BarryD2 wrote: » We may all take note of the advice of scientists. But we should also be aware of how scientists and academics offering advice are funded. Sexy topics like 'climate change' without doubt attract funding bursaries. There are businesses out there looking to develop whole new markets based on solutions that offer alternatives to 'climate change'. Even researchers directly employed by states have a duty towards their employers. So I find it hard to take everything they say, at face value. Doubtless there is change, we can see that about us, but I don't think anyone can predict the ramifications. When I hear people pronouncing that the sea will reach Ranelagh or wherever in Dublin, my bull**** filter comes on. Don't hear many suggesting that we use less energy, make do with less. The emphasis seems to on looking for different ways to generate more. By way, not sure you gave your views on this: http://www.dublinarray.com/index.html That'll test the real resolve of many of our capital's residents who are concerned about use of excessive fossil fuels, the view from Killiney Hill will be marred. http://www.saveourseafront.net/dubli...-proposal.html
JJayoo wrote: » It's funny how everyone is falling over themselves about this girl, Ethiopia broke a record by planting 350million trees in one day but you won't see the celebrities falling I've themselves to congratulate this. Or what about the green wall they are planting across Africa? Any Irish press mentioning this? Naaaaa sell more papers screaming about the world ending.
SJW Lover wrote: » She's talking crap. Engaging in soundbites and generalities with zero solutions put forward. She is presenting a case against 5 countries yet ignores the two countries causing a significant amount of the damage in China and India - there's some commentary for you. What is your commentary on it? She's a young girl so any old crap gets a free pass?
Tell me how wrote: » You can doubt sciences motives if you wish but where then do you turn to, or where should anyone turn to for objective evidence when developing strategy. I have absolutely zero problem with an offshore windfarm. Wave technology is also being developed to harness that power to generate electricity and that would be less visually intrusive.
BarryD2 wrote: » Therein lies a problem and I have no answer but I suspect that as with many aspects of life, that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. We'll neither have the Climate Armageddon that poor Greta worries about but we will see continued loss of habitat for both humans and other animal species. We might be better to put our efforts into controlling human population growth, even reducing lifespans because the growth of our population and it's expectations are core to these issues. But who will tell people, a la China, that they can only have one child or that three score years & ten is their average allotted span?
SJW Lover wrote: » I am noticing that the insults seem to be coming from only one side of this Greta argument.
SJW Lover wrote: » Crikey you're a fool.
SJW Lover wrote: » Haha from someone who isnt laughing is just sad. Good luck with hanging on the words of a manipulated kid. You fool.
SJW Lover wrote: » I've learnt you are an easily manipulated person. Let me find a 15 year old to convince you of that
SJW Lover wrote: » You're nothing but useful fodder.
Tony EH wrote: »
Sean.3516 wrote: » Michael Knowles did nothing wrong on Fox News. The important question is: Did he or did he not say she was a “mentally ill Swedish child” for the purposes of mocking her? The answer his no. He said it in order to chastise the people he believes are exploiting her. The quotes in context is “If this were about science, it would be led by scientists and not by a mentally ill Swedish girl who is being exploited by her parents and the international left.” There no way to read this in which he is attacking her as opposed to the people he is saying are exploiting her. It would be very strange if he was to mock someone’s mental illness and then in the same sentence chastise people for exploiting them (which he literally does in the same sentence and nobody who watches the clip can dispute that). Most people and news outlets are only quoting the first half of what he said (“Mentally ill Swedish child”) and completely leaving out (“who is being exploited by her parents and the international left”). The second part is the most important part of what he is saying.So he did absolutely nothing wrong.
Tell me how wrote: » Not even Fox News agrees with you.
Sean.3516 wrote: » So he did absolutely nothing wrong.
Tony EH wrote: » Why damn her so much. What are afraid of internet hard man? She's a 16 year old girl, who crossed the sea to make a point and her point seems to be just "listen to the scientific community" on an issue that she feels strongly about. Your commentary is worthless, because it offers nothing but an attempt to down play someone who shouldn't be any concern of yours. She' just a kid who did something. Get over it.
