Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Tell me how wrote: »

. . . .as was done with plastic bag tax).

The plastic bag tax only appears to work because a cost effective alternative existed that is convenient to use. A carbon tax is a tax on your existence, unless you live off the grid or the life of the Amish there is no way to way to avoid this tax because every facet of your life in modern Ireland involves the consumption of fossil fuel somewhere in the chain. All those products you find on the shelf, the delivery of goods to your door by courier, home heating oil, your clothing, air travel, car ferry, intercity trains, involve the consumption of fossil fuels in some form. Without a valid alternative you are simply degrading peoples standard of living by progressively denying people access to fossil fuels without an alternative.

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah it definitely wont seek people to consider alternative options. Public transport, cycling, carpooling etc. No siree, how could it.

And if such options aren't available, sure people would never look for politicians who would support their facilitation.

You mean the public transport options which are already fully wedged with people?

Cycling 30 miles each way?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

BS.It's because Greta is deferring to the scientists, I agree with her message.It's because she has motivated a global conversation, I applaud her behaviour.

You surprise me

Gretas 'message'
• Civilisation is going to end in 10 years, 3 months and 90 days.
• Adults have personally destroyed my childhood and future
• How dare you!

BS indeed. You deliberatly ignore that greta is certainly not deferring to the scientists and instead is coming up with her own bs doomsday message / scenarios and speeches on how her childhood / future has been ruined by 'adults' yada yada. And It's because people have placed the teenager on a pedestal of their own making and refuse to allow any criticism.

Truely a case of the emperors new clothes. I reckon it's certainly not going to end well and I'm not talking about climate change ...

gozunda wrote: »

I would strongly suggest - it's much much more bizarre to place a teenager on a pedestal and suspend all critical faculty. Doing that is certainly truly deeply 'weird' ...

Except, as you know, that isn't happening. Or certainly isn't been advocated on this thread.
But you keep denying/ignoring/misrepresenting that fact.

We'll try again.

Greta's message.
'Science says there's a problem.
Science says we need to act.
Please support science and act.'

lleti wrote: »

And putting tax on petrol is creating an alternative fuel how?

Yeah it definitely wont seek people to consider alternative options. Public transport, cycling, carpooling etc. No siree, how could it.

And if such options aren't available, sure people would never look for politicians who would support their facilitation.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

What are you talking about, this thread is mostly just a bunch of weirdo blokes criticising her?!

So you name call anyone not in support of the circus surrounding this teenager by calling them 'weido' blokes'? Is that statement supposed to be psychic or simply bigoted?

I would strongly suggest - it's much much more bizarre to place a teenager on a pedestal and suspend all critical faculty. Doing that is certainly truly deeply 'weird' ...

DodoLurker

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

NASA would beg to differ:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

"Extremely likely" does not equate to scientific proof.
Proven equations in physics would look funny written as:

E = (extremely likely) mc2

Force = (extremely likely) mass x acceleration

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok then.
Next time a Dr recommends treatment, why don't you laugh in his face and come up with your own plan.

tut tut

Tell me how wrote: »

Straw man after strawman after strawman here.

Yes personal responsibility, but many people need viable alternatives (in terms of fuel) or to take the choice out of their hands somewhat (as was done with plastic bag tax).

And putting tax on petrol is creating an alternative fuel how?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

NASA would beg to differ:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

That does not invalidate what I said science is not done by consensus and NASA have been requested to correct their misinformation. In addition the 97% marketing ploy has been thoroughly debunked.

Brussels Sprout

It's pretty depressing that a thread created to throw shade at a 16 year old girl for trying to do something positive for the world has nearly 5000 posts in less than 2 months.

If you use the Search This Thread tool at the top of the page you can see how many times any user posted in a thread.
Just taking some users from this page alone (anonymized but it should be pretty easy to find out who is who):

Poster 1 - 68 posts
Poster 2 - 201 posts
Poster 3- 53
Poster 4 - 91
Poster 5- 65
Poster 6- 494 (over 10% of the total alone)
Poster 7 - 177

It's basically just a big circle jerk at this stage lads except nobody's going to get any satisfaction here.

lleti wrote: »

So no personal responsibility at all? It reminds me of the place I worked in years ago, they had to put a sign on the toaster to say it was hot. Unless people are forced to do something, they are absolved of all blame for doing the wrong thing.

Straw man after strawman after strawman here.

Yes personal responsibility, but many people need viable alternatives (in terms of fuel) or to take the choice out of their hands somewhat (as was done with plastic bag tax).

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No she is not. When she speaks of "the science" it is used in the same context as a preacher who asks you to accept the bible as "the word of God".

There is no such thing as "the united science", this is a construct to avoid questioning and enforce a consensus on the population. There is no consensus regarding climate change. It is just speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conjecture. Not only that, if they had the results would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. Consensus is politics and not science.

Ok then.
Next time a Dr recommends treatment, why don't you laugh in his face and come up with your own plan.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

No she is not. When she speaks of "the science" it is used in the same context as a preacher who asks you to accept the bible as "the word of God".

There is no such thing as "the united science", this is a construct to avoid questioning and enforce a consensus on the population. There is no consensus regarding climate change. It is just speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conjecture. Not only that, if they had the results would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. Consensus is politics and not science.

NASA would beg to differ:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

lleti wrote: »

So no personal responsibility at all? It reminds me of the place I worked in years ago, they had to put a sign on the toaster to say it was hot. Unless people are forced to do something, they are absolved of all blame for doing the wrong thing.

