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

Tell me how wrote: »

If they do use it as such, does that negate the message if the trip?

That it’s a zero carbon trip? Can you try to answer that honestly yourself.

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

You mean you'll realize that her message was correct and something must be done about it?

I'm sure it would really be the icing on the cake if winning such an award convinced people who previously couldn't figure it out that changes are necessary.

She doesn't have a message other than 'listen to scientists '
Hardly Nobel Prize winning stuff!!

Tell me how wrote: »

You mean you'll realize that her message was correct and something must be done about it?

I'm sure it would really be the icing on the cake if winning such an award convinced people who previously couldn't figure it out that changes are necessary.

Well if Henry Kissinger can win the Nobel Peace prize anything is possible.

Ulysses Gaze

Hal3000 wrote: »

If she wins a Nobel prize then I truly believe that we really are doomed.

Well if Barack Obama can win one for doing nothing...

bubblypop wrote: »

She doesn't have a message other than 'listen to scientists '
Hardly Nobel Prize winning stuff!!

Getting people to support her as she has done could swing it though.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

That it’s a zero carbon trip? Can you try to answer that honestly yourself.

Ok, so she sails 6,000km and for the final 500M, if they use the engine, it negates everything, is that what you're saying?

Do they include the tug tractor used to move an airplane as part of carbon emmissions of those trips?

bubblypop wrote: »

She doesn't have a message other than 'listen to scientists '
Hardly Nobel Prize winning stuff!!

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well if Henry Kissinger can win the Nobel Peace prize anything is possible.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Well if Barack Obama can win one for doing nothing...

Let me guess, Donald Trump would be the most deserving winner should he win one.

Hal3000

Tell me how wrote: »

You mean you'll realize that her message was correct and something must be done about it?

I'm sure it would really be the icing on the cake if winning such an award convinced people who previously couldn't figure it out that changes are necessary.

Yes because if she’s wins a Nobel prize suddenly all Governments and big business will listen and totally roll over and completely overhaul everything they do. You’re either very naive or a troll.

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

Let me guess, Donald Trump would be the most deserving winner should he win one.

What would he win one for?
You seem to equate people who don't care for the Greta love in, to be some kind of right wing Trump lovers.
You couldn't be more wrong

One eyed Jack

The Nobel Academy hasn’t had any credibility for decades. I could easily see Greta receiving an award, to promote the awards themselves.

The fact that she would be the youngest ever Swedish female recipient means she’s practically guaranteed an award, provided she isn’t outshone by a five year old panicking about climate change in the meantime :pac:

bubblypop wrote: »

What would he win one for?
You seem to equate people who don't care for the Greta love in, to be some kind of right wing Trump lovers.
You couldn't be more wrong

Based on posting across several threads I'd say my assumptions are pretty valid.

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

That it’s a zero carbon trip? Can you try to answer that honestly yourself.

Ok, so she sails 6,000km and for the final 500M, if they use the engine, it negates everything, is that what you're saying?

Do they include the tug tractor used to move an airplane as part of carbon emmissions of those trips?

Well anyone can engage in creative accounting when it comes to carbon emissions. This stunt is being promoted as being zero carbon, an untruth, because, not much carbon doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

This stunt has backfired badly and the more information that emerges about it, such as the crew flying over to sail the yacht home and some of the crew onboard flying home makes a nonsense of the whole stunt.

micosoft

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Since PR companies discovered there was serious money to be made in environmental causes

EDIT: An inconvenient truth: 'Climate change industry' now a $1.5 trillion global business

“The $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal,” he writes.

“The San Diego, Calif.-based publication includes within that industry nine segments and 38 sub-segments. This encompasses sectors like renewables, green building and hybrid vehicles.

And the talkers, creatives and handlers too.

“That also includes the climate change consulting market, which a recent report by the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide and $890 million in the U.S.,” Mr. Jergler says.

I had no idea it was worth quite that much :eek:

What exactly is your point here other than demonstrating your lack of knowledge on how large the global energy, auto or building sectors are. A really odd post that should live in conspiracy theories along with the rest of the anti-science "perspectives" here.

Here is an actual fact - the amount spent on lobbying for inefficient coal in the US.

*Washington Times is way up there with the daily mail in terms of dubious sources for anything. That said Climate Science denial, Anti Vaxxers, Racism all seem to come from a similar set of sources.

Hal3000 wrote: »

Yes because if she’s wins a Nobel prize suddenly all Governments and big business will listen and totally roll over and completely overhaul everything they do. You’re either very naive or a troll.

Yes, I'm the one trolling, defending someone who is advocating we take care of the planet. Real sinister motivations there all right.

No one expects big business to change overnight, after EU elections, Varadkar said he recognized there had been a green wave, i.e. that was what people wanted action on.

Greta was partly influential for that raise in interest given how much she was in the media for the last several months and particularly in the run up to the vote.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Well if Barack Obama can win one for doing nothing...

he wasnt "doing nothing", he was PWB , president while black. sure he launched 10 times more drone strikes than Bush and deported more illegal immigrants than Trump but you cant deny he was PWB

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well anyone can engage in creative accounting when it comes to carbon emissions. This stunt is being promoted as being zero carbon, an untruth, because, not much carbon doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

This stunt has backfired badly and the more information that emerges about it, such as the crew flying over to sail the yacht home and some of the crew onboard flying home makes a nonsense of the whole stunt.

Just because you say the stunt has backfired, doesn't make it so.

