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

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I absolutely haven't ignored that part, I think everyone knows humans are contributing heavily to it.

So why denigrate anyone who is trying to suggest we change things so we are having less of an impact?

Subcomandante Marcos

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I absolutely haven't ignored that part, I think everyone knows humans are contributing heavily to it.

Causing. Humans are causing global warming through exponentially increased greenhouse gas emissions following the industrial revolution and the only way to mitigate the effects the increase of GHGs on our atmosphere are and will continue to cause, is through the rapid decarbonization of our activities.

That's the scientific consensus.

Not that were "contributing heavily".

Eric Cartman

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

And that it's caused by human activities. That's the consensus. You don't get to to ignore the parts you don't like.

I absolutely haven't ignored that part, I think everyone knows humans are contributing heavily to it.

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

In any debate - there are going to be a range of beliefs and opinions. That's a given. However I believe using the term 'denier' in this particular debate as a pointy stick fails to recognise that. As far as I can see - the use of same is generally followed by attempts to label anyone not agreeing with a particular point of view - whatever that is. It really doesn't help the discussion imo. I would liken it to screaming 'witch', whilst pointing a finger at the person holding a shovel in a medieval village pitch fork competition.

So as this thread is about Greta Thunberg - A question. Does not believing in the child greta make some one a "climate change denier"? Tbh that seems to the general level at which ****e throwing is going on here ...

It's hard to believe that some seem to think the two are somehow synonymous...

So if I removed the word "denier" for say climate change sceptic or some other more acceptable term would you answer the question.
Literally no one is asking you to believe a 16 year old. She is not giving any original ideas just passing on a message.
The only people that seem to have a problem with greta are people who have a problem with the broader message.
If I listen to the news it is immaterial who the news reader is. The same idea here.

Subcomandante Marcos

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the consensus is that climate change is happening.

And that it's caused by human activities. That's the consensus. You don't get to to ignore the parts you don't like.

gozunda

joe40 wrote: »

Wee question for the climate change deniers here, there seem to be quite a few.When an Irish professor from an Irish university talks about the dangers of climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions are they:
(A) Complicit in the hoax, if so what do they gain.Or (B) fooled by the hoax, which would call into question their academic credentials
There are debates about how best we can reduce emissions, or will all efforts fail anyway so no point trying. But do some people really believe this is all some kind of massive hoax and academic/scientists from all over the world are either part of the hoax or fooled by the hoax.
I just can't find that credible.

In any debate - there are going to be a range of beliefs and opinions. That's a given. However I believe using the term 'denier' in this particular debate as a pointy stick fails to recognise that. As far as I can see - the use of same is generally followed by attempts to label anyone not agreeing with a particular point of view - whatever that is. It really doesn't help the discussion imo. I would liken it to screaming 'witch', whilst pointing a finger at the person holding a shovel in a medieval village pitch fork competition.

So as this thread is about Greta Thunberg - A question. Does not believing in the child greta make some one a "climate change denier"? Tbh that seems to the general level at which ****e throwing is going on here ...

It's hard to believe that some seem to think the two are somehow synonymous...

Eric Cartman

joe40 wrote: »

There is no new science, the consensus among the scientific community has not changed. There are fringe element's peddling different theories, as there always have been.

Plenty of "new science" online to tell me the world is flat or vaccinations cause autism, doesn't make it so.

the consensus is that climate change is happening, there are very few flat out deniers in its entirety. I think the argument is mostly down to the rate at which its changing.

These extinction Ireland nutters say 12 years , People representing oil and gas say we have a thousand years. The truth is neither of those. Scientists must feel terrible that their research is constantly being misrepresented by both sides.

paleoperson

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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”

yeah, I'm sure the homeless alcoholic on the street might make plenty of correct statements and morally accurate observations as well but we don't give him a platform to repeatedly proselytize his views to most of the western world. The whole point of putting people up there is that you put the most credible person, I mean it's such an obvious idea that hardly anyone has ever thought about it.

