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

is_that_so

joe40 wrote: »

There is no point hanging on that one aspect (the 10 year thing) to negate everything that was said.
As pointed out loads of time Greta is not delivering any new message she is not claiming to have any special insight.
It is simply asking world leaders to take heed of the warnings from the scientists, especially as contained in the IPCC report.
You have one scientist critical of one aspect of her speech. That is not enough to disregard everything.

Unless of course one was looking for an excuse to disregard everything.

Warnings about climate change have been around a long time and largely falling on deaf ears. A bit of urgency and alarmism are needed. This is a serious issue facing humanity, how we are currently living is not sustainable.

There are genuine concerns from some people about Greta's welfare, but a lot of so called concern is just an excuse to shut down the overall thrust of her message. (which is nothing new by the way but just reaching a wide audience)

If she has no insights then why listen to her? There are enough insights out there already. The thrust of her message is listen to the scientists. Some might argue that we can skip the middle woman. While she's entitled to say what she wants that 10 year thing is wrong and a red flag that does need attention drawn to it, minor as it is.

topper75

joe40 wrote: »

...

There are genuine concerns from some people about Greta's welfare, but a lot of so called concern is just an excuse to shut down the overall thrust of her message. (which is nothing new by the way but just reaching a wide audience)

I'd never seek to SHUT DOWN anybody's message. But I'm damned if anyone is allowed to stop me CHALLENGING or QUESTIONING the message, regardless of whether it is delivered by a kid or a coffin dodger. I really fear that lack of questions. Because history plainly shows - that is where the ****-ups lie. "It is the Jews' fault see!" "Oh, OK".

Getting back to Greta's eh message - what did she mean by the teary 'you have stolen my childhood'? Did some supercell wreck her house? Did she get viciously sunburned. The hype language is so dodgy.

joe40

topper75 wrote: »

I'd never seek to SHUT DOWN anybody's message. But I'm damned if anyone is allowed to stop me CHALLENGING or QUESTIONING the message, regardless of whether it is delivered by a kid or a coffin dodger. I really fear that lack of questions. Because history plainly shows - that is where the ****-ups lie. "It is the Jews' fault see!" "Oh, OK".

Getting back to Greta's eh message - what did she mean by the teary 'you have stolen my childhood'? Did some supercell wreck her house? Did she get viciously sunburned. The hype language is so dodgy.

No one is trying to stop you or anyone else from disagreeing with what is been said by the scientists and the IPCC about Climate change.

Plenty of people, including the most powerful person on the planet, disregard the scientific consensus about climate change.

Where is the "lack of questions" coming from.

AtomicHorror

1970s
Scientists: We have a hypothesis that CO2 emissions may cause global warming.
Politicians: Well, I saw a newspaper headline that says the world is cooling.

1990s
Scientists: The evidence now supports the hypothesis that CO2 emissions causes global warming. If we take action now, we can avert it.
Politicians: Well not so long ago, you told us the world was cooling!

2000s
Scientists: The evidence confirms with 97% probability that CO2 emissions causes global warming, which is driving climate change. If we take action now, we can avert it.
Politicians: Climate change is a hoax. Ten years ago you were talking about "global warming", and before that it was "global cooling". Silly boffins.

2010s
Scientists: The evidence confirms with 99% probability that CO2 emissions causes climate change. If we take action now, we can limit it, but not avert it.
Politicians: Climate change is real but it's not caused by humans.

2019
Scientists: The evidence confirms with 99.9% probability that CO2 emissions causes climate change. We have to take immediate action to prevent the worst possible outcomes.
Politicians: Climate change is real... and maybe it might be a little bit caused by humans, but there's nothing we can do to stop it!
Greta: Listen to what you have been told by experts for the last 50 years.
Politicians: WHO THE FU

[Deleted User]

I'd liked to personally apologise to Greta for stealing her childhood. I put a milk carton in the black bin instead of the green one two weeks ago. I also drove to the shop to get more milk instead of going on an e-scooter.

KyussB

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

When you say 'we', if you mean Ireland then it is achievable though pointless. If you mean humanity, then there is a major problem in that there are many countries with large or burgeoning populations whose people are not aware of climate change or do not understand it.

Even worse, there are countries with large populations whose people are fully aware of climate change but choose to elect climate change deniers. Trump's America being a prime example.

It is only when tipping point has been passed, and the effects of climate change is on people's own doorsteps, that there will be a concerted effort. That will be deckchairs on the Titanic time.

Well, by 'we' I mean global - but at a minimum level, it has the be EU-wide for us - because the economic system the EU/Euro has built, has very critical and very specific political/economic restraints, that make it it pretty much impossible to arrest our climate emissions alone, without breaking EU rules to do it (so, those rules need to change/be-discarded).

