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

Annasopra

KyussB wrote: »

The denialists are the same as the right-wing Libertarian cult from earlier in the decade - same network of think-tanks and everything - you can best spot them, as they are always raving about Communists/Marxists etc. - even though nobody here is Marxist/Communist, and nobody in Ireland, outside of Libertarians on Boards perhaps, gets rabid about conspiracy theories involving Communists.

They have exactly the same style of disrupting constructive debate. Same network of think-tanks. Same imperviousness to evidence. Same uncritical regurgitation of easily discredited sources - especially the regular use of argument-by-YouTube (videos that nobody watches). Same style of appeal-to-emotion based arguments, dividing debate into a dichotomy of two tribalistic sides, coupled with backslapping, browbeating, and trying to maintain an echo chamber of denialist views.

It's astroturfing. Boards gets targeted for it, because anywhere else the same comments get voted out of view.

I've noticed though too that there are growing strong strong links between climate change deniers and varying strands of the far right.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Too late for what? Do you think that if humans stop emitting Co2 the climate will stop changing?

No, of course not, it's been changing since day dot.

But, there is irrefutable evidence that the current rate of change is much greater than anytime outside of a catastrophic event and that it is as a consequence of human action.

The impact of this change does not bode well for future generations therefore, we should try to curtail it.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

So we allow a misguided youth to dictate what and when is "too late". Just because she has a tantrum? We already know what the actual pedictions are - we certainly don't need someone making up their own. It helps nothing.

It helps in raising the public awareness for a need for action. When was the last time 4M people marched for action on climate change before Greta?

Also, again, please read this slowly because it is a fact and yet you keep ignoring it, Greta is not trying to dictate beyond that people listen to the scientists. That's her message. Try not to keep getting it wrong.

gctest50

Everyones favourite Self-loading-ballast have any answers for teh big polar meltdowns yet or does she need a few more free cruises ?

Randle P. McMurphy

So much vitriol and hatred in this thread aimed at a 16yo girl. So much ignorance and denial. She has more courage, intelligence and gumption than the lot of you put together.

[Deleted User]

Randle P. McMurphy wrote: »

So much vitriol and hatred in this thread aimed at a 16yo girl. So much ignorance and denial. She has more courage, intelligence and gumption than the lot of you put together.

source?

seannash

Randle P. McMurphy wrote: »

So much vitriol and hatred in this thread aimed at a 16yo girl. So much ignorance and denial. She has more courage, intelligence and gumption than the lot of you put together.

This is not a remark on greta more a remark on this comment.
She doesn't have more courage or intelligence than most. I know plenty of 16 year olds than could do what she is doing. She is reading a carefully crafted speech which is most likely written for her.
She knows her topic well, like a lot of 16 year old kids who obsess over their interests.
Trotting out the she has more courage and intelligence line is very rarely true.
I personally hate her delivery of her message. She comes across as bratty.
I dont disagree with what she says though.

Ultimately she wont make the slightest bit of difference, shes just an interesting guest speaker who is flavour of the month for political circles to trot out at events like this. Do people really think her talk has changed anyone's opinion in that room?

Always Tired

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We are consuming less. We are changing. Take your phone rewind 20yrs you needed a stereo, CD's, sat nav, compass, computer, stamps, a tape recorder, the list goes on and that's just one device. Cars are improving, houses more efficient, public transport is more widespread. Solar/Wind/Wave energy are all happening. The world is getting better.
Greta or the millennials don't realise any of this there too young.

So you think mobile phones being able to multitask is somehow helping what? Pollution and climate change? What? Where do you get that from? That's so wrong it's laughable.

Firstly, people still buy computers. And stamps. And tape recorders. And sat navs. And compasses (a rather bizarre inclusion to the list, but anyway since you put it in there it might interest you to know they are still being produced as being lost in the woods you might want a compass that doesnt run out of battery). And compasses, like stereos and tape recorders, are typically kept for years, a decade or more even. People still buy vinyl to this day. I still have a CD player and buy CDs.

