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

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She's not important. The publicity she is generating is important. The personal attacks on her are meaningless.

I agree she is not important but more importantly the fact is that not all publicity is good publicity. Where it is obvious that publicity is derived from her personal fears (as in the case of her doomsday rantings etc) or where the trip to the US ends up seen as little more than a PR stunt - then such publicity is more likley to have a negative effect and destroy any gains which may have been made to date.

What is being omitted is the genuine criticism of the circus which has grown up around this teenager and ultimately the polarisation of all relevant issues as a result.

easypazz

smelly sock wrote: »

How do you know though? Were you around 50000 years ago? Do you have a time machine

Scientists are able to drill bores deep through ice sheets and glean information going back thousands of years., so yes, the technology is there and being used to build a full picture of what is happening in the longer term.

Professor Moriarty

is_that_so wrote: »

As far as we know!

Gotta trust someone.

is_that_so

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree, the science behind climate change research is correct.

As far as we know!

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm sorry, but is this sneering at politicians and showing disregard for democracy?

Given how it is we who elect them, yes.

For the love of god, if I said I was fond of a cup of tea I'd be accused of demeaning and insulting coffee growers.

Politicians are the ones who will have to get it done. None of the people you list will.

Professor Moriarty

is_that_so wrote: »

I'm not disputing the purpose of it but its aim is to be satisfied about the standard of the science and so far as we know the science appears correct.

I agree, the science behind climate change research is correct.

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

In your sneering at politicians above.

I'm sorry, but is this sneering at politicians and showing disregard for democracy?

Tell me how wrote: »

I think the number of people who would suggest they trust democratically elected politicians above peer reviewed scientific research would actually be quite small, but you are entitled to do so should you wish.

Do you therefore agree with the elected politicians who have agreed with Greta's view that something needs to be done.

For the love of god, if I said I was fond of a cup of tea I'd be accused of demeaning and insulting coffee growers.

Professor Moriarty

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

My point though is that its not happening nearly as much as you initially suggest.

I wasn't talking about your name. about 15 posts up, she was called creepy. I couldn't be bothered trawling back further.

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm sorry, what?

Where have I questioned democracy?

In your sneering at politicians above.

is_that_so

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, I have encountered too many peer reviewed articles that challenge the existence of climate change. In fact, none.

I'm not disputing the purpose of it but its aim is to be satisfied about the standard of the science and so far as we know the science appears correct.

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

No, peer-reviewed is good but you seem to have trouble accepting other good things like democracy with all its warts!

I'm sorry, what?

Where have I questioned democracy?

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes but is there a preferred alternative in your view?

No, peer-reviewed is good but you seem to have trouble accepting other good things like democracy with all its warts!

Professor Moriarty

is_that_so wrote: »

Sure, but not necessarily conclusive just that it meets the standard. There are still issues with the reproducibility of some studies.

Well, I have encountered too many peer reviewed articles that challenge the existence of climate change. In fact, none.

Tell me how

is_that_so wrote: »

Sure, but not necessarily conclusive just that it meets the standard. There are still issues with the reproducibility of studies.

Yes but is there a preferred alternative in your view?

is_that_so

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Peer reviewed research is the most reliable research.

Sure, but not necessarily conclusive just that it meets the standard. There are still issues with the reproducibility of some studies.

Veritas Libertas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wonderful name. Kudos.

My point though is that its not happening nearly as much as you initially suggest.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Tell me how wrote: »

What she has said is that the solutions which are needed have not yet been invented and that people need to unite and empower scientists in order to help come up with solutions.

What is knee jerk or inappropriate about that.

The solutions I would think are knee jerk are not exclusive to her. For example some want to limit or ban air travel. That will be a hard sell to many, limiting it's support and impacting the overall environmental message.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

What she has said is that the solutions which are needed have not yet been invented and that people need to unite and empower scientists in order to help come up with solutions.

What is knee jerk or inappropriate about that.

"you have stolen my dreams" is a far cry from your post

Professor Moriarty

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

One personal attack in this thread by a poster named: Mongfinder General.

Wonderful name. Kudos.

Professor Moriarty

is_that_so wrote: »

From Berkely explanation on peer review.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

Peer reviewed research is the most reliable research.

Veritas Libertas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She's not important. The publicity she is generating is important. The personal attacks on her are meaningless.

One personal attack in this thread by a poster named: Mongfinder General.

is_that_so

Tell me how wrote: »

I think the number of people who would suggest they trust democratically elected politicians above peer reviewed scientific research would actually be quite small, but you are entitled to do so should you wish.

Do you therefore agree with the elected politicians who have agreed with Greta's view that something needs to be done.

From a Berkely explanation on peer review lest people imagine it has Papal infallibility!

Peer-reviewed work isn't necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

Tell me how

Lilliana Quick Group wrote: »

In fairness I doubt that many people that dislike this girl are climate change deniers.

It's like many people that dislike Trump do not also dislike the USA.

What gets me about this whole situation is the drama, anger, panic and knee jerk proposed solutions being mistaken for bravery, leadership and sustainable realistic solutions.

It's another example where drama and populism drive the narrative. Thurberg may have an issue with Trump but they are more alike imo than she realises.

What she has said is that the solutions which are needed have not yet been invented and that people need to unite and empower scientists in order to help come up with solutions.

What is knee jerk or inappropriate about that.

Professor Moriarty

Lilliana Quick Group wrote: »

In fairness I doubt that many people that dislike this girl are climate change deniers.

It's like many people that dislike Trump do not also dislike the USA.

What gets me about this whole situation is the drama, anger, panic and knee jerk proposed solutions being mistaken for bravery, leadership and sustainable realistic solutions.

It's another example where drama and populism drive the narrative. Thurberg may have an issue with Trump but they are more alike imo than she realises.

She's not important. The publicity she is generating is important. The personal attacks on her are meaningless.

um7y1h83ge06nx

In fairness I doubt that many people that dislike this girl are climate change deniers.

It's like many people that dislike Trump do not also dislike the USA.

What gets me about this whole situation is the drama, anger, panic and knee jerk proposed solutions being mistaken for bravery, leadership and sustainable realistic solutions.

It's another example where drama and populism drive the narrative. Thurberg may have an issue with Trump but they are more alike imo than she realises.

Professor Moriarty

I find it fascinating that people who deny climate change can actually read and write. Never ceases to amaze.

weldoninhio

smelly sock wrote: »

How do you know though? Were you around 50000 years ago? Do you have a time machine

Did you not see all those ancient cave paintings with the grumpy teen pointing at a thermometer while scowling at her elders??

Tell me how

smelly sock wrote: »

Political world leaders who were democratically elected.

A lot of these science boffins are paid directly by the cult like eco maniacs.

Thread carefully.

I think the number of people who would suggest they trust democratically elected politicians above peer reviewed scientific research would actually be quite small, but you are entitled to do so should you wish.

Do you therefore agree with the elected politicians who have agreed with Greta's view that something needs to be done.

Veritas Libertas

smelly sock wrote: »

How do you know though? Were you around 50000 years ago? Do you have a time machine

Astronomical spectroscopy over the last 40 years indicates less energy coming from the earth's surface relating to the energy associated with co2.

Coupled with the extra energy detected on the earth's makes for clear empirical evidence.

The Spectral Signature of Recent Climate Change

smelly sock

Tell me how wrote: »

Of course....

Who do you trust?

Political world leaders who were democratically elected.

A lot of these science boffins are paid directly by the cult like eco maniacs.

Thread carefully.