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

jackboy

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.

She's not being used. She is being used as the face of the climate change movement. That was not her idea.

She is still controlling where she goes, who she talks to and what she says. Depends what you mean by controlling. Of course, she can say get lost to anyone at anytime. It is being suggested to her where to go (the boat trip is not her idea). Her speeches and media comments are being written for her.

She's being supported by like-minded people who believe we should protect the environment. This part is probably true.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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?

Say 500,000,000 have heard Greta's story
1% = 5,000,000
.1% = 500,000

If these 500k people decide on just one occasion not to fly transatlantic, that's 500,000 transatlantic trips not taken.

Mebuntu

The point being missed by many posters here is that if it was any other subject this exploitative use of a child would be abhorred and treated with the greatest suspicion and even more so if the child suffered from a disability.

If people have to have agendas or campaigns then let them do so without using children to further their cause.

Tell me how

jackboy wrote: »

Her speeches are media comments are being written for her.

Can you link where she said that because I'm 99% sure I heard her say she has been offered help but still writes her own speeches.

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

Say 500,000,000 have heard Greta's story
1% = 5,000,000
.1% = 500,000

If these 500k people decide on just one occasion not to fly transatlantic, that's 500,000 transatlantic trips not taken.

Can’t argue with the science.

Tell me how

Mebuntu wrote: »

The point being missed by many posters here is that if it was any other subject this exploitative use of a child would be abhorred and treated with the greatest suspicion and even more so if the child suffered from a disability.

If people have to have agendas or campaigns then let them do so without using children to further their cause.

This child has decided all along what she wanted to do having initially to convince her sceptical parents it was worth doing.

There is no exploitation here, what evidence have you of a point that's being missed?

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can’t argue with the science.

I'm glad you're starting to see the light.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you link where she said that because I'm 99% sure I heard her say she has been offered help but still writes her own speeches.

She says she asks for input when writing her speeches. Also, she gets her speeches checked by scientists for accuracy. Sensible in theory but who are those providing input and who are the scientists. So, you could say she writes the speeches but to say they are her words is quite a stretch.

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can’t argue with the science.

I'm glad you're starting to see the light.

Do you accept that the acid rain hysteria of the 1970s/80s was unwarranted and roundly disproved?

Tell me how

jackboy wrote: »

She says she asks for input when writing her speeches. Also, she gets her speeches checked by scientists for accuracy. Sensible in theory but who are those providing input and who are the scientists. So, you could say she writes the speeches but to say they are her words is quite a stretch.

That approach sounds even more laudable than just going with her words.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you accept that the acid rain hysteria of the 1970s/80s was unwarranted and roundly disproved?

Wasn't aware of it. Bosco didn't go in to it much.

Do you not think scientific methods and volumes of data have improved significantly in last 30 - 40 years?

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you accept that the acid rain hysteria of the 1970s/80s was unwarranted and roundly disproved?

Wasn't aware of it,

Of the acid rain crisis or of it being debunked?

www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603%3fmode=amp

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you accept that the acid rain hysteria of the 1970s/80s was unwarranted and roundly disproved?

Wasn't aware of it. Bosco didn't go in to it much.

Do you not think scientific methods and volumes of data have improved significantly in last 30 - 40 years?

Yes and despite this most global warming predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

IamtheWalrus

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you accept that the acid rain hysteria of the 1970s/80s was unwarranted and roundly disproved?

I’d be interested in a link to this?

On the other hand, even if acid rain was a falsehood, it doesn’t mean climate change isn’t.

Whether manmade or not, vast swathes of our natural world is disappearing. If it continues at this rate, there won’t be enough food to go round, especially with rising sea levels. All of this happening today.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Of the acid rain crisis or of it being debunked?

www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603%3fmode=amp

Oh, so they got science to investigate, and then listened to their results. Sounds positive.

Same author also wrote 'Plants are worthy of same compassion we show animals', so it seems he's in favour of protecting the environment.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes and despite this most global warming predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

Evidence please.

SafeSurfer

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you accept that the acid rain hysteria of the 1970s/80s was unwarranted and roundly disproved?

I’d be interested in a link to this?

On the other hand, even if acid rain was a falsehood, it doesn’t mean climate change isn’t.

Whether manmade or not, vast swathes of our natural world is disappearing. If it continues at this rate, there won’t be enough food to go round, especially with rising sea levels. All of this happening today.

Isn’t that the whole point. If human carbon emission is not the main driver of climate change why are we obsessing on drastic solutions to the wrong problem.

The Irish Times has a good article on it linked in a previous post.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Saying we should keep fossil fuels in the ground is not the same as saying we should call for a complete ban. But you know that. On the same page of quotes she says we need to find solutions.
I'm not surprised why you can't understand stuff, you're getting caught up in the timeframe like as if that's wrong then everything is a lie.
Does it really matter if it's 12, 30 or 100 years?

How in the name of dog - is keeping all fossil fuels in the ground not an effective ban on their use? What are people going to do? Sneak out at night and dig a bit up on the qt?

And what would the child greta know about solutions? - she is simlly reading scripted verse from her father who is an actor and her manager. Do you really realy not understand any of that? You seem to know nothing about what either she has said or claimed in her videos etc. If such a fan why is that? Strange no?

Yes screaming the world is going to end in 11 years 4 months and 12 days or whatever does matter. She is encouraging hysteria. We are seeing plenty of that for sure. Theres plenty of eveangrlical doomsday merchants out there and rightly we ignore them. You should do the same to this poor child who is being facilitated by people who should know better. Your flag waving is truely inexplicable.

