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

Tell me how

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.

It seems the false and exaggerated claims are within your post.

Where were we told the arctic would be ice free by 2019? It is 10% less this year than it was in the 30 years from 1981 to 2010.
Polar bears are listed as a threatened species already (i.e at risk of extinction)
The Gulf Stream has indeed slowed down.

So, it seems your problem is not that bad things are happening but that we are unable to say definitively when they will occur?

Do you see how ridiculous that position is?

Tell me how

Help!!!! wrote: »

You can check all of these for yourself

Ah, the latest in the line of climate change deniers who don't understand how debates work.

You can't just make empty statements and not back them up.

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

It seems the false and exaggerated claims are within your post.

Where were we told the arctic would be ice free by 2019? It is 10% less this year than it was in the 30 years from 1981 to 2010.
Polar bears are listed as a threatened species already (i.e at risk of extinction)
The Gulf Stream has indeed slowed down.

So, it seems your problem is not that bad things are happening but that we are unable to say definitively when they will occur?

Do you see how ridiculous that position is?

You don’t seem to understand the the classification of endangered species.
The polar bear population is increasing despite emaciated polar bears clinging to a piece of fragmented ice becoming a poster child for climate alarmists.

The climate alarmists, including the subject of this thread are already using specific definitive dates in their propaganda, such as 12 years to save the planet.

Help!!!!

Tell me how wrote: »

Ah, the latest in the line of climate change deniers who don't understand how debates work.

You can't just make empty statements and not back them up.

You do realise the 97% of scientists study was done by John Cook a cartoonist, not a climate scientist?

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You don’t seem to understand the the classification of endangered species.
The polar bear population is increasing despite emaciated polar bears clinging to a piece of fragmented ice becoming a poster child for climate alarmists.

The climate alarmists, including the subject of this thread are already using specific definitive dates in their propaganda, such as 12 years to save the planet.

Polar Bear numbers have increased since hunting massively decreased following collaborative efforts in the 1970's.

The issue of ice (their natural habitat) decreasing is still of grave concern.

https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/

Orderofchaos

Help!!!! wrote: »

You do realise the 97% of scientists study was done by John Cook a cartoonist, not a climate scientist?

This guy :
John is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. He holds a PhD in cognitive psychology at the University of Western Australia and a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics. He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer, and the 2016 college textbook Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Daniel Bedford. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

Polar Bear numbers have increased since hunting massively decreased following collaborative efforts in the 1970's.

The issue of ice (their natural habitat) decreasing is still of grave concern.

https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/

Maybe the loss of ice will confound alarmist predictions also
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/24/strong-arctic-sea-ice-growth-this-year/

biko

https://shameplane.com/?fromCity=Paris&fromCode=CDG&toCity=Chicago&toCode=ORD&roundtrip=true&typeofseat=3

Now you too can feel guilty over using aeroplanes

Help!!!!

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

But I guess their the wrong kind of scientist

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#2cc71c693bb3

Help!!!!

Orderofchaos wrote: »

This guy :
John is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. He holds a PhD in cognitive psychology at the University of Western Australia and a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics. He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer, and the 2016 college textbook Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Daniel Bedford. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

Yes even the scientists came out & said he was wrong. This is quite an interesting video about CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgakkNTHwew

Orderofchaos

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yes even the scientists came out & said he was wrong. This is quite an interesting video about CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgakkNTHwew

Interesting video.

Help!!!!

Orderofchaos wrote: »

Interesting video.

Yeah, theres a lot of people who will just take what politicians & MSM tell them as gospel so its good that theres independent reporters doing these sort of videos that tie everything together with facts.

SafeSurfer

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yeah, theres a lot of people who will just take what politicians & MSM tell them as gospel so its good that theres independent reporters doing these sort of videos that tie everything together with facts.

Hardly surprising when state controlled media such as the BBC have a policy of denying airtime to anyone who questions the climate alarmist orthodoxy.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Hardly surprising when state controlled media such as the BBC have a policy of denying airtime to anyone who questions the climate alarmist orthodoxy.

Nigel Farage has been on it, once or twice......

Tell me how

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yes even the scientists came out & said he was wrong. This is quite an interesting video about CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgakkNTHwew

Yeah, that video is completely unbiased.
Pinned comment by publisher opens with giving out about leftists.
Yeah. I'll change my opinion now alright.

Blueshoe

I have a solution that makes sense for all.
The government cuts social welfare spending (20 billion per year ) by 10% immediately and ringfence the 2 billion for green projects and the supporting infrastructure that's required

MarquisDeSad

It must be great to dismiss things with 'msm & fakenews'. Feelings...

Help!!!!

