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

Veritas Libertas · 23-09-2019 2:49pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

No one actually thinks the world is going to end in 12 years. The only ones banging on about that are the everything-is-fine brigade.

I wish this was true. There is an increasingly number of people who are scared to talk about or question these guys for fear of being labelled a heretic.

How can one learn in such an environment; with fear of even asking questions?

I think it is pretty well accepted that the 12 years refers to a 'tipping' point, but this is all just semantics anyway. It's a point at which irreversible damage apparently happens.

gozunda · 23-09-2019 2:58pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I wish this was true. There is an increasingly number of people who are scared to talk about or question these guys for fear of being labelled a heretic.
How can one learn in such an environment; with fear of even asking questions?

I think it is pretty well accepted that the 12 years refers to a 'tipping' point, but this is all just semantics anyway. It's a point at which irreversible damage apparently happens.

Not quite.

This from greta:

"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

This is what one of the scientists responsible for the IPCC report said.

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.

Btw the last IPCC report does not include 'tipping points' in its modeling ...

Tell me how · 23-09-2019 3:01pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

This is the EXACT issue

It's a major problem

Climate/Environment change/destruction or what ever you want to call the "Severe negative impact of humans on on this planet in terms of it's ability to support life" is definitely happening.

The issue is everyone is pointing at each other to change while completely resistant to change themselves.

The way I see it, there are 3 levels, and they all have issues
1: Personal level
2: Government/national level
3: Global level

Personal is the likes of the tweet above; Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions... Basic sh*t like. Don't waste food or energy. Be mindful of what you buy and its impact on the environment. Make changes that make your life more energy efficient (where possible). Walk you kids to school instead of using the car. recycle what you can. Electric cars/Led lighting/solar panels etc. Obviously not everyone can make these changes but the people that can should make them.
Without a doubt, collective personal changes will have the most positive impact

Government Level is more policy than action, as there is very little they can do without adding taxes to force people to do X instead of Y. Investment in public transport and power generation is an area they can impact though. Ireland falls far behind on this.
If you have solar panels on your house and sell back to grid you get sweet F**k all for it. Most of our transport infra is Diesel fueled. etc
Investment in Wind and Solar has been very low and slow.

Global is the likes of CO2 treaties and agreements on population control, etc. The reality is there is to many people in the world. By 2050 there will be 10 billion. There isn't enough space in the world to support food production for much more than that.
They have F**k all impact, because as soon as there is a government change in some country, they can withdraw and then the treaty ceases to exist. Also countries like China and India (1.4 Billion people each) depend on having a population greater than everyone else to maintain their position of power.

^^^

This is pretty much exactly what Greta is saying. That action needs to happen.
Also, given the image which you posted, why does she get so much hate for putting herself forward doing what she can to instigate change.

Thelonious Monk · 23-09-2019 3:08pm

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^

This is pretty much exactly what Greta is saying. That action needs to happen.
Also, given the image which you posted, why does she get so much hate for putting herself forward doing what she can to instigate change.

Yes and lots of people want to change and have made changes.

Veritas Libertas · 23-09-2019 3:10pm

Tell me how wrote: »

why does she get so much hate for putting herself forward doing what she can to instigate change.

What if I insisted on change in terms of cancer.
What if I warned that if we didn't put an end to cancer, it would kill us all in 40 years.

I don't know anything about cancer, diagnosing or fixing it, but I know its going to kill all of us. I don't know exactly how to cure us all of cancer, but I'm raising awareness. I will refer you to extreme cancer research not condoned by other members of the scientific community. Even some cancer scientists speak out against me.

I refer to science about cancer that is obviously wrong, and insist the people listening to me are ignorant.

Don't you think the general public who know far more about cancer than me will be upset with me for good reason?

Tell me how · 23-09-2019 3:13pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What if I insisted on change in terms of cancer.
What if I warned that if we didn't put an end to cancer, it would kill us all in 40 years.

I don't know anything about cancer, diagnosing or fixing it, but I know its going to kill all of us. I don't know exactly how to cure us all of cancer, but I'm raising awareness. I will refer you to extreme cancer research not condoned by other members of the scientific community. Even some cancer scientists speak out against me.

I refer to science about cancer that is obviously wrong, and insist the people listening to me are ignorant.

Don't you think the general public who know far more about cancer than me will be upset with me for good reason?

That's a good example. Say a child was doing exactly what Greta has done except she was complaining that her bus driver, teacher and after school baby sitter were all smoking constantly while she and other children were in their presence.
She cited reports from the WHO about the dangers of passive smoking and refused to go to school until something was done.

Would you still think there was no merit to her position?