People dont keep their phones for more than 2 years max, they become obselete very quickly. So they create huge amounts of waste. I worked at a phone shop back in 2006 that had a whole storeroom that was just a 3 foot high pile of old phones and that was in a small shop in a small town, 6 years before smartphones (which are replaced even more quickly) started to become popular. Think of all the plastic and batteries that have to be disposed of from phones alone, it's massive amounts.

Are houses more efficient? How? By having an amazon echo? Another electronic device that will be obselete in a few years? I thought you said our phones do everything now?

We're all using the same heat, coal etc. Wind and wave power we actually missed the boat on because we were too busy bailing out banks and creating Irish water to invest in it.

You saying millennials can't remember or dont realize that we used to need more than one device to do certain tasks, and that these advances mean the world is better now is actually proving the point that a lot of the older generation understand as much about climate change as Trump does about windmills.

Mobile phones have made our lives more convenient but they have not necessarily made the world better, and from a pollution standpoint have made things worse. In fact most people still buy all those items you mentioned in addition to phones, which have batteries and are made of plastic.

Hal3000

Always Tired wrote: »

So you think mobile phones being able to multitask is somehow helping what? Pollution and climate change? What? Where do you get that from? That's so wrong it's laughable.

Firstly, people still buy computers. And stamps. And tape recorders. And sat navs. And compasses (a rather bizarre inclusion to the list, but anyway since you put it in there it might interest you to know they are still being produced as being lost in the woods you might want a compass that doesnt run out of battery). And compasses, like stereos and tape recorders, are typically kept for years, a decade or more even. People still buy vinyl to this day. I still have a CD player and buy CDs.

People dont keep their phones for more than 2 years max, they become obselete very quickly. So they create huge amounts of waste. I worked at a phone shop back in 2006 that had a whole storeroom that was just a 3 foot high pile of old phones and that was in a small shop in a small town, 6 years before smartphones (which are replaced even more quickly) started to become popular. Think of all the plastic and batteries that have to be disposed of from phones alone, it's massive amounts.

Are houses more efficient? How? By having an amazon echo? Another electronic device that will be obselete in a few years? I thought you said our phones do everything now?

We're all using the same heat, coal etc. Wind and wave power we actually missed the boat on because we were too busy bailing out banks and creating Irish water to invest in it.

You saying millennials can't remember or dont realize that we used to need more than one device to do certain tasks, and that these advances mean the world is better now is actually proving the point that a lot of the older generation understand as much about climate change as Trump does about windmills.

Mobile phones have made our lives more convenient but they have not necessarily made the world better, and from a pollution standpoint have made things worse. In fact most people still buy all those items you mentioned in addition to phones, which have batteries and are made of plastic.

I’d also like to add that stamps and compasses don’t need to charged.

seamus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I've noticed though too that there are growing strong strong links between climate change deniers and varying strands of the far right.

Because ultimately their goal is the same; The accumulation and retention of personal wealth at any cost. There's a reason oil companies have thrown a trillion dollars over the last 30 years at fighting climate policy.

weldoninhio

Tell me how wrote: »

No, of course not, it's been changing since day dot.

But, there is irrefutable evidence that the current rate of change is much greater than anytime outside of a catastrophic event and that it is as a consequence of human action.

The impact of this change does not bode well for future generations therefore, we should try to curtail it.

Sorry but you are talking nonsense. There is zero evidence, never mind irrefutable, that humans have any effect on climate change. Many theories, many projections, but zero actual evidence of a link.

drunkmonkey

Always Tired wrote: »

So you think mobile phones being able to multitask is somehow helping what? Pollution and climate change? What? Where do you get that from? That's so wrong it's laughable.

Firstly, people still buy computers. And stamps. And tape recorders. And sat navs. And compasses (a rather bizarre inclusion to the list, but anyway since you put it in there it might interest you to know they are still being produced as being lost in the woods you might want a compass that doesnt run out of battery). And compasses, like stereos and tape recorders, are typically kept for years, a decade or more even. People still buy vinyl to this day. I still have a CD player and buy CDs.

People dont keep their phones for more than 2 years max, they become obselete very quickly. So they create huge amounts of waste. I worked at a phone shop back in 2006 that had a whole storeroom that was just a 3 foot high pile of old phones and that was in a small shop in a small town, 6 years before smartphones (which are replaced even more quickly) started to become popular. Think of all the plastic and batteries that have to be disposed of from phones alone, it's massive amounts.