So, unfortunately the economic reform has to come first - before a big enough Green New Deal style response becomes possible (which imo has to go a lot further than the template US version). That's a very high barrier to action.

My view, is that leading by example (on a continental scale, that is), with the right R&D and technological development (the fruits of which will ease the way for all other nations), will create the political pressure needed elsewhere in the world, to spur the same or similar level of efforts.

The problem with climate change, is there won't be a tipping point visible to the average person - it's a boiling frog type situation:

The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of sinister threats that arise gradually rather than suddenly.

We have already passed tipping points, and it is already too late to avoid damage from climate change - arguably we are fighting to engage in 'damage control', more than prevention - which makes things even more urgent.

is_that_so

AtomicHorror wrote: »

1970s
Scientists: We have a hypothesis that CO2 emissions may cause global warming.
Politicians: Well, I saw a newspaper headline that says the world is cooling.

1990s
Scientists: The evidence now supports the hypothesis that CO2 emissions causes global warming. If we take action now, we can avert it.
Politicians: Well not so long ago, you told us the world was cooling!

2000s
Scientists: The evidence confirms with 97% probability that CO2 emissions causes global warming, which is driving climate change. If we take action now, we can avert it.
Politicians: Climate change is a hoax. Ten years ago you were talking about "global warming", and before that it was "global cooling". Silly boffins.

2010s
Scientists: The evidence confirms with 99% probability that CO2 emissions causes climate change. If we take action now, we can limit it, but not avert it.
Politicians: Climate change is real but it's not caused by humans.

2019
Scientists: The evidence confirms with 99.9% probability that CO2 emissions causes climate change. We have to take immediate action to prevent the worst possible outcomes.
Politicians: Climate change is real... and maybe it might be a little bit caused by humans, but there's nothing we can do to stop it!
Greta: Listen to what you have been told by experts for the last 50 years.
Politicians: WHO THE FU

Did this minor event pass you by?
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris_en

Or this one?
https://www.unenvironment.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol

IIRC , it was politicians that got these done.

AtomicHorror

weldoninhio wrote: »

Cut all financial and medical aid to overseas countries. Stop all immigration from third world countries. Ship dangerous criminals to third world countries. We wouldn’t have to cull anyone, natural selection would take care of it.

Or we could try some sanity rather than histrionics. Fund sex education and family planning education. Fund free or affordable contraception. Provide resources for women at risk. Fund abortion services.

And in the developed world, have fewer kids. Educate people on the impact of population growth, encourage couples to stop at 2 children.

is_that_so wrote: »

If she has no insights then why listen to her? There are enough insights out there already. The thrust of her message is listen to the scientists. Some might argue that we can skip the middle woman.

Evidently not, since scientists have been warning about this to varying degrees for decades and have been largely ignored. We need new voices who can bring focus on what has already been communicated.

I'm sure Greta knew what it might cost her personally, but she has tried anyway.

AtomicHorror

is_that_so wrote: »

Did this minor event pass you by?
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris_en

Or this one?
https://www.unenvironment.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol

IIRC , it was politicians that got these done.

Yes, under significant political pressure they have done the minimum, said what people wanted to hear, and largely failed to effect any meaningful change.

We should of course applaud any positive developments- because apparently applause is what they live for- but we can also apply more pressure. Carrot and stick.

begsbyOnaTrain

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm sure Greta knew what it might cost her personally, but she has tried anyway.

Cost?! She's set up for life mate.

is_that_so

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Or we could try some sanity rather than histrionics. Fund sex education and family planning education. Fund free or affordable contraception. Provide resources for women at risk. Fund abortion services.

And in the developed world, have fewer kids. Educate people on the impact of population growth, encourage couples to stop at 2 children.

Evidently not, since scientists have been warning about this to varying degrees for decades and have been largely ignored. We need new voices who can bring focus on what has already been communicated.

I'm sure Greta knew what it might cost her personally, but she has tried anyway.

I think we've more than our fair share of voices, ever more strident these days. Voices, especially angry ones, really do not provide solutions and rarely force any action. Actions are what interest me and there will be thousands of little ones on the road to ultimate solutions. I'm not a fan of this end of the world as we know it - it's really a modern echo of the past, duck and cover, nuclear annihilation, WWIII etc. but I do buy into let's get a plan going and implement it. I don't think that a voice like Greta enables that but countless others do and that's fine.

is_that_so

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes, under significant political pressure they have done the minimum, said what people wanted to hear, and largely failed to effect any meaningful change.

We should of course applaud any positive developments- because apparently applause is what they live for- but we can also apply more pressure. Carrot and stick.

And yet you didn't! That is what is called disingenous.

