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

Veritas Libertas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There will be nobody laughing in 200 years.

The Times (London), in 1894, declared “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure,”. This became known as the “Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894″
What was once thought to be an insurmountable threat to humanity’s existence vanished in little over a decade and the entire incident is now a barely remembered footnote in human history

It is an analogy for supposedly insuperable extrapolated problems being rendered moot by the introduction of new technologies.

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You can argue that but you know that’s not all she is doing. She is asking elected leaders to panic. To feel the fear she feels every day which has been debilitating. While making these calls on others to feel fear and panic she has had more exposure than perhaps anybody of her age in the history of civilization. Think about that for a moment.

Is that your issue? With the tone she is using? That is the definition of splitting hairs. How about the message that something needs to be done has been in the news, for many many years, and yet, sufficient action has yet to be taken. Does that not warrant escalating the narrative to try to provoke meaningful action.

In all walks of life, we hear people use terms which literally might be out of place without correction, Greta is one of the ones whose choice of words, is probably closest to being accurate and yet she is being micro-analysed to determine saying 'panic' is excessive. Think about that for a moment.

I have thought about it. Deeply. I don’t believe a messenger whose message is demanding leaders panic should be entertained.

If the opinions of a child tormented by fears of nuclear Armageddon were entertained by world leaders during the Cold War, say during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Where would we be?

Would that “escalate the narrative” enough for you or should cooler heads prevail?

archer22

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You can argue that but you know that’s not all she is doing. She is asking elected leaders to panic. To feel the fear she feels every day which has been debilitating. While making these calls on others to feel fear and panic she has had more exposure than perhaps anybody of her age in the history of civilization. Think about that for a moment.

I don't know why people keep harping on about her age an intelligent committed person is an intelligent committed person regardless of their age.

As a side note to that, bear in mind another teenage girl Joan of Arc is one of France's national heroines....so dismissing someone solely on the grounds of being a teenage girl is not really a MENSA class idea, to put it mildly.

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Is that your issue? With the tone she is using? That is the definition of splitting hairs. How about the message that something needs to be done has been in the news, for many many years, and yet, sufficient action has yet to be taken. Does that not warrant escalating the narrative to try to provoke meaningful action. In all walks of life, we hear people use terms which literally might be out of place without correction, Greta is one of the ones whose choice of words, is probably closest to being accurate and yet she is being micro-analysed to determine saying 'panic' is excessive. Think about that for a moment.

Incorrect. No one is micro-analysing anything nor referring to her 'tone'. As detailed previously - there are number of major red flags which have been identified in her commentaries. These are valid criticisms and have been detailed by many and not just those on this forum. If anyone wishes to continue to deny or ignore that - that of course is their choice. However it neither makes that the correct one by default or by any stretch of the imagination.

SafeSurfer

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

How many 'revolutions' are supported with extensive scientific evidence.

The conversation from the naysayers is continually ignoring the absolute overwhelming evidence, such as it exists, is on the side calling for change.

And as for the post a while ago saying that people may laugh in 200 years at us now getting concerned, will they laugh more at those that used evidence or those that denied its existence.

Because if it's the latter, society is going to take quite the turn.

There will be nobody laughing in 200 years.

Neither of us can know for sure but I am convinced that laughter will still ring out among the streets and corridors of whatever civilization exists in 2219.

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t think it’s fear of her message. It is fear that she is a tool in manipulating people into participating in a revolution that we would rather not be part of and are skeptical of the need for.

How many 'revolutions' are supported with extensive scientific evidence.

The conversation from the naysayers is continually ignoring the absolute overwhelming evidence, such as it exists, is on the side calling for change.

And as for the post a while ago saying that people may laugh in 200 years at us now getting concerned, will they laugh more at those that used evidence or those that denied its existence.

Because if it's the latter, society is going to take quite the turn.