Are houses more efficient? How? By having an amazon echo? Another electronic device that will be obselete in a few years? I thought you said our phones do everything now?

We're all using the same heat, coal etc. Wind and wave power we actually missed the boat on because we were too busy bailing out banks and creating Irish water to invest in it.

You saying millennials can't remember or dont realize that we used to need more than one device to do certain tasks, and that these advances mean the world is better now is actually proving the point that a lot of the older generation understand as much about climate change as Trump does about windmills.

Mobile phones have made our lives more convenient but they have not necessarily made the world better, and from a pollution standpoint have made things worse. In fact most people still buy all those items you mentioned in addition to phones, which have batteries and are made of plastic.

You might be in a bit of a minority there with your CD's and tape recorder. As for your house being more efficient because of an Amazon echo I think you completely missed the point.
That 3ft pile of mobile phones if full of gold and copper, people will pay you so they can recycle them.

Veritas Libertas

Always Tired wrote: »

People dont keep their phones for more than 2 years max, they become obselete very quickly. So they create huge amounts of waste. [...]Think of all the plastic and batteries that have to be disposed of from phones alone, it's massive amounts.

Mobile phones have made our lives more convenient but they have not necessarily made the world better, and from a pollution standpoint have made things worse. In fact most people still buy all those items you mentioned in addition to phones, which have batteries and are made of plastic.

Indeed. They also require rare earth minerals produced only in countries brazen enough to ruin the environment by extracting them.

I might add that a lot of the green energies are also often more damaging to the environment with the amount of co2 needed to produce them combined with their short life-spans(e.g. solar cells) and the waste in their disposal.

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fmichaelshellenberger%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F05%2Fhttps_2F2Fblogs-images.forbes.com2Fmichaelshellenberger2Ffiles2F20182F042FNuclearWaste.002.jpg

If solar panels are clean, why do they produce so much toxic waste?

screamer

Poor old Greta I think she just realized yesterday it’s an imperfect world full of injustice and politicians on the whole are self-servers.
I think kids sometimes have idealistic views which in reality won’t or don’t work. This environment stuff is no different. Until or unless there are viable affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, most countries will continue to burn relatively cheap, dirty coal and oil. That’s the way it is, and all the strikes/ show boating across the Atlantic and impassioned speeches won’t change that.

Wanderer78

screamer wrote:

Poor old Greta I think she just realized yesterday itâ€™s an imperfect world full of injustice and politicians on the whole are self-servers. I think kids sometimes have idealistic views which in reality wonâ€™t or donâ€™t work. This environment stuff is no different. Until or unless there are viable affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, most countries will continue to burn relatively cheap, dirty coal and oil. Thatâ€™s the way it is, and all the strikes/ show boating across the Atlantic and impassioned speeches wonâ€™t change that.

Scandinavian countries divesting their fossil fuel sovereign wealth fund, nothing to see here!

Annasopra

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sorry but you are talking nonsense. There is zero evidence, never mind irrefutable, that humans have any effect on climate change. Many theories, many projections, but zero actual evidence of a link.

This is absolute and utter drivel. There is mountains and mountains of evidence.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

source?

You just quoted the poster giving their source

dvdman1

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sorry but you are talking nonsense. There is zero evidence, never mind irrefutable, that humans have any effect on climate change. Many theories, many projections, but zero actual evidence of a link.

There is evidence and consensus on mans role in climate change among scientists

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal" ......intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Your disagreeing on that panels conclusions, how and on what basis?

drunkmonkey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxNjLuifZD8

Galwayguy35

The look she gave Trump when he came in to the room was like someone who was about to have a temper tantrum.

If you want to get the people on board and change minds about tackling climate change having a rich kid with far left ideas shouting at them isn't the way to go about it.

Leo was all about slapping carbon taxes on us over in NY yesterday, seems like he is forgetting there is an election coming up here.

biko

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The look she gave Trump when he came in to the room was like someone who was about to have a temper tantrum.

Well, she's been told he is the devil incarnate so I assume seeing him IRL brings up all kinds of emotions.