AtomicHorror

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

Cost?! She's set up for life mate.

Both financially and in terms of relentless abuse, yes. Not sure what your point is. She's wrong because of her motives?

JJayoo

I want to see Greta organise a tree planting day, all these passionate students out on a Saturday in December in the pissing rain, actually doing something practical. Every Saturday and Sunday for the month of December, just a few hours in the morning 9am - 1pm.

begsbyOnaTrain

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Both financially and in terms of relentless abuse, yes. Not sure what your point is. She's wrong because of her motives?

Just laughing at this "costing" her anything. Seems like a pretty smart move to me. She'll have her pick of universities (if that's what she wants), career wise is sorted, will be absolutely set up for life and has an adoring base.

Sucks that she gets online trolling. I'm not aware of any celeb which doesn't though.

If I were her, I just wouldn't read the twitter replies (or get an assistant to filter them) and get on with my life.

AtomicHorror

is_that_so wrote: »

And yet you didn't! That is what is called disingenous.

You can say "dishonest". Five dollar words don't make an argument. Here's another five dollar word; "hyperbole". The point of my argument was that the scientific community has been issuing increasingly dire warnings for many decades and getting little traction. A young lady comes into the public eye who has captured the anger and frustration of those who were listening, and yet the reaction is outrage. Like a child who has been asked calmly to behave 5 times but is now having a tantrum because mammy raised her voice on the 6th.

But by all means, you should focus on unimportant parts. Maybe I got my dates wrong, or misspelled "dishonest". Maybe it's not perfect and that can be used as an excuse to dismiss it all without addressing the point.

gozunda

joe40 wrote: »

greta ... message ... scientists ...

You do know I didn't bring it up yeah? And in this instance the issue is the idiotic constant repetition that 'greta wants us to listen to the scientists' used as if its some holy mantra.

It is clearly relevant for the reason the child greta had obviously not listened to the the IPCC scientists (as is pointed out) or even understood the contents of the IPCC report. So yes it is relevant as it completely undermines that argument.

The whole premise is at best idiotic. She is a kid used as a figurehead. Yeah we get the publicity angle - and it's now backfiring unfortunately on her personally but also on those around her who should know better.

AtomicHorror

JJayoo wrote: »

I want to see Greta organise a tree planting day, all these passionate students out on a Saturday in December in the pissing rain, actually doing something practical. Every Saturday and Sunday for the month of December, just a few hours in the morning 9am - 1pm.

I think what you want is to create goalposts that if met you will claim would convince you of her sincerity, and then move them forever.

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

You do know I didn't bring it up yeah? And in this instance the issue is the idiotic constant repetition that 'greta wants us to listen to the scientists' used as if its some holy mantra.

It is clearly relevant for the reason the child greta had obviously not listened to the the IPCC scientists (as is pointed out) or even understood the contents of the IPCC report. So yes it is relevant as it completely undermines that argument.

The whole premise is at best idiotic. She is a kid used as a figurehead. Yeah we get the publicity angle - and it's now backfiring unfortunately on her personally but also on those around her who should know better.

It's not a mantra just an accurate reflection of the facts.
You can cherry pick all you want, and outside of a few loud angry voices on the internet, and that bastion of impartiality and journalism - Fox news, there is no evidence of any "backfiring"

JJayoo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think what you want is .

Best way to make your comment redundant is above, why don't you think for yourself instead of others

gozunda

joe40 wrote: »

I think we should think of Ireland acting in tandem with the EU, which is a large bloc. Our efforts should be seen in a wider EU context...

Ok let's go with that with the issue being moved to being dealt with on a European level.

Currently Ireland is being penalised by the EU for producing food consumed elsewhere in the EU. And rather that the EU recognising the important role Ireland plays in producing low input agricultural foodstuffs for the whole of the EU - we get fined. That is the current situation even though other countries within the EU are directly benefitting from EU countries like Ireland bearing the brunt of any associated carbon emissions. Ok lets fix that ...

But wait - now we have the EU seeking to further offshore its carbon emissions by importing foodstuffs in this case beef from Brazil - a country at the heart of the rainforest destruction debacle and increased carbon emissions.

Held up to scrutiny the main movers of this large 'bloc' appears not working in 'tandem rather they are using the issue to engage in some wonderful creative accounting and screwing other counties to boot. Back to the drawing board I reckon ...

joe40

gozunda wrote: »

Ok let's go with that with the issue being moved to being dealt with on a European level.

Currently Ireland is being penalised by the EU for producing food consumed elsewhere in the EU. And rather that the EU recognising the important role Ireland plays in producing low input agricultural foodstuffs for the whole of the EU - we get fined. That is the current situation even though other countries within the EU are directly benefitting from other EU countries like Ireland bearing the brunt of any associated carbon emissions. Ok lets fix that ...

