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

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

what mask,
is there anything in social justice, climate justice etc... that doesn't hand a minority group an advantage at the expense of white people ?

It's amazing that you see people being treated equally as equating to the expense of white people.

How do you think that acting on social justice or climate justice is giving a minority group an advantage?

Professor Moriarty

Overheal wrote: »

If those countries perish should all the human beings inside its borders just sort of die off in droves or something?

You're not 'forced' to be multicultural, it is however something that came about from WWII, when it was discovered that unchecked hegemony could lead to tens millions of deaths.

You might be wasting your sweetness on the desert air. Speaking of which, Ireland will be fine. The problem will be all those pesky foreigners refusing to stay and die in their desertified countries.

Gaoth Laidir

joseywhales

The reason a child is doing it, is because people won't listen to adults.

I've been trying to plan my beachfront property for years, very hard to accurately predict how far above sea level I need to buy, also who knows what local governments will do.

SJW Lover

baaba maal wrote: »

The issue isn't Greta- it is climate change, so I imagine those that consider climate change a threat and think the Green Party is the right choice to try to fix the problem probably will vote for them. This is how politics works apparently.

My point is all of the white knights on this thread will never vote Green. It'll be Fianna Fail / Fianna Gael depending on who your daddy told you to vote for. But hey, look at me, i'm with Greta!

HorrorScope

joseywhales wrote: »

The reason a child is doing it, is because people won't listen to adults.

I've been trying to plan my beachfront property for years, very hard to accurately predict how far above sea level I need to buy, also who knows what local governments will do.

No self respecting adult is going to listen a parrot like petulant child in the slightest, pretty **** logic there if you ask me

Mike9832

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Seriously what planet do you live on where white people are f*cked over? You can't be that ignorant of reality?

We might listen if it were actually about the climate, but it is about consolidation of power and wealth.

They've it all wrong anyway

Pollution is manageable.

Climate change is a natural process. It happens constantly, we can't even predict the weather for a week and we can somehow predict earth temperature years and years into the future, yeah.

Honesly, wake up people

Pollution change is how they should market it, that's what I think

Sounds better

joseywhales

Personally I like to listen to everyone, I don't see an issue with her or her message, her motives seem sound to me, I think she believes what she is saying.

If you see the anger she has received, it seems disproportionate for a 16 year old who is passionate about improving the world, whether you believe she is correct or not.

The strategy reminds me of a scene in To kill a mockingbird, where the child de-escalated the probable lynching of her dad Atticus, you present people with an unassailable innocent messenger, so that they listen to the message because their positions are so entrenched that they can't hear contradictory ideas anymore.

joseywhales

I do agree, they should not conflate climate change with economic system change, two completely separate issues that can be tackled independently.

I think she is a very impressive child, when i was 16 I could not do that, I know that much.

is_that_so

joseywhales wrote: »

Personally I like to listen to everyone, I don't see an issue with her or her message, her motives seem sound to me, I think she believes what she is saying.

If you see the anger she has received, it seems disproportionate for a 16 year old who is passionate about improving the world, whether you believe she is correct or not.

The strategy reminds me of a scene in To kill a mockingbird, where the child de-escalated the probable lynching of her dad Atticus, you present people with an unassailable innocent messenger, so that they listen to the message because their positions are so entrenched that they can't hear contradictory ideas anymore.

The reaction and attention are predictable. Twitter melts down half a dozen times a day over the slightest provocation and outrage is a currency. It happens to anyone who becomes famous. Judging from her speech there's not a whole lot of de-escalating effort going on.

SJW Lover

joseywhales wrote: »

you present people with an unassailable innocent messenger, so that they listen to the message because their positions are so entrenched that they can't hear contradictory ideas anymore.

I think you make a good point. Who do you think has presented her?

is_that_so

joseywhales wrote: »

I do agree, they should not conflate climate change with economic system change, two completely separate issues that can be tackled independently.

I think she is a very impressive child, when i was 16 I could not do that, I know that much.

The problem is the general lack of interest of those prone to causes, in separating them in the first place. There are some who embrace the chaos on all sides and would love social media to be the dominant form of communication.

Professor Moriarty

joseywhales wrote: »

Personally I like to listen to everyone, I don't see an issue with her or her message, her motives seem sound to me, I think she believes what she is saying.