Beta Ray Bill · 23-09-2019 3:22pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Why does she get so much hate for putting herself forward doing what she can to instigate change.

A number of reasons I suppose.
1: She comes from wealth and has had a very sheltered life. (Both parents are famous in Sweden)
2: She's a kid
3: She's telling people what to do

It doesn't matter whether it would be climate, mental health, economics, war, etc. The problem, for a lot of people is with "who she is" not what she's saying.

These people are 1%ers telling the other (poorer) 99% what do to. Historically that has never gone down well....

Veritas Libertas · 23-09-2019 3:23pm

Tell me how wrote: »

That's a good example. Say a child was doing exactly what Greta has done except she was complaining that her bus driver, teacher and after school baby sitter were all smoking constantly while she and other children were in their presence.
She cited reports from the WHO about the dangers of passive smoking and refused to go to school until something was done.

Would you still think there was no merit to her position?

If she did all that I'd say fair play, you've actually done something that has merit.

In this example the idea would be to have less people smoking. In Greta's example what is the idea, we all put less carbon into the atmosphere? How?

To 'stop smoking' is an easy to understand and implement instruction.
To 'help the climate' is not so easy, something we have been struggling with.
The example of 'cancer' there is no easy fix either.

joe40 · 23-09-2019 3:26pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

This is the EXACT issue

It's a major problem

Climate/Environment change/destruction or what ever you want to call the "Severe negative impact of humans on on this planet in terms of it's ability to support life" is definitely happening.

The issue is everyone is pointing at each other to change while completely resistant to change themselves.

The way I see it, there are 3 levels, and they all have issues
1: Personal level
2: Government/national level
3: Global level

Personal is the likes of the tweet above; Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions... Basic sh*t like. Don't waste food or energy. Be mindful of what you buy and its impact on the environment. Make changes that make your life more energy efficient (where possible). Walk you kids to school instead of using the car. recycle what you can. Electric cars/Led lighting/solar panels etc. Obviously not everyone can make these changes but the people that can should make them.
Without a doubt, collective personal changes will have the most positive impact

Government Level is more policy than action, as there is very little they can do without adding taxes to force people to do X instead of Y. Investment in public transport and power generation is an area they can impact though. Ireland falls far behind on this.
If you have solar panels on your house and sell back to grid you get sweet F**k all for it. Most of our transport infra is Diesel fueled. etc
Investment in Wind and Solar has been very low and slow.

Global is the likes of CO2 treaties and agreements on population control, etc. The reality is there is to many people in the world. By 2050 there will be 10 billion. There isn't enough space in the world to support food production for much more than that.
They have F**k all impact, because as soon as there is a government change in some country, they can withdraw and then the treaty ceases to exist. Also countries like China and India (1.4 Billion people each) depend on having a population greater than everyone else to maintain their position of power.

Generally agree with that post a lot of it makes sense. Surprised to see the post thanked by someone who thinks climate change is not an issue, just alarmism by a bunch of teenagers.

"Collective personal change" will help but human nature been what it is this on it's own won't be enough. But a teenager trying to get that message to others is positive. Collective personal change happens one person at a time.

We as a society are not going to give up our Energy demand, that is a given so the only long term solutions will have to come from scientific and technological advances.

There will be no one answer and no one solution, but taxes to influence/change behaviour are part of the solution.

topper75 · 23-09-2019 3:30pm

Tell me how wrote: »

World Meteorological Organisation obviously knows less than many here.

https://twitter.com/MetEireann/status/1176089696952356864

If the right to form a viewpoint is contingent on authority, there would never be any such thing as science in the first place ironically. You'd instead have a king with a sceptre and a bishop with bible in hand telling you how it is.

All scientists are extrapolating from a limited data set. Most of them are going with a particular take on a correlation, and many of those in turn are assuming causation. That is all that is going on here. For example, most economists in Ireland in 2008 saw a gentle house price fall off and created graphs to illustrate their beliefs. But if you bought in 2008 the mistake was all yours.

Tell me how · 23-09-2019 3:31pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

If she did all that I'd say fair play, you've actually done something that has merit.

In this example the idea would be to have less people smoking. In Greta's example what is the idea, we all put less carbon into the atmosphere? How?

To 'stop smoking' is an easy to understand and implement instruction.
To 'help the climate' is not so easy, something we have been struggling with.
The example of 'cancer' there is no easy fix either.

What Greta is saying is; the scientists say there needs to be action, unite behind the science and come up with meaningful actions.

She talks about reducing the use of fossil fuels, because that is something which is commonly said.... by scientists.