Presenting facts does not mean that people will rush to join a revolution. All the facts showed that a small number of people, the 1%, controlled a hugely disproportionate amount of global wealth. The Occupy Wallstreet Movement spread internationally and grew in number among pledges of not leaving until the revolution occurred. How many are on Wall Street or Dame Street now?

Facts are no guarantee of support or success.

People are naturally conservative. People do not like change except for people with little to lose from a revolution of the current system. Hence large support amongst the idealistic young and much more scepticism from those who stand to lose most in a revolution.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You can argue that but you know that’s not all she is doing. She is asking elected leaders to panic. To feel the fear she feels every day which has been debilitating. While making these calls on others to feel fear and panic she has had more exposure than perhaps anybody of her age in the history of civilization. Think about that for a moment.

Is that your issue? With the tone she is using? That is the definition of splitting hairs. How about the message that something needs to be done has been in the news, for many many years, and yet, sufficient action has yet to be taken. Does that not warrant escalating the narrative to try to provoke meaningful action.

In all walks of life, we hear people use terms which literally might be out of place without correction, Greta is one of the ones whose choice of words, is probably closest to being accurate and yet she is being micro-analysed to determine saying 'panic' is excessive. Think about that for a moment.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

How many 'revolutions' are supported with extensive scientific evidence.

The conversation from the naysayers is continually ignoring the absolute overwhelming evidence, such as it exists, is on the side calling for change.

And as for the post a while ago saying that people may laugh in 200 years at us now getting concerned, will they laugh more at those that used evidence or those that denied its existence.

Because if it's the latter, society is going to take quite the turn.

There will be nobody laughing in 200 years.

SafeSurfer

archer22 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The loathing of Thunberg is astonishing. However the fear expressed by Thunberg is also astonishing. Fear and panic that is seeping into the consciousness of children around the world.

I honestly fear an increasing eco doom based nihilism. I also don’t think that future waves of eco terrorism are unimaginable either given the increasing hero worship of unabomber Theodore Kaczynski.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html

All she is doing is asking governments to listen to the scientists...and if you live in lowlying areas of the world you wouldn't need Greta to make you fearful...that fear is already there, and well justified

You can argue that but you know that’s not all she is doing. She is asking elected leaders to panic. To feel the fear she feels every day which has been debilitating. While making these calls on others to feel fear and panic she has had more exposure than perhaps anybody of her age in the history of civilization. Think about that for a moment.

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t think it’s fear of her message. It is fear that she is a tool in manipulating people into participating in a revolution that we would rather not be part of and are skeptical of the need for.

How many 'revolutions' are supported with extensive scientific evidence.

The conversation from the naysayers is continually ignoring the absolute overwhelming evidence, such as it exists, is on the side calling for change.

And as for the post a while ago saying that people may laugh in 200 years at us now getting concerned, will they laugh more at those that used evidence or those that denied its existence.

Because if it's the latter, society is going to take quite the turn.

archer22

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The loathing of Thunberg is astonishing. However the fear expressed by Thunberg is also astonishing. Fear and panic that is seeping into the consciousness of children around the world.

I honestly fear an increasing eco doom based nihilism. I also don’t think that future waves of eco terrorism are unimaginable either given the increasing hero worship of unabomber Theodore Kaczynski.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html

All she is doing is asking governments to listen to the scientists...and if you live in lowlying areas of the world you wouldn't need Greta to make you fearful...that fear is already there, and well justified

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

It's absolutely nothing compared to the fear of a kid's simple message to world leaders at a UN summit.

You do love things that are simple, I have noticed.

SafeSurfer

Tony EH wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

However the fear expressed by Thunberg is also astonishing.

It's absolutely nothing compared to the fear of a kid's simple message to world leaders at a UN summit.

I don’t think it’s fear of her message. It is fear that she is a tool in manipulating people into participating in a revolution that we would rather not be part of and are skeptical of the need for.

Tony EH

SafeSurfer wrote: »

However the fear expressed by Thunberg is also astonishing.

It's absolutely nothing compared to the fear of a kid's simple message to world leaders at a UN summit.

