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

Kermit.de.frog

topper75 wrote: »

NASA - the shower launching all those rockets?

So we need to give up our missions as a species in to space as well now?

I'm all for cleaning up our act in as far as is practical but being stupid is not part of the solution.

Dave_The_Sheep

Compelling.

alan partridge aha

Greta and your ilk, stop using phones, stop been brought to school, stop using planes, if not fu5k off and fu5k up.

Rockbeast2

Ha Ha - Dave The Sheep might be D

I know who A and B are. Who is C?

Scientists deal in facts. The scientific consensus* is overwhelmingly (97-98%) in favoure of the fact that climate change is man-made.

LOL

Spoofer. That lie was sent to a shill I know very well to vomit as fact.

Dave_The_Sheep

lola85 wrote: »

And that’s it?

You won’t listen to any other opinions?

This is your problem (assuming you're not being willfully ignorant and are arguing in good faith). The thing about climate change is that it's not about opinions. Everyone has an opinion, and they're entitled to that.

Opinions, however, are not facts. Climate change doesn't give a **** about your opinion. Scientists deal in facts. The scientific consensus* is overwhelmingly (97-98%) in favoure of the fact that climate change is man-made.

*Wikipedia link, itself not a reliable source - however, scroll to the bottom to see all the citations. Go through them.

Climate change is scary. Terrifying. I get it. If you are genuinely arguing in good faith, that's OK. Get stuck in to the links above, try and accept that it's real and change accordingly.

If you're not arguing in good faith, good luck in the upcoming ****storm on this planet, I won't be replying to you.

MrMusician18

Tell me how wrote: »

Firstly, you're the one suggesting carbon tax here in this conversation, I'm not, but there is strong evidence that it takes a penalty to actually instigate change.

Secondly, why does it have to reduce people's standard of living? If there were 50% less cars on the city centre roads with the people instead cycling or using public transport, is that a reduction in standard of living.

Akso, let's think about the car situation. On average, repayments, tax, insurance, fuel, maintenance, tolls probably mean most people are forking out 100/week on theirs. After tax. That's say 8k a year from your gross, just for the car. If you're on 40k, that's 20% of your wage.

Now, if you use your car one hour each morning and evening, 5 days a week and 3 hours each day sat and Sunday, that's 16 hrs/week (fairly heavy use for most I would say) or 10% of available time. So you're spending 20% of you're income on something which is idle 90% of the time. Does that seem right?

Say 50% more urban dwellers were cycling instead if going by car, they'll generally be healthier, get their quicker and have more money for having done so. Is that a reduction in quality of life?

Granted, in rural areas, you mostly do need a car but we should promote what we can, where we can.

The protests are about getting government's to take action to halt climate change. In the Irish context, the government have signaled that carbon tax is going to be a key part of their climate policy. The protests are therefore about getting the government to implement the tax.

Indeed let's think about the car situation. As I have already outlined, increases in the price of fuel have demonstrably little effect on both demand and emissions. The price of fuel has increased by at least 35% since it's ten year low and emissions have increased since then. Carbon is clearly not price sensitive in the range we are currently priced in. You rightly point out, driving is already expensive therefore people drive because they have to, not because they want to.

The average car, iirc is driven some 20k km. Using the kind of efficiency I get myself a carbon tax increase of 5c/l would amount to just under €55/yr. That is simply not enough to change behaviour, but a nice little boost for the government all under the green cloak. The tax would quite frankly need to be 5 to 10x that to have the desired effect of effectively pricing people out of their cars. That would of course have consequences such as increased poverty and lower economic growth. Is this what you want? To price the poor out of their cars?

Standard of living is about having access to services and having money to spend on the things you want and need. A tax that diverts your disposable income away from that lowers your standard of living.

Tell me how

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Of course I acknowledge that something needs to be done, I'm not a climate denier.

What I'm questioning is the effectiveness of a carbon tax that's been touted as a solution. Diesel has gone up 5c at the forecourt over the last week, 5 times the likely increase in carbon tax at the budget, do you really think that will reduce emissions? Do you think carbon emissions in transport are 4% lower this week than last due to the price rise? Carbon is clearly not very price sensitive.
Fuel prices have risen from 99c/l during the recession to 135c/l now and transport emissions have increased. All a carbon tax will achieve is make the poor, poorer. It's completely regressive.

The other way to reduce emissions is to reduce people's standard of living - based on current technology. Protesters need to be honest about that, to both themselves and others.

Firstly, you're the one suggesting carbon tax here in this conversation, I'm not, but there is strong evidence that it takes a penalty to actually instigate change.

Secondly, why does it have to reduce people's standard of living? If there were 50% less cars on the city centre roads with the people instead cycling or using public transport, is that a reduction in standard of living.