If you see the anger she has received, it seems disproportionate for a 16 year old who is passionate about improving the world, whether you believe she is correct or not.

The strategy reminds me of a scene in To kill a mockingbird, where the child de-escalated the probable lynching of her dad Atticus, you present people with an unassailable innocent messenger, so that they listen to the message because their positions are so entrenched that they can't hear contradictory ideas anymore.

And here's a direct quote from To Kill a Mockingbird:

"People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for"

CrankyHaus

joseywhales wrote: »

If you see the anger she has received, it seems disproportionate for a 16 year old who is passionate about improving the world, whether you believe she is correct or not.

It's a two way street though. Have a read back over this thread and you'll see reams of abuse for anyone voicing any disagreement with her position.

Apparently they're misogynists, paedophiles, would have been fascists if they were around in the 30s, middle aged male underachievers, to take just a few examples.
We got the same in the Irish Times from Jennifer O'Connell yesterday where she dismissed any criticisms based on what those criticising had between their legs rather than the content of their arguments.
I can't be the only one who sees the similarities to religion back before it was acceptable to criticise it.

joseywhales

SJW Lover wrote: »

I think you make a good point. Who do you think has presented her?

I haven't looked into it, I was already sold on reducing carbon emissions, so I can't claim to be impartial to the message.

Cynically, in terms of who would gain from her campaign, not too many really. Like if you are highly invested in green industry sure, they are hardly comparable with automotive and oil/gas in terms of clout. I actually think that her privileged family, genuinely are doing this to encourage her personal development and because they care about the issue.

Its all for nothing, humans can't comprehend a problem until it is literally affecting them personally and they can see cause and effect. We will adapt when it's too late but aren't going to all die or something, it's not a doomsday, just a much ****ter world, particularly bad if you are not wealthy and don't live in a temperate climate.

China for example seem like unlikely leaders in environmental issues but they have invested recently due to necessity, after choking on smog and being hit by massive sand storms for a few decades.

Veritas Libertas

weldoninhio wrote: »

Peer Reviewed Paper

Curry & Lewis paper – Climate models exaggerating up to 45% warming

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

Funny thing is I don't think there are many (bar the AOC supporters) that dispute this kind of science.

Many people are in the ship of,this is happening but not nearly at the rate that is suggested by Greata.

More importantly, you have denied repeatedly in this thread the effect of man-made climate change; upon which this paper is based.

joseywhales

CrankyHaus wrote: »

It's a two way street though. Have a read back over this thread and you'll see reams of abuse for anyone voicing any disagreement with her position.

Apparently they're misogynists, paedophiles, would have been fascists if they were around in the 30s, middle aged male underachievers, to take just a few examples.
We got the same in the Irish Times from Jennifer O'Connell yesterday where she dismissed any criticisms based on what those criticising had between their legs rather than the content of their arguments.
I can't be the only one who sees the similarities to religion back before it was acceptable to criticise it.

There are plenty of people with chips on their shoulder but it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with her obviously. Similar to your examples above, there are people who dismiss her due to age or assumed handicap, people are clowns what can I say?!

The art of argument is gone, it's one emotional logical fallacy after another, not that I am any authority but there seemed to be better social commentary in the past when journalists worked for a small number of reputable media. Proof by popularity seems to be the goal. General population is even worse obviously, I would have loved a philosophy 101 class in secondary school.

Professor Moriarty

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Funny thing is I don't think there are many (bar the AOC supporters) that dispute this kind of science.

Many people are in the ship of,this is happening but not nearly at the rate that is suggested by Greata.

More importantly, you have denied repeatedly in this thread the effect of man-made climate change; upon which this paper is based.

You're wasting your time, they didn't read it.

Professor Moriarty

joseywhales wrote: »

There are plenty of people with chips on their shoulder but it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with her obviously. Similar to your examples above, there are people who dismiss her due to age or assumed handicap, people are clowns what can I say?!

The art of argument is gone, it's one emotional logical fallacy after another, not that I am any authority but there seemed to be better social commentary in the past when journalists worked for a small number of reputable media. Proof by popularity seems to be the goal. General population is even worse obviously, I would have loved a philosophy 101 class in secondary school.

