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

drunkmonkey wrote: »

1million people waiting to see a consultant and we're worried about it maybe getting a little warmer in Athlone in a few hundred years.
The more this crap goes on the closer our Trump moment comes and I'll welcome it. It's time to drain the swamp.

Yeah, Peter Casey did well in his last elections didn't he.

joe40 wrote: »

The IPCC reports and the opinions of the world's climate scientists are non ambiguous, climate change is a major problem facing the world. If people don't want to accept that fine, but using a 16 year old as your reason is cowardly.Climate change is either a problem or its not, individuals have to choose their position. Greta Thurberg is ultimately a sideshow and should not be a major influence either way.The consensus of scientific opinion should be.

This is a thread about gretas voyage to the new world, get over it. And bull**** - no one here is "using a 16 year old". That you would throw rubbish like that by way of reply says more about your style of posting than anything else.

Who said what the IPCC are detailing is ambiguous?

How many times does stuff like this have to be detailed?

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.

Gretas spouting is unfortunately being touted as fact. If you do not like others pointing that out - tough.

Mebuntu wrote: »

The more I think about it, Governments and the likes of the UN should not be giving credence to the crazy rantings of a child by giving her access to address them. The hypocritical part is that they all know she's talking hysterical nonsense but all are terrified to say it in public.

So, if I understand you correctly, the EU, the UN, US congress, UK Parliament, amongst others are too terrified to not allow Greta to speak.

Terrified of who should they not allow her to do so can I ask?

Tell me how wrote: »

So, if I understand you correctly, the EU, the UN, US congress, UK Parliament, amongst others are too terrified to not allow Greta to speak.

Terrified of who should they not allow her to do so can I ask?

I think the point is that they are not comfortable commenting on it it all in public. She can say what she likes.

Capra wrote: »

I'm beginning to think Greta Thunberg is a plant by ExxonMobil or Shell. I've never before seen anyone as unlikeable put forward as the spokesperson of a campaign. I watched he 5 minute speech there and it was awful. She is a horrible little tramp. How could anyone who isn't already on her side be expected to like her? Nasty, humourless, angry, etc. These are not traits that win people over to your side of the argument.

In fairness she has not chosen to be the head of anything. Others have done that. The school strike idea did capture the imagination of kids and that's a good thing in its own right in the sense that it may produce a generation more mindful of the need to change. But there are no guarantees of that either.

This radical stop sign needs sail 'te fcuk back into school.

Yet another emotion-driven leftist pawn. Devoid of facts and detached from reality.

is_that_so wrote: »

Facing down a child's opinion in public is not a winner for any adult. You just look like a bully. Usually letting them blow it off is the best approach.

That's a weak argument, they didn't need to invite her if they didn't want to.

They could have just ignored her should they have disagreed, you're suggesting that this very significant organisations are so afraid of her message, that they invited her in to their meetings to speak?

Doesn't make sense.

NSAman wrote: »

What time is that sail boat due to leave back to Sweden?

She's going back on Bono's jet.

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Trump got up and left 10 minutes in :pac::D I don't blame him.

After analytically determining the merits of the argument no doubt.

Tell me how wrote: »

After analytically determining the merits of the argument no doubt.

Doesn’t need that much brainpower to be honest...;) UN = BS

splinter65 wrote: »

All that’s happened is that lots of ordinarily anxious teenagers are now gripped with an irrational fear not seen since the end of the Cold War.

From irrational fear can come rational thought and reflection! TBH I'm more bothered by some of the very strident voices in the scientific world who have themselves a captive audience.

is_that_so wrote: »

I don't doubt her sincerity but I do doubt the motives of some of those latching onto her crusade. This latest event is laudable in that it's absolutely consistent with her beliefs but still a gimmick in the real world.

Greta is very strong on this point, repeating time and again that she and other activists do not want praise or admiration, just action. I do not see her actions as a gimmick. She travels by sea (including freight ships) and not by air.

Tell me how wrote: »

NSAman wrote: »

Doesn’t need that much brainpower to be honest...;) UN = BS

Really? And who do you think are trusted institutions which exist in western society today?

The majority of the counties which comprise the UN are not dictatorships. They even had a minute silence for North Korean dictator Kim Jong il.
The UN is not some haven of righteousness. In is a “pit of snakes” as one writer put it.