Tell me how · 23-09-2019 3:33pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

A number of reasons I suppose.
1: She comes from wealth and has had a very sheltered life. (Both parents are famous in Sweden)
2: She's a kid
3: She's telling people what to do

It doesn't matter whether it would be climate, mental health, economics, war, etc. The problem, for a lot of people is with "who she is" not what she's saying.

These people are 1%ers telling the other (poorer) 99% what do to. Historically that has never gone down well....

1 - None of us really know about her life or how sheltered it has been. Even so? does that invalidate her message
2 - Yes. So what?
3 - She is telling people to listen to the scientists.

So, given the above, why do you have a problem with her message? It does look very much like it's just because it is a child saying something and you don't like the fact that it is a child. That's your issue, not hers.

Tell me how · 23-09-2019 3:34pm

topper75 wrote: »

If the right to form a viewpoint is contingent on authority, there would never be any such thing as science in the first place ironically. You'd instead have a king with a sceptre and a bishop with bible in hand telling you how it is.

All scientists are extrapolating from a limited data set. Most of them are going with a particular take on a correlation, and many of those in turn are assuming causation. That is all that is going on here. For example, most economists in Ireland in 2008 saw a gentle house price fall off and created graphs to illustrate their beliefs. But if you bought in 2008 the mistake was all yours.

So, if we shouldn't listen to the World Meteorological Organisation about Meteorological events, who should we listen to?

Beta Ray Bill · 23-09-2019 3:39pm

joe40 wrote: »

There will be no one answer and no one solution, but taxes to influence/change behavior are part of the solution.

I disagree with you on that one.
If you added 30% tax to the price of fuel for vehicles tomorrow, 95% of people would not drive any less than they currently do.

Likewise a plastic wrapper tax will have no effect either other than to make people poorer.

People just aren't conscious of the effect they are having because of their "auto pilot" choices...
I myself am guilty of this.
I just ate a mars bar that was in a plastic wrapper when I could have had a Teacake that was in a tin foil wrapper.
I didn't even for one second think that the wrapper for the mars bar isn't recyclable.

Taxes aren't the solution. An outright ban is the only way in terms of recycling/plastics problems and quotas in terms of fuel for vehicles EG: You can have 100 Litres of Petrol or Diesel a month.

Those policies WILL make difference, but who is going to implement them!?
The answer is no one as it's basically political suicide

Beta Ray Bill · 23-09-2019 3:43pm

Tell me how wrote: »

So, given the above, why do you have a problem with her message? It does look very much like it's just because it is a child saying something and you don't like the fact that it is a child. That's your issue, not hers.

I have no issue with her at all. I agree with her message.
You asked me why a lot of people don't like her, I was just answering.

drunkmonkey · 23-09-2019 3:45pm

McDonalds is a prime example tax the crap out of them. They made a token effort with those horrible tasting paper straws but you still have the plastic cover over the cup. What a pointless exercise. How about no straw and no lid and quit giving me 100 plastic bags of sauce with my fries, I don't even eat it. Make businesses change their mind through taxation not the ordinary consumer they have no real control on a global basis.

Beta Ray Bill · 23-09-2019 3:54pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

McDonalds is a prime example tax the crap out of them. They made a token effort with those horrible tasting paper straws but you still have the plastic cover over the cup. What a pointless exercise. How about no straw and no lid and quit giving me 100 plastic bags of sauce with my fries, I don't even eat it. Make businesses change their mind through taxation not the ordinary consumer they have no real control on a global basis.

I agree that the McDonalds effort was only a token.
But no more tax, as they'll just pass it on to the consumer.
Just ban single use plastics, job done.

Veritas Libertas · 23-09-2019 3:57pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

McDonalds is a prime example tax the crap out of them. They made a token effort with those horrible tasting paper straws but you still have the plastic cover over the cup. What a pointless exercise. How about no straw and no lid and quit giving me 100 plastic bags of sauce with my fries, I don't even eat it. Make businesses change their mind through taxation not the ordinary consumer they have no real control on a global basis.

The ridiculous thing with those straw is that McDonalds UK admitted that the paper straws aren't recycleable but the old plastic ones were and they have more of a carbon footprint than their plastic relatives also.

Akin to how Mc Donalds started doing much better when they put health food on their menu. No-one buys it, but it makes you feel better standing in line, considering buying- when you never actually will.

Thelonious Monk · 23-09-2019 4:05pm

Just don't go to McDonald's if their packaging bothers you!