Greta is sailing because Greta herself wants to limit her carbon footprint, she is making the point that she is only traveling to the US for exceptional circumstances and still not taking a flight to do so and if 0.1% of people who hear her story decide not to take a single trans Atlantic flight, she'll have stopped at least a few 100,000 flights for the 4 or 5 flights here people are getting their knickers in a twist over.

One eyed Jack

micosoft wrote: »

What exactly is your point here other than demonstrating your lack of knowledge on how large the global energy, auto or building sectors are. A really odd post that should live in conspiracy theories along with the rest of the anti-science "perspectives" here.

Here is an actual fact - the amount spent on lobbying for inefficient coal in the US.

*Washington Times is way up there with the daily mail in terms of dubious sources for anything. That said Climate Science denial, Anti Vaxxers, Racism all seem to come from a similar set of sources.

That was exactly my point? I wasn’t aware of how much the climate change industry is worth. No conspiracy theories there, apart from your own assertions.

micosoft

Tell me how wrote: »

Based on posting across several threads I'd say my assumptions are pretty valid.

Over 1,200 posts attacking a child for raising climate change. With responses ranging from nit-picking to child endangerment to conspiracy theories to outright attacking a child. That's quite disturbing and it always comes from this same group of disturbing people.

Tell me how wrote: »

Hal3000 wrote: »

Yes because if she’s wins a Nobel prize suddenly all Governments and big business will listen and totally roll over and completely overhaul everything they do. You’re either very naive or a troll.

Yes, I'm the one trolling, defending someone who is advocating we take care of the planet. Real sinister motivations there all right.

No one expects big business to change overnight, after EU elections, Varadkar said he recognized there had been a green wave, i.e. that was what people wanted action on.

Greta was partly influential for that raise in interest given how much she was in the media for the last several months and particularly in the run up to the vote.

The influence of Greta on the increase in the Green vote is much more tenuous than the influence of man made carbon on global temperature.

suicide_circus wrote: »

he wasnt "doing nothing", he was PWB , president while black. sure he launched 10 times more drone strikes than Bush and deported more illegal immigrants than Trump but you cant deny he was PWB

Yeah, I think we're getting to the source of your dislike for Obama.

micosoft wrote: »

Over 1,200 posts attacking a child for raising climate change.

and here in one quote is the reason why this girl is being cynically used for this stunt.

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah, I think we're getting to the source of your dislike for Obama.

i judge the man on his actions, not the colour of his skin, just like Dr. King

micosoft wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

Based on posting across several threads I'd say my assumptions are pretty valid.

Over 1,200 posts attacking a child for raising climate change. With responses ranging from nit-picking to child endangerment to conspiracy theories to outright attacking a child. That's quite disturbing and it always comes from this same group of disturbing people.

Attack the people making the argument, not the argument. You are doing exactly what posters attacking Greta have been criticized for. Complete hypocrisy.

suicide_circus wrote: »

and here in one quote is the reason why this girl is being cynically used for this stunt.

She's not being used.
She is still controlling where she goes, who she talks to and what she says.

She's being supported by like-minded people who believe we should protect the environment.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The influence of Greta on the increase in the Green vote is much more tenuous than the influence of man made carbon on global temperature.

Is it?
How do you reckon?

We have scientists linking man's action, carbon and global temperature.
Are there scientists saying Greta didn't influence public perception?

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Well anyone can engage in creative accounting when it comes to carbon emissions. This stunt is being promoted as being zero carbon, an untruth, because, not much carbon doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

This stunt has backfired badly and the more information that emerges about it, such as the crew flying over to sail the yacht home and some of the crew onboard flying home makes a nonsense of the whole stunt.

Just because you say the stunt has backfired, doesn't make it so.

Greta is sailing because Greta herself wants to limit her carbon footprint, she is making the point that she is only traveling to the US for exceptional circumstances and still not taking a flight to do so and if 0.1% of people who hear her story decide not to take a single trans Atlantic flight, she'll have stopped at least a few 100,000 flights for the 4 or 5 flights here people are getting their knickers in a twist over.

I really don’t understand your post, I’m sorry. Where does the 0.1% of people and “at least a few 100,000 flights” come from?

Tell me how wrote: »

She's not being used.
She is still controlling where she goes, who she talks to and what she says.

She's being supported by like-minded people who believe we should protect the environment.

Who suggested she start the school strike for climate? A green PR guy.

Hal3000

micosoft wrote: »

Over 1,200 posts attacking a child for raising climate change. With responses ranging from nit-picking to child endangerment to conspiracy theories to outright attacking a child. That's quite disturbing and it always comes from this same group of disturbing people.

1200 posts attacking a child ? I never once personally attacked her. I attacked the social media bandwagon that’s attaching itself to her. I’m attacking people claiming she’s some sort of demigod for climate change. I’m wondering why the countless amounts of scientists - long term environmental activists barely get an outlet for their years of dedicated effort to improve our planet ? I’m attacking the populist hollow culture of people who post warnings on Instagram - Twitter yet do little or nothing in terms of direction action. Try again before you label us all bigots.

Tell me how wrote: »

She's not being used.
She is still controlling where she goes, who she talks to and what she says.

She's being supported by like-minded people who believe we should protect the environment.

you think this child is not being used? a teen pop star who wants to be famous can still be cynically exploited by simon cowell, its not mutually exclusive. look i've no problem with greta or her message per say, fair play to her, but i see this for what it is.