to climate change are you of the opinion the warnings are either false or exaggerated due to some sort of shady international conspiracy.

Science advances on the basis of testable hypotheses based on the best evidence available. Consensus does change, that is the strength of science.

So in this instance do you think the consensus is wrong and what is the basis for that assumption.

Akrasia

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Would you jump off a bridge if a scientist told you?

People jump off bridges all the time using bungee cords that are scientifically validated

Science is the best way we have of knowing what is the nature of our reality. Conspiracy theories and gut feelings are infinitely less reliable

Dakota Dan

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes, if the produced a peer reviewed consensus why it was safe to do so.

Would you?

But it wouldn’t be safe

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Geocentricism was the peer reviewed scientific consensus for a long time. Then Copernican heliocentrism theory takes over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS-1Q0dl648

In science the previous best hypothesis is replaced with a better hypothesis when the evidence supports it. With climate change, the best hypothesis is the current scientific consensus. The alternative explanations are a bunch of half baked mutually contradictory conspiracy theories that have virtually zero scientific credibility or evidence to support them

Akrasia

Dakota Dan wrote: »

But it wouldn’t be safe

What?

Dakota Dan

Akrasia wrote: »

People jump off bridges all the time using bungee cords that are scientifically validated

Science is the best way we have of knowing what is the nature of our reality. Conspiracy theories and gut feelings are infinitely less reliable

No bungee cord

MarquisDeSad

Would you jump off a cliff if a scientist told you?

Why would a scientist tell someone jump off a cliff in the first place?

Stupid is stupid.

Akrasia

Dakota Dan wrote: »

No bungee cord

On what scientific basis are these imaginary scientists telling people it’s safe to jump off this imaginary bridge?

Akrasia

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

Would you jump off a cliff if a scientist told you?

Why scientist tell someone jump off a cliff in the first place?

Stupid is stupid.

Also Dakota dan was replying to a post about someone saying they wouldn’t trust a single engineer who was saying a bridge is safe if 99 other engineers said it was dangerous. It’s the complete opposite of doing something because ‘a scientist told me to do it’

Tell me how

Dakota Dan wrote: »

But it wouldn’t be safe

How do you know?

Do you think no one ever jumped safely from a bridge?

Help!!!!

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030
The vast majority of scientists who are pro CC are government funded
The 98% of scientists report was debunked
Irish farmers have to jump through hoops because of CC yet the EU are now going to import beef from South America
The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages
Surely common sense tells you the whole CC is a con

Car99

Help!!!! wrote: »

The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages

Was it? Reference ?

Tell me how

Help!!!! wrote: »

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030
The vast majority of scientists who are pro CC are government funded
The 98% of scientists report was debunked
Irish farmers have to jump through hoops because of CC yet the EU are now going to import beef from South America
The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages
Surely common sense tells you the whole CC is a con

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030 - Stop getting caught up on the 12 year thing, the message is that we are running out of time, whether it is 12 or 50 or 100 years, is insignificant in terms of the actual impact
The vast majority of scientists who are pro CC are government funded - Who else is going to fund research which doesn't immediately produce a product or service?
The 98% of scientists report was debunked - By who? Where?
Irish farmers have to jump through hoops because of CC yet the EU are now going to import beef from South America - What hoops are Irish farmers jumping through because of CC?
The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages - Rate of change is the issue
Surely common sense tells you the whole CC is a con - Do you have any of this common sense?

Help!!!!

Car99 wrote: »

Was it? Reference ?

Yes then was followed by a mini ice age

1.1.7 Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 AD) The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD, when global temperatures were somewhat warmer than at present. Temperatures in the GISP2 ice core were about 2°F (1°C) warmer than modern temperatures (Fig. 8.14).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period#targetText=1.1.7%20Medieval%20Warm%20Period,8.14).

Tell me how

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yes then was followed by a mini ice age

1.1.7 Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 AD) The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD, when global temperatures were somewhat warmer than at present. Temperatures in the GISP2 ice core were about 2°F (1°C) warmer than modern temperatures (Fig. 8.14).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period#targetText=1.1.7%20Medieval%20Warm%20Period,8.14).

Ok, have we established that you believe what the scientists say so?

SafeSurfer

joe40 wrote: »

So just to be clear on your views relating to climate change are you of the opinion the warnings are either false or exaggerated due to some sort of shady international conspiracy.

Science advances on the basis of testable hypotheses based on the best evidence available. Consensus does change, that is the strength of science.