AllForIt · 23-09-2019 4:53pm

I'm beginning to worry about this poor girl. As has been forwarded by others on this thread.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1176149988675596289

Thelonious Monk · 23-09-2019 5:00pm

I wouldn't worry about her, she's already had a far more interesting life than most of us

Kermit.de.frog · 23-09-2019 5:08pm

Easy to pontificate if you are someone who will never have to worry about money.

gozunda · 23-09-2019 5:25pm

joe40 wrote: »

Generally agree with that post a lot of it makes sense. Surprised to see the post thanked by someone who thinks climate change is not an issue, just alarmism by a bunch of teenagers."Collective personal change" will help but human nature been what it is this on it's own won't be enough. But a teenager trying to get that message to others is positive. Collective personal change happens one person at a time. We as a society are not going to give up our Energy demand, that is a given so the only long term solutions will have to come from scientific and technological advances. There will be no one answer and no one solution, but taxes to influence/change behaviour are part of the solution.

Ah the old attack the poster (or thanker in this case). Do point out exactly where I have said that "climate change is not an issue"(sic). My comments have been quite clear with quoted examples of the rubbish that is been peddled as fact. In this case it is one teenager pushing apocalyptic doom. That other kids are lapping this up is perhaps not surprising and a case of being easily led with those mindlessly repeating her mantra of 10 years or whatever to save the earth or wtte

It's a load of cockamaney horse**** and the same has been highlighted by even one of the IPCC scientists involved. That you dont agree and continue to endlessly opine that greta says this and greta says that - is completely irrelevant to the point made and to those who legitmately criticise this type of rubbish. But hey sure lets tax everyone into oblivion - that will teach them eh?

And to add - I thanked that post because it was a well thought out and reasoned comment. Unlike the majority of your own posts which offer little more than endless greta worshiping anecdotes. And do give over accusing everyone who is any way critical of what is being pushed in the name of science as having a problem with 'greta'. That is just a nasty little pointy stick used without any validity and does nothing for the discussion.

23-09-2019 5:35pm

small wonder that the ppl clapping along with the gretaphiles are mad interested in who thanks what post

Veritas Libertas · 23-09-2019 5:36pm

There is a point to be made that transforming a non-emergency situation into an emergency situation can negate the bystander effect. Perhaps this is the line of reason that many of these climate 'alarmists' are taking.

The problem with taking this line, is that soon no-one will believe you since emergencies are unusual and rare and involve actual threat and harm. The boy who cried wolf.

suicide_circus · 23-09-2019 5:38pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about her, she's already had a far more interesting life than most of us

i heard she appeared to two schoolkids in
ballyhaunis in 1987

joe40 · 23-09-2019 5:41pm

gozunda wrote: »

Ah the old attack the poster (or thanker in this case). Do point out exactly where I have said that "climate change is not an issue"(sic). My comments have been quite clear with quoted examples of the rubbish that is been peddled as fact. In this case it is one teenager pushing apocalyptic doom. That other kids are lapping this up is perhaps not surprising and a case of being easily led with those mindlessly repeating her mantra of 10 years or whatever to save the earth or wtte

It's a load of cockamaney horse**** and the same has been highlighted by even one of the IPCC scientists involved. That you dont agree and continue to endlessly opine that greta says this and greta says that - is completely irrelevant to the point made and to those who legitmately criticise this type of rubbish. But hey sure lets tax everyone into oblivion - that will teach them eh?

What is a load of cockamaney horse****?
If climate change is going to be a problem in the future then it should be addressed and solutions found.
Those solutions will be varied and multi faceted. There is no single magic bullet. The 10 years thing is largely irrelevant,it is not the major issue.
If one was genuinely concerned about climate change then Greta would not be a problem even if you disagreed with her rhetoric, the overall message would be sound.
I have more time for the people who come right and say they don't believe the scientists, at least they are been honest.

James Brown · 23-09-2019 5:41pm

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

There is a point to be made that transforming a non-emergency situation into an emergency situation can negate the bystander effect. Perhaps this is the line of reason that many of these climate 'alarmists' are taking.

The problem with taking this line, is that soon no-one will believe you since emergencies are unusual and rare and involve actual threat and harm. The boy who cried wolf.

That's pretty lame. We shouldn't believe it because if it's not true nobody will believe the next environmental crisis? Sounds like you're trying to convince people not to support any green initiatives.
What if building a wall doesn't solve all of the United States problems, go after the blacks maybe? Best not build a wall just in case, huh?

paleoperson · 23-09-2019 5:50pm

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm beginning to worry about this poor girl. As has been forwarded by others on this thread.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1176149988675596289

You have to be kidding me?

Of all the hardships people have to go through in life, and you're worried about this extremely privileged girls, one of the most privileged of all people at her age on the planet.

Tell me you are making a joke.

lola85 · 23-09-2019 5:53pm

Is she actually for real?

I stole her childhood.

Go back to school and get an education love.

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

Comments