Akso, let's think about the car situation. On average, repayments, tax, insurance, fuel, maintenance, tolls probably mean most people are forking out 100/week on theirs. After tax. That's say 8k a year from your gross, just for the car. If you're on 40k, that's 20% of your wage.

Now, if you use your car one hour each morning and evening, 5 days a week and 3 hours each day sat and Sunday, that's 16 hrs/week (fairly heavy use for most I would say) or 10% of available time. So you're spending 20% of you're income on something which is idle 90% of the time. Does that seem right?

Say 50% more urban dwellers were cycling instead if going by car, they'll generally be healthier, get their quicker and have more money for having done so. Is that a reduction in quality of life?

Granted, in rural areas, you mostly do need a car but we should promote what we can, where we can.

MrMusician18

Tell me how wrote: »

So, you acknowledge that something needs to be done but immediately jump to anything which could be done is pointless.

If you were in control for a week, if someone said to you, introduce some initiative, anything, which had a reasonable chance of positively influencing behaviour, what would it be that you would do?

Of course I acknowledge that something needs to be done, I'm not a climate denier.

What I'm questioning is the effectiveness of a carbon tax that's been touted as a solution. Diesel has gone up 5c at the forecourt over the last week, 5 times the likely increase in carbon tax at the budget, do you really think that will reduce emissions? Do you think carbon emissions in transport are 4% lower this week than last due to the price rise? Carbon is clearly not very price sensitive.
Fuel prices have risen from 99c/l during the recession to 135c/l now and transport emissions have increased. All a carbon tax will achieve is make the poor, poorer. It's completely regressive.

The other way to reduce emissions is to reduce people's standard of living - based on current technology. Protesters need to be honest about that, to both themselves and others.

Rockbeast2

Just to let every one know, there are at least two paid shills/posters here.

My sister is one of them. They can sue me. I can prove it.

You know who I'm typing about.

I'm not a multi-cult anymore.

Tell me how

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I think that most of us acknowledge that there is a problem, the issue is what is the solution?
Carbon tax? Well at the levels proposed,it won't make a jot of difference, since the increase in fuel as a result would be within the perturbation of the market anyway. And when fuel rises due to external issues, like a war in the middle East, CO2 emissions are not depressed.
Carbon tax would therefore need to rise to make carbon genuinely unaffordable for it to make a difference in terms of emissions, and the cost of this would certainly be lower economic growth.
Others point to new technologies, but the truth is that these are not developed enough either to keep us in the lifestyle we've become accustomed to.

So what are we campaigning for? A pointless increase in taxes that won't achieve anything? A reduction in living standards generally?

So, you acknowledge that something needs to be done but immediately jump to anything which could be done is pointless.

If you were in control for a week, if someone said to you, introduce some initiative, anything, which had a reasonable chance of positively influencing behaviour, what would it be that you would do?

Tell me how

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Timing, they got lucky with Greta. That have been trying various kids since 2015 and none really stuck. Interesting timing she starts protesting when her mothers book is published. There was Ingmar Rentzhog who had the contacts with the Germans who had the publicity machine that they had been working on since 2015.

So we agree, Greta plays a significant level of responsibility for the success of the marches.

MrMusician18

I think that most of us acknowledge that there is a problem, the issue is what is the solution?
Carbon tax? Well at the levels proposed,it won't make a jot of difference, since the increase in fuel as a result would be within the perturbation of the market anyway. And when fuel rises due to external issues, like a war in the middle East, CO2 emissions are not depressed.
Carbon tax would therefore need to rise to make carbon genuinely unaffordable for it to make a difference in terms of emissions, and the cost of this would certainly be lower economic growth.
Others point to new technologies, but the truth is that these are not developed enough either to keep us in the lifestyle we've become accustomed to.

So what are we campaigning for? A pointless increase in taxes that won't achieve anything? A reduction in living standards generally?

Pa ElGrande

Tell me how wrote: »

That's the difference between you and her. You think someone 'gave' her the spotlight. She made the world pay attention to what she was doing. Massive difference.

Timing, they got lucky with Greta. That have been trying various kids since 2015 and none really stuck. Interesting timing she starts protesting when her mothers book is published. There was Ingmar Rentzhog who had the contacts with the Germans who had the publicity machine that they had been working on since 2015.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GjdVgGfcb8

Tell me how

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Do all you "everything is ok" people think we should carry on consuming and growing our economies the way we are at the expense of the planet? Do you not see how it cant end well?

They're not 'everything is ok'. They're 'no one is going to tell me I need to change', 'especially not a female', 'and definitely not one who is a child'

Thelonious Monk

Do all you "everything is ok" people think we should carry on consuming and growing our economies the way we are at the expense of the planet? Do you not see how it cant end well?

[Deleted User]

lola85 wrote: »

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

All of us are contributing to climate change, it's impossible not to. I'm not lecturing to anyone.