Also there's this weird current of people like LBC presenters who're saying things along the lines of "Look at all these sad middle aged men getting so wound up and attacking a 16 year old girl who is just trying to highlight an important message".... those are the biggest idiots of all. I'm a big environmentalist and I think it's more like embarrassing to the movement. Of course people are getting a little bit wound up seeing this girl on the news all the time - because it's stupid.

Subcomandante Marcos

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The new science is telling is that what climate change there is (and there isn't much) is more likely down to small fluctuations in solar radiation from the sun and its magnetosphere.

Stop reading junk science tbh.

joe40

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What a silly statement.

Now, if you asked regarding studies disputing whether humans are actively changing the planet's climate then, yes.... there are!

It's not the 1980s anymore

The new science is telling is that what climate change there is (and there isn't much) is more likely down to small fluctuations in solar radiation from the sun and its magnetosphere.

Understandably this isn't popular among the "end is nigh" crowd, but then science isn't a popularity contest or a democracy.

There is no new science, the consensus among the scientific community has not changed. There are fringe element's peddling different theories, as there always have been.

Plenty of "new science" online to tell me the world is flat or vaccinations cause autism, doesn't make it so.

BoJack Horseman

batgoat wrote: »

So you got some peer reviewed studies that debunk climate change?

What a silly statement.

Now, if you asked regarding studies disputing whether humans are actively changing the planet's climate then, yes.... there are!

It's not the 1980s anymore

The new science is telling is that what climate change there is (and there isn't much) is more likely down to small fluctuations in solar radiation from the sun and its magnetosphere.

Understandably this isn't popular among the "end is nigh" crowd, but then science isn't a popularity contest or a democracy.

batgoat

Blueshoe wrote: »

Wasn't too long ago that she believed in Santa Claus too. She will grow out of it.

So you got some peer reviewed studies that debunk climate change?

joe40

Wee question for the climate change deniers here, there seem to be quite a few.

When an Irish professor from an Irish university talks about the dangers of climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions are they:
(A) Complicit in the hoax, if so what do they gain.
Or (B) fooled by the hoax, which would call into question their academic credentials

There are debates about how best we can reduce emissions, or will all efforts fail anyway so no point trying.
But do some people really believe this is all some kind of massive hoax and academic/scientists from all over the world are either part of the hoax or fooled by the hoax.
I just can't find that credible.

Blueshoe

Wasn't too long ago that she believed in Santa Claus too. She will grow out of it.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok, it's clear you don't understand the concept of context. We can leave it there

Oh indeed I do. I'm away to dig out those goalposts. I may be some time ...

"Tell wrote:

Because that is the subject of the thread...

The question posed was to why the continous flag waving for the child greta - as It really makes no sense tbh.

It is of course a given that we should be discussing it. That's what the thread is about ...

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Again as stated not my point - you asked that of the other poster. However noted again you reduce the discussion to overt personalisation. The topic at hand is greta and her role as a prophet or visionary as deemed by her supporters. Not whether another poster does or does not support the separate issue of child vaccinations. You not only have moved the goalposts at this stage. You've well and truely buried them.

Ok, it's clear you don't understand the concept of context. We can leave it there.

gozunda wrote: »

Why the continued flag waving for the child greta over and above that logic?

Because that is the subject of the thread.......

Or do you want to move the goalposts?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

Again as stated not my point - you asked that of the other poster. However noted again you reduce the discussion to overt personalisation. The topic at hand is greta and her role as a prophet or visionary as deemed by her supporters. Not whether another poster does or does not support the separate issue of child vaccinations. You not only have moved the goalposts at this stage. You've well and truely buried them.

"Tell wrote:

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?

Your assumptions are divisonary at best and getting even more illogical I fear. The problem is as outlined - that greta's beliefs and fears do not match up to any scientific concensus. I'm not the only one to point that out btw.

Why the continued flag waving for the child greta over and above that logic?

Dakota Dan

Akrasia wrote: »

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

They didn’t tell them it was safe.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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”

Good post Eric.

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”

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?

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: »

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: »

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

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?

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.

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".

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

Tell me how

^^^^^^^

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

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.