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

um7y1h83ge06nx

The sooner people like her and Trump leave the world stage the better. All the dramatics, hyperbole and stroppy behaviour is getting a bit old.

Although they get the necessary responses from the media and some of the public so why should they stop.

YFlyer

Tell me how wrote: »

Seriously, is that the basis of your argument at this point?

You want a singular name. Why, so you can target their motives, lifestyle, education, history.

How about Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, head of Science at the IPCC.

Scientists from 120 countries contributed to the report in question. Is that sufficient for you?

I left out the letter s by mistake.

YFlyer

gozunda wrote: »

Which one? Funny thing from her doomsday rantings she ain't listening to any of them ....

Hahaha

Veritas Libertas

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Planned obsolescence should be a crime.

+1 , how the world would be a better place if this was so!

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

No sir - that is Wrong!

Do keep up...

I asked which particular 'scientist' (singular) as stated by the poster quoted - should we be listening to?

And yes she has variously made unsupported doomsday statements which the scientists have clearly not come from the IPCC. And yet we are suppose to be listening to some vague 'scientist' figure whose name we dont know!

Also no she did not stick entirely to the IPCC report - she went on at some length about her childhood been stolen and how dare people etc. Hardly the stuff of a rational scientific discussion now is it?

Seriously, is that the basis of your argument at this point?

You want a singular name. Why, so you can target their motives, lifestyle, education, history.

How about Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, head of Science at the IPCC.

Scientists from 120 countries contributed to the report in question. Is that sufficient for you?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Have to say I cringed hard for the girl on stage. Felt like she came across poorly. The message she has is correct, but the delivery was off base to me. Talking about losing your childhood when global weather changes have had precisely zero impact upon your life up to this point is a cheap form of emotional blackmail.

I'm fully on board with the Climate Change message. I think the biggest thing any government can do is make corporations liable for it in the most part.

Incentives to make goods have a good energy rating while also lasting a long time is important. Planned obsolescence should be a crime.

Then on the individual level there are many small changes everyone can make with some help and education. For example, there's no reason that I should have to buy a new plastic bottle of hand soap every couple of weeks, you should be able to buy a large concentrated bottle of soap where you add water to it so you can refill the same bottle over and over. Or McDonald's having a big ketchup bottle instead of loads of small sachets. Educate people on how to reduce their food waste. Reward people who use their own reusable drinking mug. Encourage people not to buy so much cheap tat in the €2 shop.

There's ways that the whole of society can reduce waste and pollute less. But it has to be all encompassing and can't involve simply taxing everyone more for no tangible return.

Veritas Libertas

gozunda wrote: »

And yes she has variously made unsupported doomsday statements which the scientists have clearly not come from the IPCC. And yet we are suppose to be listening to some vague 'scientist' figure whose name we dont know!

I bet those "scientists" had something to do with the Green New Deal as well

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Wrong.She referred entirely to IPCC report in at least her two most recent speeches.

No sir - that is Wrong!

Do keep up...

I asked which particular 'scientist' (singular) as stated by the poster quoted - should we be listening to?

YFlyer wrote:

Science doesn't depend on personality. Greta said listen to the scientist.

And yes she has variously made unsupported doomsday statements which have clearly not come from the IPCC. And yet we are suppose to be listening to some vague 'scientist' figure whose name we dont know!

Also no she did not stick entirely to the IPCC report - she went on at some length about her childhood been stolen and how dare people etc. Hardly the stuff of a rational scientific discussion now is it?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote:

SJW Lover wrote:

Why should i listen to Greta?

Because age has warranted invitations from the EU, UN, US Congress and HoC amongst others to communicate her message.

Because she has won numerous awards for her efforts.

Because she has been nominated for a Nobel prize for efforts.

Because she motivated 4M people to March on a single day calling for action on the climate.

Because her message is supported by renowned climate change commentators.

Because she is simply saying listen to the scientists.

Are these enough reasons for you?
If not, why not?

Because Tell me how - Tells you so

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Which one? Funny thing from her doomsday rankings she ain't listening to any of them ....

Wrong.