IamtheWalrus

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Isn’t that the whole point. If human carbon emission is not the main driver of climate change why are we obsessing on drastic solutions to the wrong problem.

The Irish Times has a good article on it linked in a previous post.

My point is that regardless if man is doing it, we need to try to reverse it or we all perish. We can’t just say ‘it wasn’t us’. If we can do something, we should. But the evidence suggests it is us.

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes and despite this most global warming predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

Evidence please.

www.wsj.com/amp/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

How in the name of dog - is keeping all fossil fuels in the ground not an effective ban on their use? What are people going to do? Sneak out at night and dig a bit up on the qt?

And what would the child greta know about solutions? - she is simlly reading scripted verse from her father who is an actor and her manager. Do you really realy not understand any of that? You seem to know nothing about what either she has said or claimed in her videos etc. If such a fan why is that? Strange no?

Yes screaming the world is going to end in 11 years 4 months and 12 days or whatever does matter. She is encouraging hysteria. We are seeing plenty of that for sure. Theres plenty of eveangrlical doomsday merchants out there and rightly we ignore them. You should do the same to this poor child who is being facilitated by people who should know better. Your flag waving is truely inexplicable.

There's so much in this post that just exists within your own head that I'm nearly tempted to ignore it. However, let's try again.

She's advocating the development of alternative solutions for energy as opposed to fossil fuels. Saying we have to get to that point is not the same as saying the pumps should be turned off immediately which is what a ban would be.

Again, 12 years, 30 or 100 isn't really the point as it is insignificant in terms of life in Earth timeframe.

She has said she doesn't have the solutions but that they are needed.

If her father was using her as you suggest, why did she have to convince her entire family it was important she protested for the environment. What has led you to think he is trying to manipulate her?

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

www.wsj.com/amp/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

That's paywalled.

But, even going from the URL, data and methods have improved drastically in thirty years so I'm still inclined to believe the science.

If not, who do we listen to?

SafeSurfer

She is demanding an 80% reduction in European carbon emissions in the next 11 years.

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

How in the name of dog - is keeping all fossil fuels in the ground not an effective ban on their use? What are people going to do? Sneak out at night and dig a bit up on the qt?

And what would the child greta know about solutions? - she is simlly reading scripted verse from her father who is an actor and her manager. Do you really realy not understand any of that? You seem to know nothing about what either she has said or claimed in her videos etc. If such a fan why is that? Strange no?

Yes screaming the world is going to end in 11 years 4 months and 12 days or whatever does matter. She is encouraging hysteria. We are seeing plenty of that for sure. Theres plenty of eveangrlical doomsday merchants out there and rightly we ignore them. You should do the same to this poor child who is being facilitated by people who should know better. Your flag waving is truely inexplicable.

You keep describing her message as hysteria. You come across as someone that is deperate to attack the message, so instead attack the messenger.
If she was simply some silly little teenager, she would not have this exposure in international media.
Unless of course the climate change thing is all a hoax and majority of the world's government are in on it.
Infowars stuff.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

She is demanding an 80% reduction in European carbon emissions in the next 11 years.

Based on what the scientists are telling her.......

If scientists are saying that is necessary, is she wrong to repeat that.

xckjoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

www.wsj.com/amp/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

Might want to check the authors of that buddy. The Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Sciencewas set up by the Koch brothers specifically to spread anti-climate change rhetoric to muddy the waters and stop regulations that might reduce carbon consumption. Other notable contributors to their funding include Exxon Mobil and other members of the fossil fuel industry. Pat Michaels (author of the article) has been debunked numerous times as spreading completely false information.

The problem with the internet is everyone thinks all information is of equal value and of equal truth, which is clearly not true. Even the article itself is poor. They focus on picking holes in what one guy says and word it so people will then (falsely) extrapolate to the belief that all climate change research is false.

Tell me how

xckjoo wrote: »

The problem with the internet is everyone thinks all information is of equal value and of equal truth, which is clearly not true. Even the article itself is poor. They focus on picking holes in what one guy says and word it so people will then (falsely) extrapolate to the belief that all climate change research is false.

And going by this thread, they succeed with many.

Was similar with tobacco companies trying to discredit link with cancer.

SafeSurfer

xckjoo wrote: »

Might want to check the authors of that buddy. The Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Sciencewas set up by the Koch brothers specifically to spread anti-climate change rhetoric to muddy the waters and stop regulations that might reduce carbon consumption. Other notable contributors to their funding include Exxon Mobil and other members of the fossil fuel industry. Pat Michaels (author of the article) has been debunked numerous times as spreading completely false information.

The problem with the internet is everyone thinks all information is of equal value and of equal truth, which is clearly not true. Even the article itself is poor. They focus on picking holes in what one guy says and word it so people will then (falsely) extrapolate to the belief that all climate change research is false.

That’s the problem with the myriad of climate predictions. Throw a thousand darts and a couple of them will hit the target but the majority will be wide of the mark. The dart throwers, can then selectively say, look we told you so.

xckjoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

That’s the problem with the myriad of climate predictions. Throw a thousand darts and a couple of them will hit the target but the majority will be wide of the mark. The dart throwers, can then selectively say, look we told you so.

Nope.

SafeSurfer

xckjoo wrote: »

Nope.

So you are saying that more climate predictions have proved to be accurate than inaccurate?