But in order to make people responsible, you have to make them aware. Is Greta the ideal vehicle for that? Obviously not. But it's working in that it has sparked the conversation. A conversation that is almost certainly meaningless, given global politics, but probably the right thing to do anyway.

Tell me how wrote: »

BS.

It's because Greta is deferring to the scientists, I agree with her message.

No she is not. When she speaks of "the science" it is used in the same context as a preacher who asks you to accept the bible as "the word of God".

The teenager said of climate sceptics: "There's always going to be people who don't understand or accept the united science, and I will just ignore them, as I'm only acting and communicating on the science."

source

There is no such thing as "the united science", this is a construct to avoid questioning and enforce a consensus on the population. There is no consensus regarding climate change. It is just speculation. Scientists never registered and voted on the validity of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming conjecture. Not only that, if they had the results would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. Consensus is politics and not science.

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow, maybe Greta would be better off talking to governments or political groupings to try to get them to enforce positive action.

I mean that would mean going to talk to maybe the EU, or UN, or HoC, or US Congress for example.

Maybe she should do that.

So no personal responsibility at all? It reminds me of the place I worked in years ago, they had to put a sign on the toaster to say it was hot. Unless people are forced to do something, they are absolved of all blame for doing the wrong thing.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

maybe greta and what she does or doesnt do shouldn't be your great white hope

You mean I'd be better off listening to the scientists?

Who else has that message?

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow, maybe Greta would be better off talking to governments or political groupings to try to get them to enforce positive action.

I mean that would mean going to talk to maybe the EU, or UN, or HoC, or US Congress for example.

Maybe she should do that.

maybe greta and what she does or doesnt do shouldn't be your great white hope

lleti wrote: »

I think everyone is aware of the message now...

Yet...you'd think peoples actions would begin to change by now no?

It was quite ironic actually....record breaking heatwaves in Europe on the same day a record number of flights tracked online.

Wow, maybe Greta would be better off talking to governments or political groupings to try to get them to enforce positive action.

I mean that would mean going to talk to maybe the EU, or UN, or HoC, or US Congress for example.

Maybe she should do that.

begsbyOnaTrain

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I wonder what the British Prince Harry and the missus think.

Prince Harry turns photographer and shares a picture he took a of tree during Malawi trip as he becomes editor of National Geographic’s Instagram for a day after admitting that him caring about the environment ‘may well sound hippy’

Hey he did a great deal for the environment. No more carbon emissions from the shepherds he blew to pieces from the helicopter.

Tell me how wrote: »

BS.

It's because Greta is deferring to the scientists, I agree with her message.
It's because she has motivated a global conversation, I applaud her behaviour.

I think everyone is aware of the message now...

Yet...you'd think peoples actions would begin to change by now no?

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1018260113814061057?lang=en

It was quite ironic actually....record breaking heatwaves in Europe on the same day a record number of flights tracked online.

Roger_007

Tell me how wrote: »

Seriously, you've heard nothing about the concern relating to 400 ppm and how we have reached and surpassed that figure in the last 100 years?

From Kara Agustenberg

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_12496210

If 400ppm is too much, what is the correct level?

Roger_007 wrote: »

Without carbon dioxide there would be no plant life on Earth. Without plant life, very few other forms of life could exist.
In all the debate about carbon, I have never heard anyone acknowledge the vital life-giving role that atmospheric carbon dioxide plays. Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest what the concentration of CO2 should be.

Yeah. What is accepted throughout science is that we are producing too much CO2 and it is causing the planet to warm up.

Roger_007 wrote: »

Without carbon dioxide there would be no plant life on Earth. Without plant life, very few other forms of life could exist.
In all the debate about carbon, I have never heard anyone acknowledge the vital life-giving role that atmospheric carbon dioxide plays. Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest what the concentration of CO2 should be.

Seriously, you've heard nothing about the concern relating to 400 ppm and how we have reached and surpassed that figure in the last 100 years?

From Kara Agustenberg

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_12496210

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I wonder what the British Prince Harry and the missus think.

Prince Harry turns photographer and shares a picture he took a of tree during Malawi trip as he becomes editor of National Geographic’s Instagram for a day after admitting that him caring about the environment ‘may well sound hippy’

If he's creating publicity for conservation then great. Apart from that, I don't give a damn what he thinks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

joe40 wrote: »

It is actually carbon dioxide. One carbon and 2 oxygen in an unholy alliance.

How do you deal with a problem that you can't measure and must use theoretical proxies to test the hypotheses?

An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming - Part 2:Layman’s Discussion
John Eggert P.Eng

joe40 wrote: »

in all seriousness it is a major problem facing our world, and whatever happens the status quo can't continue.

It's a question of priorities and cost benefit analysis, that ranks much lower that you think.

Roger_007

joe40 wrote: »

It is actually carbon dioxide. One carbon and 2 oxygen in an unholy alliance.

in all seriousness it is a major problem facing our world, and whatever happens the status quo can't continue.

Without carbon dioxide there would be no plant life on Earth. Without plant life, very few other forms of life could exist.
In all the debate about carbon, I have never heard anyone acknowledge the vital life-giving role that atmospheric carbon dioxide plays. Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest what the concentration of CO2 should be.

lleti wrote: »

Won't listen to Al Gore for decades. Won't listen to scientists for decades. Won't listen to green politicians for decades.

Child from Sweden says something - I WILL LISTEN TO YOUR EVERY WORD AND TREAT IT AS GOSPEL

BS.

It's because Greta is deferring to the scientists, I agree with her message.
It's because she has motivated a global conversation, I applaud her behaviour.