So in this instance do you think the consensus is wrong and what is the basis for that assumption.

Many of the projections of the climate alarmist industry have been shown to be false or exaggerated.

Such as the Arctic Ocean being ice free by now, it isn’t, polar bears verging on extinction by now, they aren’t and the ocean conveyer which carries the Gulf Stream shutting down, it hasn’t.

Do you really believe the 10 years to doom predictions peddled by Greta and co?

It’s alarmist headline grabbing nonsense similar to the acid rain and millennium bug nonsense. It will make some people incredibly famous and wealthy but in 10 years time things will be much the same as they are now.

Help!!!!

Tell me how wrote: »

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030 - Stop getting caught up on the 12 year thing, the message is that we are running out of time, whether it is 12 or 50 or 100 years, is insignificant in terms of the actual impact
The vast majority of scientists who are pro CC are government funded - Who else is going to fund research which doesn't immediately produce a product or service?
The 98% of scientists report was debunked - By who? Where?
Irish farmers have to jump through hoops because of CC yet the EU are now going to import beef from South America - What hoops are Irish farmers jumping through because of CC?
The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages - Rate of change is the issue
Surely common sense tells you the whole CC is a con - Do you have any of this common sense?

You can check all of these for yourself

recedite

Help!!!! wrote: »

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030

Per person, the Arabs are by far the worst culprits.
USA, Canada and Australia in second place.
China and most European countries are a good bit further down the list.

But you don't get a free pass just because you live in a small country.
Similarly its unfair to single out the Chinese just because there are a lot of them in one country. They are doing a lot more than us in terms of developing and deploying renewable energy.

Help!!!!

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Many of the projections of the climate alarmist industry have been shown to be false or exaggerated.

Such as the Arctic Ocean being ice free by now, it isn’t, polar bears verging on extinction by now, they aren’t and the ocean conveyer which carries the Gulf Stream shutting down, it hasn’t.

Do you really believe the 10 years to doom predictions peddled by Greta and co?

It’s alarmist headline grabbing nonsense similar to the acid rain and millennium bug nonsense. It will make some people incredibly famous and wealthy but in 10 years time things will be much the same as they are now.

There are more polar bears now than there were in the 70s
This is the reason China isn't cutting their emissions until 2030;);)
They know people will have woken up by then

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030 - Stop getting caught up on the 12 year thing, the message is that we are running out of time, whether it is 12 or 50 or 100 years, is insignificant in terms of the actual impact
The vast majority of scientists who are pro CC are government funded - Who else is going to fund research which doesn't immediately produce a product or service?
The 98% of scientists report was debunked - By who? Where?
Irish farmers have to jump through hoops because of CC yet the EU are now going to import beef from South America - What hoops are Irish farmers jumping through because of CC?
The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages - Rate of change is the issue
Surely common sense tells you the whole CC is a con - Do you have any of this common sense?

Roman Britain was exporting wine to the rest of the Roman Empire. Vineyards were present in northern England. There isn’t a lot of Newcastle Grand Cru on the shelves of my local SuperValu despite the climate alarmists.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

In science the previous best hypothesis is replaced with a better hypothesis when the evidence supports it. With climate change, the best hypothesis is the current scientific consensus. The alternative explanations are a bunch of half baked mutually contradictory conspiracy theories that have virtually zero scientific credibility or evidence to support them

The current consensus CAGW hypothesis has been round for decades it has no reliable predictive power and it has become a vehicle for several disparate groups to resurrect the failed ideas of Malthus (population control) and Marx (top down planned economy), and income redistribution to vested interest groups via the state. (chiefly subsidies to unreliable energy systems and playing market with carbon credits). All this has required new taxation and has become a wealth transfer from lower income groups to those who have successfully lobbied the state.

It is not CAGW that will collapse the current welfare state model a combination of debt default, high taxation and unreliable expensive energy systems will do that much more effectively than the weather ever will.

If you want to change to an all electric future then then go ahead. Stop pretending you are going to maintain the same or better standard of living or change the weather pursing the current policies based on the CAGW hypothesis.

Two Studies and Henrik Svensmark versus man-made Climate Change 2019–08–07

Both studies and Svensmark’s previous findings are already calling the prevailing narrative of man-made climate change into question. Even if one is not ready to give up the assumption of manmade climate change one should not ignore the findings.

At the same time both studies draw criticism because they were not peer reviewed. However this should deny neither the central theses that have been published by Svensmark their attention. At least Svensmark’s findings have been proven and already question the ruling narrative of man-made climate change.

source