Veritas Libertas

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sorry but you are talking nonsense. There is zero evidence, never mind irrefutable, that humans have any effect on climate change. Many theories, many projections, but zero actual evidence of a link.

I'm not sure which part you are in disagreement with.

Stop me where is the problem:
Us(7.53bill humans) and our subsidiaries are pumping enormous amounts of green house gases into the atmosphere. (1/2 tonne of co2 from each set of lungs alone per year).

These extra greenhouse gases not only cause extra warming in themselves, but also evaporation rates rise which result in a wetter atmosphere which amplifies greenhouse heating.

These extra gases are also absorbed by our oceans leading to more acidic oceans that kills marine life.

Source

Surely at some stage we must some how dissipate this extra co2 , or reduce our emissions of it?

pjohnson

dvdman1 wrote: »

There is evidence and consensus on mans role in climate change among scientists

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal" ......intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Your disagreeing on that panels conclusions, how and on what basis?

Are you really suprised?

kevcos

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I'm not sure which part you are in disagreement with.

Stop me where is the problem:
Us(7.53bill humans) and our subsidiaries are pumping enormous amounts of green house gases into the atmosphere. (1/2 tonne of co2 from each set of lungs alone per year).

These extra greenhouse gases not only cause extra warming in themselves, but also evaporation rates rise which result in a wetter atmosphere which amplifies greenhouse heating.

These extra gases are also absorbed by our oceans leading to more acidic oceans that kills marine life.

Source

Surely at some stage we must some how dissipate this extra co2 , or reduce our emissions of it?

Given the planet is ~4.5 billion year old can you explain why you are graphing only the most recent 50 years?
Surely only graphing 50 years out of an elapsed 4-5 billion year is regarded as an insignificant snap shot?

Veritas Libertas

The Australian 'Tommy Robinson' gets banned from twitter for tweeting about Greta.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

It helps in raising the public awareness for a need for action. When was the last time 4M people marched for action on climate change before Greta?Also, again, please read this slowly because it is a fact and yet you keep ignoring it, Greta is not trying to dictate beyond that people listen to the scientists. That's her message. Try not to keep getting it wrong.

Again read carefully so you will understand. Screaming heebjeebies coming from an adolescent helps nothing. I have listened to her ravings and they are as far from science as is possible - see her doomsday scaremongering for detail.

It now seems it's a acceptable to be dictated by kids who have been traumatised by those around them. Emotional authoritarianism over normal democratic processes. That some believe the sun shines out of her rear end is irrelevant. It's a very strange position for any adult to adopt tbh.

weldoninhio

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is absolute and utter drivel. There is mountains and mountains of evidence.

You’ll be able to quote one here? Since there are mountains and mountains.

Veritas Libertas

kevcos wrote: »

Given the planet is ~4.5 billion year old can you explain why you are graphing only the most recent 50 years?
Surely only graphing 50 years out of an elapsed 4-5 billion year is regarded as an insignificant snap shot?

It's to explain the significance of the extra co2 in the atmosphere, which has been steadily rising since pre industrial averages of 280 parts/million.

This extra co2 has contributed to a man made warming.

weldoninhio

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I'm not sure which part you are in disagreement with.

Stop me where is the problem:
Us(7.53bill humans) and our subsidiaries are pumping enormous amounts of green house gases into the atmosphere. (1/2 tonne of co2 from each set of lungs alone per year).

These extra greenhouse gases not only cause extra warming in themselves, but also evaporation rates rise which result in a wetter atmosphere which amplifies greenhouse heating.

These extra gases are also absorbed by our oceans leading to more acidic oceans that kills marine life.

Source

Surely at some stage we must some how dissipate this extra co2 , or reduce our emissions of it?

The temperature was higher in the past, beyond your 50 years. Was that the dinosaurs fault? Too many dino-engines?

[Deleted User]

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The look she gave Trump when he came in to the room was like someone who was about to have a temper tantrum.

If you want to get the people on board and change minds about tackling climate change having a rich kid with far left ideas shouting at them isn't the way to go about it.

Leo was all about slapping carbon taxes on us over in NY yesterday, seems like he is forgetting there is an election coming up here.

The poor child needs to be loved. What parent encourages such fear in their child?