The climate has been changing since time began.

Google ice ages, might help you understand how we have no control over it.

I suggest you do slightly more robust research than a cursory Google search.

You're evidently in a poor position to comment if you think such a topic can be understood with a quick browse on t'internet.

Tell me how

topper75 wrote: »

NASA - the shower launching all those rockets? There must be some CO2 involved there somewhere.

Have either of them said that we can control the climate?
Because if we can, we have nothing to fear.
And if we can't - we may as well carry on regardless.

We can control our impact on the climate, that is not the same as suggesting that we are saying that we can control the climate, do you understand that?

topper75

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

No thanks lola, I'll listen to the UN and NASA and the vast vast majority of scientists who tell us man is contributing greatly to global warming

NASA - the shower launching all those rockets? There must be some CO2 involved there somewhere.

Have either of them said that we can control the climate?
Because if we can, we have nothing to fear.
And if we can't - we may as well carry on regardless.

Tuisceanch

lola85 wrote: »

Seriously who the **** was around 1 million years ago holding a thermometer in the air?

Might have helped if you had read the posted link before replying. You obviously have no real interest in this subject because your reply is laughable.

Tell me how

lola85 wrote: »

Scientists who claim it’s a myth.

I do listen to them also.

I listen to all sides.

So, evidence of this please?

I'm sure you'll find them, I just think they will be vastly outweighed by the numbers saying action needs to be taken.

lola85

Tuisceanch wrote: »

I keep seeing variants of the following argument "The climate has been changing since time began" insinuating that the human impact on climate change is negligible or irrelevant or that it's even a hoax. This is a very strange argument since nobody with any credibility would dispute that.
An extract from the following link https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php might help to illustrate that point.

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

In brief it's the rate of change that is unprecedented. This would be a more useful starting point to base your arguments against the human impact on climate change.

Seriously who the **** was around 1 million years ago holding a thermometer in the air?

lola85

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes, listen to the scientists.

Scientists who claim it’s a myth.

I do listen to them also.

I listen to all sides.

Tell me how

lola85 wrote: »

Well if he’s as stupid as you think surely you have a credible argument?

Yes, listen to the scientists.

Tell me how

lola85 wrote: »

https://spectator.org/fake-science-on-climate-change-threatens-economic-and-civil-freedoms/

We can all play that game.

“The problem with allowing politics to intrude in a matter of science and objective truth is that people get hurt, get diseased, and die.… 4.3 million people a year in developing countries die because they can’t turn on an electrical cooker, so they have smoke-filled huts because they cook on open fires, and the particular pollution kills their children and often kills them too. 4.3 million a year. That’s very nearly one Holocaust a year, just from that one cause of not having electricity, which the World Bank won’t give them”

We can yeah, I think NASA trumps a conservative mouthpiece however.

Pintman Paddy Losty

lola85 wrote: »

Simple understanding of how the earth cools and heats up over millions of years.

Common sense.

But common sense isn’t so common it would seem.

That's a yes then. Fair enough.

lola85

Tell me how wrote: »

From NASA

Now, can you give me an example that the majority of scientists disagree with this seeing as you stated it.

https://spectator.org/fake-science-on-climate-change-threatens-economic-and-civil-freedoms/

We can all play that game.

“The problem with allowing politics to intrude in a matter of science and objective truth is that people get hurt, get diseased, and die.… 4.3 million people a year in developing countries die because they can’t turn on an electrical cooker, so they have smoke-filled huts because they cook on open fires, and the particular pollution kills their children and often kills them too. 4.3 million a year. That’s very nearly one Holocaust a year, just from that one cause of not having electricity, which the World Bank won’t give them”

Tuisceanch

I keep seeing variants of the following argument "The climate has been changing since time began" insinuating that the human impact on climate change is negligible or irrelevant or that it's even a hoax. This is a very strange argument since nobody with any credibility would dispute that.
An extract from the following link https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php might help to illustrate that point.

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

In brief it's the rate of change that is unprecedented. This would be a more useful starting point to base your arguments against the human impact on climate change.

jackboy

Tell me how wrote: »

Now, can you give me an example that the majority of scientists disagree with this seeing as you stated it.

I didn’t say that majority of scientists disagreed with that. I said that there is no evidence that the majority of scientists agreed with that. Those are two very different things.

lola85

Tell me how wrote: »

Ah yes, the Donald Trump scientific approach to understanding the climate.

Fairly hard to argue with that of course.

Well if he’s as stupid as you think surely you have a credible argument?

Tell me how

lola85 wrote: »

Nope.

We had the coldest April last year in 100 years.

Winter is coming.

When we are all wearing hats and scarfs in December, come back with your nonsense about climate change.

Ah yes, the Donald Trump scientific approach to understanding the climate.

Fairly hard to argue with that of course.