But wait - now we have the EU seeking to further offshore its carbon emissions by importing foodstuffs in this case beef from Brazil - a country at the heart of the rainforest destruction debacle and increased carbon emissions.

Held up to scrutiny the main movers of this large 'bloc' appears not working in 'tandem rather they are using the issue to engage in some wonderful creative accounting and screwing other counties to boot. Back to the drawing board I reckon ...

I can't argue with any of that. To be honest I don't know enough about the details of this deal but as described it does sound nonsensical from an environmental point of view.

We as a member state, albeit a small one, can do our best to ensure good practise in the EU.

But because the EU in this instance are not doing the right thing, (I'll take your read on it) that is all the more reason for world leaders, including the EU, to take this issue seriously. A shift in public opinion from whatever source may help this.

AtomicHorror

JJayoo wrote: »

Best way to make your comment redundant is above, why don't you think for yourself instead of others

I'm confused. You're accusing me of thinking for others? That would be exhausting- some of you are really not pulling your weight.

The point stands unaddressed, as usual. Deflect away by all means.

padd b1975

She's been nominated for the Nobel peace prize!!

randd1

padd b1975 wrote: »

She's been nominated for the Nobel peace prize!!

I am shocked. I could never see that one coming.

gormdubhgorm

padd b1975 wrote: »

She's been nominated for the Nobel peace prize!!

I looked up the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates

It seems very political in it's nature dressed up as something else.
After all it is decided by a select group of Norwegians with a certain outlook on life.

Poor auld Gandhi was nominated a few times but never got it.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/mahatma-gandhi-the-missing-laureate

Then when he was assassinated in 1948 it was declared there was no suitable living candidate!

Barrack Obama won the prize in 2009 for basically just getting elected President of the USA. Even Obama himself found getting the award 'surprising'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8299824.stm

There was disquiet after the event in 2009.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/15/obama-nobel-peace-prize-norway-rebuke-war

I view it a lot like the oscars/ mtv awards / gaa all-star awards it has little to do with merit. But who they know and whether they conform to the narrow outlook of the judges - and if it is a good political move.

gozunda

padd b1975 wrote: »

She's been nominated for the Nobel peace prize!!

Yup saw that. Interestingly the previous incumbent who was awarded the prize for similar advocacy was Al Gore. Greta has also cited Gore as as one of her chief influencers

The unfortunate thing is that many of his ideas on sea level rise etc have been shown to be spectacularly inflated - making him the poster boy of those who point out that populous advocacy is not always the best means of persuasion.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

Interesting article on some of the pros and cons here ...

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/a-nobel-prize-for-sweden-s-greta-thunberg-/5098257.html

Tony EH

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Or we could try some sanity rather than histrionics. Fund sex education and family planning education. Fund free or affordable contraception. Provide resources for women at risk. Fund abortion services.

And in the developed world, have fewer kids. Educate people on the impact of population growth, encourage couples to stop at 2 children.

Ah, but you see, that would mean that all those brown, yellow and black people wouldn't be killed off then.

Tony EH

gozunda wrote: »

Ok let's go with that with the issue being moved to being dealt with on a European level.

Currently Ireland is being penalised by the EU for producing food consumed elsewhere in the EU. And rather that the EU recognising the important role Ireland plays in producing low input agricultural foodstuffs for the whole of the EU - we get fined. That is the current situation even though other countries within the EU are directly benefitting from EU countries like Ireland bearing the brunt of any associated carbon emissions. Ok lets fix that ...

But wait - now we have the EU seeking to further offshore its carbon emissions by importing foodstuffs in this case beef from Brazil - a country at the heart of the rainforest destruction debacle and increased carbon emissions.

Held up to scrutiny the main movers of this large 'bloc' appears not working in 'tandem rather they are using the issue to engage in some wonderful creative accounting and screwing other counties to boot. Back to the drawing board I reckon ...

And some people wonder why Greta Thunberg would angrily say "How dare you..." & "Listen to the scientists" to world leaders at a UN summit on climate change. Those same world leaders and businesses that speak out of both sides of their mouths on the issue.

weldoninhio

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Or we could try some sanity rather than histrionics. Fund sex education and family planning education. Fund free or affordable contraception. Provide resources for women at risk. Fund abortion services.

And in the developed world, have fewer kids. Educate people on the impact of population growth, encourage couples to stop at 2 children.

I thought it was an emergency?

How long will it take, to plan, fund, implement the above, and if it doesn't work then what? We would continue to be overpopulated. Allow natural selection to thin the herd. Could work in the western world too, no antibiotics for a year until a scientifically determined number of people have expired.