SafeSurfer

Tony EH wrote: »

archer22 wrote: »

The amount of evil bile and online bullying this girl has been getting, not just here but almost everywhere online has been shocking and disturbing and that it seems to coming from grown adults makes it even more disturbing.

It is genuinely incredible, no matter where one stands on the salient issue.

The fear and loathing is astonishing.

The loathing of Thunberg is astonishing. However the fear expressed by Thunberg is also astonishing. Fear and panic that is seeping into the consciousness of children around the world.

I honestly fear an increasing eco doom based nihilism. I also don’t think that future waves of eco terrorism are unimaginable either given the increasing hero worship of unabomber Theodore Kaczynski.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html

gozunda

archer22 wrote: »

Well I haven't read them all as it's too wearisome, but I only had to go to page 2 post 30 to find one.The amount of evil bile and online bullying this girl has been getting, not just here but almost everywhere online has been shocking and disturbing and that it seems to coming from grown adults makes it even more disturbing.

The thing is there is little if any of that type of comment in this thread. You're not the first here to repeat the mantra regarding 'grown adults" etc etc - suffice to say it's been trotted out repeatedly. Those voicing any criticisms on here have been variously alluded to as having paedophile interests, being primitive and on we go...

The fact is the main concerns I see discussed are the circus surrounding this trip and various concerns regarding this type of PR campaign.

I would suggest what is also concerning is 'grown adults' placing a teenager on a pedestal and refusing to listen to any criticism whatsoever on those issues. Here that is much more serious and disturbing state of affairs imo.

Tony EH

archer22 wrote: »

The amount of evil bile and online bullying this girl has been getting, not just here but almost everywhere online has been shocking and disturbing and that it seems to coming from grown adults makes it even more disturbing.

It is genuinely incredible, no matter where one stands on the salient issue.

The fear and loathing is astonishing.

SafeSurfer

archer22 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

“A bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding. That’s not what’s happening with the modern storms!”

So what is happening with modern storms?

You ask in your previous post “will the primitives still be howling for Greta’s blood?”

Over 4,500 posts in, has anyone here called for Greta’s blood?

Well I haven't read them all as it's too wearisome, but I only had to go to page 2 post 30 to find one.

The amount of evil bile and online bullying this girl has been getting, not just here but almost everywhere online has been shocking and disturbing and that it seems to coming from grown adults makes it even more disturbing.

You are right. It’s inexcusable.

archer22

SafeSurfer wrote: »

“A bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding. That’s not what’s happening with the modern storms!”

So what is happening with modern storms?

You ask in your previous post “will the primitives still be howling for Greta’s blood?”

Over 4,500 posts in, has anyone here called for Greta’s blood?

Well I haven't read them all as it's too wearisome, but I only had to go to page 2 post 30 to find one.

The amount of evil bile and online bullying this girl has been getting, not just here but almost everywhere online has been shocking and disturbing and that it seems to coming from grown adults makes it even more disturbing.

gozunda

Naggdefy wrote: »

'the primitives'

In 200 years time humans might be calling our generation the primitives. Laughing at the conclusions they came to because at that stage they were unable to understand all the variables at work and interacting to effect our climate.

Go on and call your ancestors 'primitives' if it makes you feel more intelligent. We only know what we know in science today because of the work and experimtation carried out by those who came before us....

I wouldnt bother. Not the first instance of that type of mudslinging ...

archer22 wrote:

Will be quite interesting to see the reaction when a city here looks like Hiroshima in 1945. Will the primitives still be howling for Greta's blood then I wonder.

archer22 wrote:

The only similarity between them is the reaction of some people...in 1839 the primitives threw stones at the wind blaming the fairies for it...now they hurl abuse at a teenage girl!

Crazy that some stupid comments such as howling / blood / abuse get bandied about even where it is obvious legitimate criticisms of the entire circus in America are being discussed.

Don't think logic doesn't comes with that type of comment tbh.

SafeSurfer

joe40 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t believe using every weather event to support your opinion.