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah, that video is completely unbiased.
Pinned comment by publisher opens with giving out about leftists.
Yeah. I'll change my opinion now alright.

Same as what the MSM have been feeding the public
So what part of the video is not true?

Tell me how

Help!!!! wrote: »

Same as what the MSM have been feeding the public
So what part of the video is not true?

It's a video on the veracity if the 97% claim.

It doesn't really talk about the issue, it talks about how that claim was wrong.

As I said yesterday on this thread, this is more than just a conversation about climate change and disasters (which are relevant), it's equally a story about sustainability. Focusing on the 97% is suggesting that that's the only reason people are concerned about the environment.

Our practices need to change to optimize this.

CalamariFritti

The whole climate debate is a bit of a red herring in my opinion.

That doesn't mean that I think that it is a lie. One could hardly burn incredible amounts of carbon that were trapped over hundreds of millions of years within a couple of hundred years and expect that it doesn't have any influence. But I do believe there is not as much hard proof with regards to the direct consequences as there is - admittedly educated - theory.

Which unfortunately is ample reason for a lot of people to stick their head in the sand and pronounce everything is going to be fine.

Which I doubt we will, because climate change or not, we are on a slippery slope. We strive to leave no stone unturned to scrape whatever we can from our lands and seas. We dont give a sh1t about our environment at all. We chop down what we can. We dump rubbish and even toxic waste everywhere. We kill off habitats and species without a second thought. We take over every corner of the world leaving no room for anything or anyone else. Its like nature is our enemy. Just saving the climate will not save us, we have to turn a far bigger corner.

And we do all that so that we can produce vast amounts of cr@p nobody really needs just so that we can play this fake game of monopoly moving little green pieces of paper around to make some of us feel better about themselves or something. Which seems tragic cos even the people with loads of these green paper bits dont seem all that happy.

However. Whichever way you think about this. Here is a young girl with a strong belief who does whatever is in her limited power to work against us fvcking everything up. And what does she get for her admirable and quite successful behaviour in return? Snide and venom and worse in vast amounts. We really are a great bunch of lads.

Tell me how

^^^^^^^

Given the majority of your post, which I agree with, I'm surprised by your first sentence.

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

Nigel Farage has been on it, once or twice......

The BBC do have such a policy and speaking of Farage he has been making headlines lately labelling Prince Harry the 'Prince of Wokeness' and calling out 'Charlie Boy'

He said: 'When it comes to her son, when it comes to Charlie Boy and climate change, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

'Her mother, Her Royal Highness the Queen's mother was a slightly overweight, chain-smoking gin drinker who lived to 101 years old. All I can say is Charlie Boy is now in his 70s … may the Queen live a very, very long time.'

It is not the first time Mr Farage has taken aim at Charles, having previously described his views on climate change as 'naive and foolish at best'.

In 2008 he was the sole MEP who refused to applaud a speech on global warming by the prince.

source

Not only that organisations such as the Greenpeace (analysis of their business model) have a policy of harassing scientists who do not agree with the CAGW hypothesis and trying to get them de-funded.. Recently the magazine 'Nature' has published a list of people derived from a list posing as research originating from the the university of California Merced called “Blacklisted scientists you must ignore".

Skeptics get 49% more media, and other fairy fantasy stories from Nature Gossip Mag

keptics get banned, rejected, blocked and sacked from the mainstream media yet somehow Nature has a paper on Skeptics getting too much media. Believers don’t have to be an expert to control the news agenda, just a Greenpeace activist, or a teenage girl. Skeptics on the other hand, can be Nobel Prize winners, but the BBC won’t even phone them.

Nature, the former science giant, just launched the tenets of science over the event horizon. This paper is Argument from Authority rolled into false equivalence, and powered with cherry-picked errors in both category and in categorization. Nonsense on a rocket. It’s not what science is, and it’s not what journalism should be either. And Nature is supposed to be both. Judith Curry calls it The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ and the worst paper she has ever seen in a reputable journal.

source

gozunda

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.

You can drop the hyperbole and daft assumptions tbh. We are talking about a child who has been influenced by videos of a starving polar bear ( which she watched as a very young child), blamed on global warming and which later turned out otherwise btw - this and other scare stories led to repeated self harming. Following depression and a digonisis of aspergers- she has now built up a wall of fear for herself and is advising others to do the same and panic. All because she believes the world is going to end in 12 years time. This is now gretas message and not what the scientists are saying. And yet we are bring told that we should listen to the 'message'...

What I have stated separately is that the peer review system is not flawless because some are claiming it's the holy grail (it is not) and also those that claim that concensus means everything. The truth is that concensus can be dubious path to follow where majority is deemed as meaning right. In this instance If everyone ends up swallowing grettas 'message' - and then insists that concensus means the message must be correct - that is the ass trotting along a completely different road to the proverbial cart.