A mandatory year of logic, rhetoric and dialectic would have saved a lot of foolishness on this thread.

is_that_so

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A mandatory year of logic, rhetoric and dialectic would have saved a lot of foolishness on this thread.

Wouldn't help when some posters are permanently wedded to anger and a logic all of their own.

SafeSurfer

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

There are plenty of people with chips on their shoulder but it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with her obviously. Similar to your examples above, there are people who dismiss her due to age or assumed handicap, people are clowns what can I say?!

The art of argument is gone, it's one emotional logical fallacy after another, not that I am any authority but there seemed to be better social commentary in the past when journalists worked for a small number of reputable media. Proof by popularity seems to be the goal. General population is even worse obviously, I would have loved a philosophy 101 class in secondary school.

A mandatory year of logic, rhetoric and dialectic would have saved a lot of foolishness on this thread.

Always with the mandatory.

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

If those countries perish should all the human beings inside its borders just sort of die off in droves or something?

You're not 'forced' to be multicultural, it is however something that came about from WWII, when it was discovered that unchecked hegemony could lead to tens millions of deaths.

I thought we needed less people on the Earth?? Would certainly reduce CO2 output.

weldoninhio

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Funny thing is I don't think there are many (bar the AOC supporters) that dispute this kind of science.

Many people are in the ship of,this is happening but not nearly at the rate that is suggested by Greata.

More importantly, you have denied repeatedly in this thread the effect of man-made climate change; upon which this paper is based.

No I haven’t. I have stated that there is no definitive proof. Not once did I state that it wasn’t happening. You are seeing what you want to see.

Tell me how

weldoninhio wrote: »

I thought we needed less people on the Earth?? Would certainly reduce CO2 output.

Yes and if there were zero people on earth there would be no problem whatsoever, but, most of us are discussing this in terms which at least have some basis in being considered practical.

Veritas Libertas

weldoninhio wrote: »

I thought we needed less people on the Earth?? Would certainly reduce CO2 output.

Open to correction; but I believe this true also

Certainly a case to be made that a lot of the same people that advocate for fixing climate change are also advocating for growing populations.

p1akuw47h5r3it

weldoninhio wrote: »

No I haven’t. I have stated that there is no definitive proof. Not once did I state that it wasn’t happening. You are seeing what you want to see.

What do you mean by definitive proof? What would be definitive proof in your eyes?

Tell me how

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Open to correction; but I believe this true also

Certainly a case to be made that a lot of the same people that advocate for fixing climate change are also advocating for growing populations.

False. I for one have an expectation that the population will increase without suggesting that I want it to happen as such. There is a massive difference.

It is a problem of our society and the need for growing markets, income, taxes etc are linked to the numbers on the planet. I think that that is what Greta was suggesting when she said that what needs to happen needs to be invented because it doesn't exist within our current ways of doing things.

(Also, you could argue that pretty much any problem would be reduced if there were less people, but saying you think a problem needs to be tackled does not automatically mean you think the only solution is a reduction in overall numbers).

Jimmy Garlic

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I can't be the only one who sees the similarities to religion back before it was acceptable to criticise it.

The Catholic church often used child visionaries/prophets to copperfasten obedience.Nearly always young girls too., always with some prediction of doom. Criticising Greta would almost be akin to saying Fatima or Lourdes was a load of horse**** back in 1955

joseywhales

Why wouldn't we want the most people possible to exist who can survive sustainably? If humanity has any purpose then having more humans exist would likely increase the probability of achieving our goals, one example would be just survival. If we can grow in numbers, live sustainably and increase our rate of innovation, then we can survive for longer, increasing our chances to find new host planets for example or just ways to sustain the earth long term. I don't think larger population is a bad thing, I believe wasting talent within the population is a big problem. You know, if we are thinking long term for the species.

Veritas Libertas

Tell me how wrote: »

It is a problem of our society and the need for growing markets, income, taxes etc are linked to the numbers on the planet. I think that that is what Greta was suggesting when she said that what needs to happen needs to be invented because it doesn't exist within our current ways of doing things.

I'm more talking about our incessant need for immigrants to 'pyramid scheme' our pensions.
If someone has to take the hit, why not our generation? Let's take it in the gut so that others won't have the same problem coming after us.

David Attenborough: someone who believes in infinite growth is 'either a madman or an economist'