She referred entirely to IPCC report in at least her two most recent speeches.

Gaoth Laidir

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is that the crux of your argument, that people are virtually enslaved against their will by an extraordinary force? Reads like a third-rate dystopian caricature. Get real.

Not against their will, but against their better judgement. They see a peer hitting box office and it resonates with them. How many local Gretas have we seen popping up and taking the mike at the strikes, trying to emulate her? The kids in Battery Park on Friday waiting for her to take to the stage and then screaming and clapping her every word. Quite sad to see.

gozunda

YFlyer wrote: »

Science doesn't depend on personality. Greta said listen to the scientist.

Which one? Funny thing from her doomsday rantings she ain't listening to any of them ....

Veritas Libertas

weldoninhio wrote: »

A theory in science is an idea. Scientists theorise all of the time. Not everything they theorise is true.

You're wrong here I'm afraid. A theory in science is the closest thing we have to known proofs. That's why the strongest theories in Maths are called "Theorems".

A theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms.

A theory is a structure that explains a set of facts. For example, have you ever called Germ theory just a theory before? Or the theory of gravity? or the theory of evolution?

I believe what you have called theory scientists might call a hypothesis or a conjecture. They certainly don't mean what you think they mean.

This is the first point of note on the wikipedia page for 'scientific theory' .

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.

Quantum Erasure

Google Scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

weldoninhio

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I think the only thing you've proven is your inability to comprehend the meaning of the world 'theory' in a scientific sense.

If you also think gravity is just a theory why not try stepping outside the window and flying up :pac:

Theory does not mean 'guess' in a scientific sense.

You also left out the most important part of that paragraph that you quoted:

You are proving to be disingenuous...

A theory in science is an idea. Scientists theorise all of the time. Not everything they theorise is/comes true.

JJayoo

"She is not at the UN to rub shoulders with world leaders and pose for photos. She is there to save the world."

Saw this posted all over Facebook, this is the bollocxxk that annoys me, virtue signalling sh1te.

https://www.joe.ie/politics/ryan-tubridys-comments-greta-thunberg-whole-new-low-682831

On the other hand I saw this video featuring Greta, well made, easy to follow, no screaming or scaremongering, kids of any age could watch this and make the link between looking after nature =good.

https://youtu.be/w9olVKZd8OQ

Micky 32

SafeSurfer wrote: »

And it won’t make any difference.

It will to our pockets.

SafeSurfer

Micky 32 wrote: »

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://streamable.com/w4sdx

Michael Jackson tried to make a difference, and even he couldn't, Greta has no chance.

I think she will, with her help and her friends we'll be paying 10 euro a litre for fuel and a flight to New York will probably cost 5k. It will be a rich mans world.

And it won’t make any difference.

Micky 32

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://streamable.com/w4sdx

Michael Jackson tried to make a difference, and even he couldn't, Greta has no chance.

I think she will, with her help and her friends we'll be paying 10 euro a litre for fuel and a flight to New York will probably cost 5k. It will be a rich mans world.

Veritas Libertas

weldoninhio wrote: »

So as I said, no evidence, just theories and predictions. You’ve proved exactly what I was saying hahahahaha.

I think the only thing you've proven is your inability to comprehend the meaning of the world 'theory' in a scientific sense.

If you also think gravity is just a theory why not try stepping outside the window and flying up :pac:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Theory does not mean 'guess' in a scientific sense.

You also left out the most important part of that paragraph that you quoted:

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

You are proving to be disingenuous...

BorneTobyWilde

https://streamable.com/8m6cl

Jackson started the quest for change in the 80's , and it changed nothing even with all his power. I admire her stance, but it will not change a thing until the old farts that are in power all over the world are long gone.

The One Doctor

She's being used as a cult figure for the climate change movement. She's going to break and it will not be pretty. Her parents are to blame to allow her to be used in this way for media attention. She'll be affected for life by this circus. This is also bad press for those with ASD.