Science advances and changes - there is no end point where we can say yes this is the absolute truth so we go no further. Currently the scientists do not have answers to the questions posed by climate change - until they do there are no absolutes. And even the scientists will tell you that for free.

"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".

CalamariFritti

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^^^^^

Given the majority of your post, which I agree with, I'm surprised by your first sentence.

Well I think the whole climate debate is strongly in focus atm. Rightly so. But the focus is too strong. We have much more than climate to make right to save ourselves. And climate is not a good vehicle to have that debate on I think.
Because whether and climate is so chaotic that is a difficult one to provide hard evidence that no one can deny.

I think the undeniable fact that we have killed 50% of all wild animals off since 1970 alone is a much stronger and less debunkable one for example.

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The BBC do have such a policy and speaking of Farage he has been making headlines lately labelling Prince Harry the 'Prince of Wokeness' and calling out 'Charlie Boy'

Not only that organisations such as the Greenpeace (analysis of their business model) have a policy of harassing scientists who do not agree with the CAGW hypothesis and trying to get them de-funded.. Recently the magazine 'Nature' has published a list of people derived from a list posing as research originating from the the university of California Merced called “Blacklisted scientists you must ignore".

Skeptics get 49% more media, and other fairy fantasy stories from Nature Gossip Mag

Any impartial evidence to offer?

The author of that piece is an avowed climate change denier.
The first advocate for her in the About section is Andrew Bolt, who recently made worldwide headlines for mocking Greta. The longest section on his Wikipedia pages is about his controversies.

Let me ask you this, what do you think of vaccinations? Good or bad?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Any impartial evidence to offer?The author of that piece is an avowed climate change denier.
The first advocate for her in the About section is Andrew Bolt, who recently made worldwide headlines for mocking Greta. The longest section on his Wikipedia pages is about his controversies.Let me ask you this, what do you think of vaccinations? Good or bad?

As to 'vaccinations' - not the first attempt to drag the goal posts around the playing field and instead take up mud wrestling in the swamp in this thread tbh.

Tell me - do you ever get tired of endlessly waving the flag for the greta - even where has been shown she is simply a child who does not have the ability to fully understand the issues which climate change will bring?

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

As to 'vaccinations' - not the first attempt to drag the goal posts around the playing field and instead take up mud wrestling in the swamp in this thread tbh.

Fine, don't answer it.
No moving goalposts here, I've been on the thread for last few days and am sticking to the topic.
I just wanted to see if you were willing to accept the broad scientific consensus in other areas of your life.

gozunda wrote: »

Tell me - do you ever get tired of endlessly waving the flag for the greta - even where has been shown she is simply a child who does not have the ability to fully understand the issues which climate change will bring?

We'll try again, all Greta has said is listen to the scientists. She said herself she couldn't know everything as she is a child.

Do you get tired of being so resistant to change or becoming informed?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Fine, don't answer it.No moving goalposts here, I've been on the thread for last few days and am sticking to the topic.I just wanted to see if you were willing to accept the broad scientific consensus in other areas of your life.

I think you may be a bit mixed up there tbh. It's the other poster who posed the issue and to whom your query was directed.

I noted that that vaccinations are not even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread. But go ahead derail if you wish - but don't be surprised when others point that out

"Tell wrote:

We'll try again, all Greta has said is listen to the scientists. She said herself she couldn't know everything as she is a child.

Try all you like. Gretas has told us to 'panic' - that our world will end in 12 years - to feel the fear, she developed as child from being exposed to scary stories etc etc. She then accuses others of not listening to her.

"Tell wrote:

Do you get tired of being so resistant to change or becoming informed?

Do you get tired of the hyperbole and mud slinging? You may note from my comments I advocate the scientific method - which by definition involves careful observation, the application of rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions distort how such information is interpreted.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Vaccinations are not even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread. But go ahead derail if you wish - but dont be surprised when others point that out

They are relevant in the context I outlined as within that conversation, apparently 'not all the scientists agree', but hey, don't answer if your rather not.

Given you suggest you are in favour of a scientific consensus, and therefore I assume recognize there is a problem, why then are you so aggrieved by the attention Greta is getting?

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yes even the scientists came out & said he was wrong. This is quite an interesting video about CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgakkNTHwew

Yeah, that video is completely unbiased.
Pinned comment by publisher opens with giving out about leftists.
Yeah. I'll change my opinion now alright.

Most greta supporters in this thread :
“Just because its a child saying it doesnt mean its wrong, we have to judge opinions on theor merit”

“That video poster said something bad about the left, ignore everything they say”