I know individual weather events on their own don't imply much but there are enough we'll established trends at this stage.
This is just an observation no actual evidence but I remember as a child in the 70s early 80s most kids had a sleigh. A wooden yoke that would get a bit of use most winter's.
Modern kids would have no idea what you are talking about if you mention a sleigh.
I know we have had snow events in recent years but very little consistent predictable winter weather. Just mild and wet most of the time.

I never had a sleigh, growing up in the 70s/80s.
I’m sure if data was available more sleds/sleighs have been sold in the past 20 years than in the previous 80.

Have a look at the snow trends in Ireland

www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/snowstorms-through-the-centuries-a-history-of-irish-cold-snaps-1.3406525%3fmode=amp

15 major snow events in the 20th century. 4 major snow events so far in the 19 years of the 21st. If anything, major snow events are becoming more frequent.

Naggdefy

I've nothing against Greta. She's acting out of deep concern. It's great to see a young person so concerned about our planet. I might disagree on some points but I admire and wish her well.

SafeSurfer

archer22 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?

That was a freak once in a hundred years event caused by a bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding.
Thats not whats happening with the modern Storms!

The only similarity between them is the reaction of some people...in 1839 the primitives threw stones at the wind blaming the fairies for it...now they hurl abuse at a teenage girl!

“A bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding. That’s not what’s happening with the modern storms!”

So what is happening with modern storms?

You ask in your previous post “will the primitives still be howling for Greta’s blood?”

Over 4,500 posts in, has anyone here called for Greta’s blood?

Naggdefy

archer22 wrote: »

That was a freak once in a hundred years event caused by a bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding.
Thats not whats happening with the modern Storms!

The only similarity between them is the reaction of some people...in 1839 the primitives threw stones at the wind blaming the fairies for it...now they hurl abuse at a teenage girl!

'the primitives'

In 200 years time humans might be calling our generation the primitives. Laughing at the conclusions they came to because at that stage they were unable to understand all the variables at work and interacting to effect our climate.

Go on and call your ancestors 'primitives' if it makes you feel more intelligent. We only know what we know in science today because of the work and experimtation carried out by those who came before us.

P.s. 1839 wasn't a once off, we've seen nothing like ex hurricane Debbie, September 1961, on these shores since either. Was that a once off too?

archer22

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?

That was a freak once in a hundred years event caused by a bizarre combination of weather systems coinciding.
Thats not whats happening with the modern Storms!

The only similarity between them is the reaction of some people...in 1839 the primitives threw stones at the wind blaming the fairies for it...now they hurl abuse at a teenage girl!

joe40

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t believe using every weather event to support your opinion.

I know individual weather events on their own don't imply much but there are enough we'll established trends at this stage.
This is just an observation no actual evidence but I remember as a child in the 70s early 80s most kids had a sleigh. A wooden yoke that would get a bit of use most winter's.
Modern kids would have no idea what you are talking about if you mention a sleigh.
I know we have had snow events in recent years but very little consistent predictable winter weather. Just mild and wet most of the time.

Professor Moriarty

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t believe using every weather event to support your opinion.

Fair enough.

SafeSurfer

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?

You don't believe in man-made climate change?

I don’t believe using every weather event to support your opinion.

Professor Moriarty

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?

You don't believe in man-made climate change?

SafeSurfer

archer22 wrote: »

Never mind, when the first Super storms start hitting Europe the bad attitude towards Greta Thunberg will probably change quickly.
In fact it may well be that one hits in the coming week...and even if this one fizzles out that luck won't hold forever and it's only a question of time before they do connect.

And I have seen up close the aftermath of Super typhoon Hainan in 2013...the only way to describe it is like a nuclear bomb had been detonated!

Will be quite interesting to see the reaction when a city here looks like Hiroshima in 1945.
Will the primitives still be howling for Greta's blood then I wonder.

Arguably the most severe weather event in recent Irish history was the Night of the Big Wind in 1839.
Was that due to climate change also?