Tell me how wrote: » In your opinion. Not even Fox News agrees with you.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I thought the idea was to make it a concern of ours? That the world is dying and we must change. Also her main point seems to have moved from 'listen to the scientists' to 'my childhood has been taken away - how dare you" The age thing is an interesting one when she she challenged and her followers do not like the question posed - the attitude is 'she is just a child' leave her alone. If her followers do agree with a comment she makes suddenly being a child is highlighted as incredible and inspiring. Therefore fact she is called a 'child' seems to be a win win for her in this respect. Despite the fact that Swede's can drive at 16. And the age of consent in Sweden is 15! Therefore the law in Sweden does not consider her as much of child as some people seem to claim she is.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Michael Knowles did nothing wrong on Fox News.The important question is: Did he or did he not say she was a “mentally ill Swedish child” for the purposes of mocking her? The answer his no. He said it in order to chastise the people he believes are exploiting her. The quotes in context is “If this were about science, it would be led by scientists and not by a mentally ill Swedish girl who is being exploited by her parents and the international left.” There no way to read this in which he is attacking her as opposed to the people he is saying are exploiting her. It would be very strange if he was to mock someone’s mental illness and then in the same sentence chastise people for exploiting them (which he literally does in the same sentence and nobody who watches the clip can dispute that). Most people and news outlets are only quoting the first half of what he said (“Mentally ill Swedish child”) and completely leaving out (“who is being exploited by her parents and the international left”). The second part is the most important part of what he is saying. So he did absolutely nothing wrong. (For the record, Thunberg has several mental and developmental disorders.)
Tony EH wrote: » He made a silly statement to score a cheap political point and got called out on it.
Tell me how wrote: » Right there buddy. What, you disagree? Well, you have your opinion, I have mine. And, for probably the first time ever, I agree with Fox News.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I thought the idea was to make it a concern of ours?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Also her main point seems to have moved from 'listen to the scientists' to 'my childhood has been taken away - how dare you"
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The age thing is an interesting one when she she challenged and her followers do not like the question posed - the attitude is 'she is just a child' leave her alone. If her followers do agree with a comment she makes suddenly being a child, is highlighted as incredible and inspiring. Therefore fact she is called a 'child' seems to be a win win for her in this respect. Despite the fact that Swede's can drive at 16. And the age of consent in Sweden is 15! Therefore the law in Sweden does not consider her as much of child as some people seem to claim she is.
Sean.3516 wrote: » If you want to argue he should have phrased the statement in a more sensitive manner, I’m with you there. But was he attacking and/or mocking her for having a mental illness? The words he actually said would suggest he wasn’t.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Can anybody tell me how Michael Knowles attacked and/or mocked Greta Thunberg for having a mental illness?
BarryD2 wrote: » Tell me how wrote: » You can doubt sciences motives if you wish but where then do you turn to, or where should anyone turn to for objective evidence when developing strategy. I have absolutely zero problem with an offshore windfarm. Wave technology is also being developed to harness that power to generate electricity and that would be less visually intrusive. Therein lies a problem and I have no answer but I suspect that as with many aspects of life, that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. We'll neither have the Climate Armageddon that poor Greta worries about but we will see continued loss of habitat for both humans and other animal species. We might be better to put our efforts into controlling human population growth, even reducing lifespans because the growth of our population and it's expectations are core to these issues. But who will tell people, a la China, that they can only have one child or that three score years & ten is their average allotted span?
Tony EH wrote: » I'm talking about someone who was simply trying to score a cheap political point using the actions of a kid who's motives aren't political. His comment was silly and he got called out on it. Simple as that.
Tony EH wrote: » I'm not talking about sensitivity. I'm talking about someone who was simply trying to score a cheap political point using the actions of a kid who's motives aren't political. His comment was silly and he got called out on it. Simple as that.
Sean.3516 wrote: » But how was it silly? How was it cheap? Care to actually explain your line of thought as opposed to just making a statement and expecting to be believed? I realized I was saying something people would disagree with so I took care to lay exactly why I thought that. Wish other people would show the same courtesy. Thus far, nobody as made a coherent case as to how Michael Knowles was in the wrong.
Sean.3516 wrote: » Thus far, nobody has made a coherent case as to how Michael Knowles was in the wrong.
hetuzozaho wrote: » The video is here: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/24/fox-news-greta-thunberg-michael-knowles Disgraceful.
Sean.3516 wrote: » He wasn’t using the illness to attack her.
