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

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?

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?

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 ...

Blueshoe

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

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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".

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?

CalamariFritti

Its a natural reaction when you're kinda small minded. Who does she think she is lecturing us? She is only a child!
All the while sitting on their/our arses doing feck all. But who does she think she is? Fvcking do-gooder; which apparently is now a put down, doing good and stuff. What the fvck are they doing good for? Do they think theyre better than us?. Better knock them back to size so they learn their place.

Thats about the size of it.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

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

It’s very simple really - people are sick of being deliberately misrepresented. They’re also sick of issues being deliberately misrepresented by people who have something to gain from misrepresenting the issues involved. It must have occurred to you at some point that people are aware of the issues involved, however they have greater priorities that concern them more than climate change?

One eyed Jack

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Its a natural reaction when you're kinda small minded. Who does she think she is lecturing us? She is only a child!
All the while sitting on their/our arses doing feck all. But who does she think she is? Fvcking do-gooder; which apparently is now a put down, doing good and stuff. What the fvck are they doing good for? Do they think theyre better than us?. Better knock them back to size so they learn their place.

Thats about the size of it.

Perceiving a patronising tone is part of it, yes. It’s worth bearing in mind that even more important than “the message”, is how it’s conveyed.

CalamariFritti

Well sorry for the patronising tone. Im serious. Its just there is s much ignorance out there and it is quite galling how much venom is thrown towards a 16 year old just because people dont like to hear what she says.

I'm not going to be like her from tomorrow. Still going to be driving to work. But I do realise she is doing a very important thing and it takes a lot of courage and a lot of spirit to do what she does.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perceiving a patronising tone is part of it, yes. It’s worth bearing in mind that even more important than “the message”, is how it’s conveyed.

Seriously, is that how sensitive some people have got. A message may be important, but if not delivered in the right "tone" it won't be accepted.
If you accept climate change is an issue with drastic consequences, the tone of any message should be the least of your problems.
And young people are accused of been "snowflakes".

Tell me how wrote: »

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

im denigrating the idol worship of a 16 year old who is being fed alarmist crap by those peddling an agenda. The world is not going to end in 12 years.

The other issue also comes from the brand of climate alarmism that often take Greta and others as their spokespeople is all about raising tax and stopping european countries using plastic straws etc.... (things that only have a tiny impact).

If these charlatans were serious they'd be standing up saying "here africa, asia, south amaerica , stop dumping all your sh*t in rivers and burning machines to extract metal and defecating on the beach" but instead its "hey western world, pay more tax"

joe40 wrote: »

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.

No the point is the use of labels as weaponized argument. Whether denier or whatever. The same thing is repeated ad nauseam over a whole bunch of climate change threads already. so no we dont need to derail this one by attempting to use personalised style interrogations yet again. And just to clarify I'm not a 'denier' (sic) of anything so don't fit the criteria you set to answer your 'question'

Your reply also completely ignores what was detailed regarding the diversity of opinion and views on topics of such complicity. But no matter.

And yes I've seen plenty of advocacy that we should listen to gretas message and get like her. The trouble is the stuff she is peddling like we should panic, know her fear, 12 years to eotw etc is horse**** and nothing do to with anything but her own unique take on scary videos etc and what she has been fed.

The logic of the highlighted bit - is like saying that only ones who had a problem with Stalin - were people who had a problem with the broader message of socialism. (That's not a comparison btw)

You didnt answer the question

So as this thread is about Greta Thunberg - A question. Does not believing in the child greta make some one a "climate change denier"?

[quote="Eric Cartman;111009952" The world is not going to end in 12 years.

[/quote]

Nobody is saying the world will end in 12 years.

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Nobody is saying the world will end in 12 years.

sorry, the nutters claim we have 12 years before we reach the point of no return, a slight error on my part, a massive one on theirs.

gozunda wrote: »

No the point is the use of labels as weaponized argument. Whether denier or whatever. The same thing is repeated ad nauseam over a whole bunch of climate change threads already. It's been done to death - so no we dont need to derail this one by attempting to use personalised style interrogations yet again.

Your reply also completely ignores what was detailed regarding the diversity of opinion and views on topics of such complicity. But no matter.

And yes I've seen plenty of advocacy that we should listen to gretas message and get like her. The trouble is the stuff she is peddling like we should panic, know her fear, 12 years to eotw etc is horse**** and nothing do to with anything but her own unique take on scary videos etc and what she has been fed.

The logic of the highlighted bit - is like saying that only ones who had a problem with Stalin - were people who had a problem with the broader message of socialism. (That's not a comparison btw)

You didnt answer the question

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 ...

I'm a middle aged man so Greta thurberg does not really influence me in any way, I already accept climate change is an important issue facing humanity especially for generations to come.
She is important because she appeals to young people and is getting them aware of the issues. That is important. The exact details of what she says is less important than highlighting the overall issues.
I can accept it is for publicity, but I also accept that publicity is important. Young people will be affected by climate change moreso than my generation. They at least need to be aware of issues and make up their own minds.
If Greta can start conversations and act as a catalyst for young people to engage with this issue then I fully support her.
It is not a case of simply believing a child that is disingenuous.
Generally the only people I have heard that are critical of her are people that are sceptical about climate change. (Not trying to denigrate anyone with that term)