Gaoth Laidir

If you remove the subject matter for a minute and focus just on people's actions, this looks for all intents and purposes exactly like a cult religion taking shape. Masses of frenzied brainwashed followers (those thick kids) following a sick evangelist (GT), who, I might add, will be making quite a killing on the huge social media following she's been amassing. Look at those huge American religious gatherings with idiots running around speaking in tongues while your man with the mike outs the demons. It's exactly the same. And everyone's falling for it, everyone.

Fr_Dougal

She had quit school due to her mental health issues, this whole climate change malarkey came after she had dropped out.

Looks like she’s trying to rewrite the past by blaming everything now on climate change...lost childhood indeed.

He parents should recognise that pushing her into this climate change campaign is having a serious effect on her mental health, she looks as if she’s going to have a breakdown.

SafeSurfer

KyussB wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I’m not surprised seeing how it’s not going to cost taxpayers a penny. The government can just shake the magic money tree and roll over the debt without having to spend a cent in tax on servicing it.
Isn’t that what you believe?

You say "magic money tree" as if the concept of money being created from nothing is ridiculous or farcical - which shows how clueless you are about economics and money, as that is precisely how money is created all the time - 'magicked' from thin air, whenever banks give out loans, through double-entry accounting.
You must think we still live in the Gold Standard or something - with money being backed up by physical currency - something which hasn't been the case in major economies for almost 100 years...

That - people holding economic views which are a century out of date - still raving about non-existant Communist conspiracies etc. - is the level of idiocy encountered among climate change deniers.

You are the one claiming taxation isn’t used to service the national debt.

It underlined the danger of thinking you understand debt economics after watching a couple of YouTube videos on the Green New Deal and some conspiracy nonsense about the Fed.

I’ll ask you again.

Does the €5.2 billion a year it costs to service the Irish national debt come in part from taxation. Yes or no?

SafeSurfer

BarryD2 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The Chinese government has told its citizens they can only have one child before and could do so again. Now they see an aging population and high dependency a problem so are encouraging more kids.

That would wash out eventually and the relative proportions of the population would even out. But seriously instead of rearranging the deckchairs, maybe people here should be advocating for less children and shorter life spans. Reduce the human population in this carbon demanding western world?

War and epidemics like the flu used to reduce our numbers. But longer life spans are now the norm and I suspect many people would object strongly if we limited the number of children born. It's measures like this though that would have a real impact.

Sounds like a dystopian future like Logan’s Run. I’ll take my chance with warmer weather thank you very much.

Calhoun

Sean.3516 wrote: »

She’s had issues other than autism, OCD, depression, that’s according to her own mother.

Knowles’s statement wasn’t inaccurate.

It more than likely wasn't inaccurate but the funny thing about communication is how you say it matters as much as what you say.

KyussB

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I’m not surprised seeing how it’s not going to cost taxpayers a penny. The government can just shake the magic money tree and roll over the debt without having to spend a cent in tax on servicing it.
Isn’t that what you believe?

You say "magic money tree" as if the concept of money being created from nothing is ridiculous or farcical - which shows how clueless you are about economics and money, as that is precisely how money is created all the time - 'magicked' from thin air, whenever banks give out loans, through double-entry accounting.

You must think we still live in the Gold Standard or something - with money being backed up by physical currency - something which hasn't been the case in major economies for almost 100 years...

That - people holding economic views which are a century out of date - still raving about non-existant Communist conspiracies etc. - is the level of idiocy encountered among climate change deniers.

splinter65

Tony EH wrote: »

From 0:14 doesn't look that stable. :pac:

He was invited to speak at a uni in the US by the uni Republican club.
It was a free event but ticketed.
The large socialist club in the uni who want diversity and free speech and safe spaces for all decided that they didn’t think people should be able to go to hear knowles speak.
So they plotted a “surprise” protest at the event which backfired on them when he was alerted to the plot before the event started.
What are you looking at that indicates poor mental health on his behalf? I don’t see it.

Tell me how

Sean.3516 wrote: »

She’s had issues other than autism, OCD, depression, that’s according to her own mother.

Knowles’s statement wasn’t inaccurate.

She had issues in the past. He implied she currently has them.
Mental illness is not something you forever identify as having just because you suffered at one point.